2011-02-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Ms Adelle Gould and Mr Rick Collister. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have three documents relating to pairs, the first for today between 10 am and midday for the members for Daly and Braitling signed by the two Whips. The second is from 3 pm today to close of business and is for the members for Karama and Greatorex. The third is for the entire sitting day tomorrow for the members for Karama and Greatorex. They are signed by the Whips.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the law to create an offence of breach of bail. In January 2011, as acting Chief Minister, I met with police in Alice Springs. The police expressed to me their concerns about the increase in juvenile offending in Alice Springs and their frustrations with the limitations of the Bail Act when trying to enforce bail conditions.
The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia where a breach of bail is not an offence. Defendants in all other jurisdictions face criminal sanctions for breach of bail. In all jurisdictions, it is an offence to fail to appear in court in accordance with a bail undertaking. In Queensland, for adults, and in Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania for both adults and juveniles, it is also an offence to breach a condition of bail.
On 27 January 2011 in Darwin, the Chief Minister announced, as part of the new Justice and police initiatives to make Alice Springs safer, this government would introduce an offence of breach of bail in the February 2011 sittings of the Legislative Assembly. On the same day, with the Minister for Central Australia and the Police Commissioner, I made the same announcement in Alice Springs. The bill I am introducing today is the embodiment of the commitment made in those announcements.
By providing in this bill that it will be an offence to breach bail, whether by failure to appear in court or by breach of condition, this government is sending a clear message to defendants on bail: bail is a privilege not a right. Abuse that privilege and there will be consequences. You may end up with a conviction on your criminal record and face imprisonment or a fine.
The government is not so nave as to think this legislation is a ‘cure all’ which will put an end to repeated breaches of bail. Courts will still be able to grant bail; however, introducing criminal sanctions for breach of bail is an important tool in combating offending and making our streets safer.
I turn now to the details of the bill.
Under proposed section 37B of the Bail Act, it will be an offence to breach bail either by failure to appear in court in accordance with a bail undertaking, or failing to comply with a condition of bail. The maximum penalty for the offence will be two years imprisonment or 200 penalty units. That means it is a summary offence, the sort that would generally be dealt with by a magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court. However, following consultation with the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, the bill, in proposed sections 37C and 37D, confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to deal with cases where the defendant is on bail set by either the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal. A similar regime exists in Western Australia and New South Wales.
The reason for conferring this jurisdiction on the Supreme Court is, currently, under the Bail Act, the court to which a defendant is bound to appear deals with breaches of bail. As the offence of breach of bail will involve proof of the actual breach, it makes sense that the court which would be called upon to find the breach proven also deals with the proceedings for the offence. This will avoid double handling and facilitate the imposition of appropriate penalties, including the avoidance of double punishment.
The bill further provides that, although the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment or 200 penalty units, a court cannot impose a penalty greater than the maximum penalty for which bail was granted. This limitation is included as a matter of fairness. For example, a person may be on bail for a charge of disorderly conduct under the Summary Offences Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is six months imprisonment or a $2000 fine. If the person was convicted of breaching bail, a court would not be able to impose a sentence higher than six months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.
The bill further provides that defendants will not be criminally responsible for a breach of bail if they can prove to the court they had a reasonable excuse for the breach. It will be up to the court to determine whether the excuse is reasonable.
Finally, the bill provides that the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code will apply to an offence under proposed section 37B. This continues the government’s policy to provide that offences across the NT statute book comply with these criminal responsibility provisions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the law with respect to an aspect of prosecution appeals against sentence; namely, the principle of ‘sentencing double jeopardy’. The principle of sentencing double jeopardy provides that when an appeal court decides whether to allow a prosecution appeal against sentence and to exercise its discretion to re-sentence an offender, it is required to take into account the offender’s exposure to a type of double jeopardy; namely, the offender has to undergo sentencing on a second occasion for the same offending.
The principle of sentencing double jeopardy applies when the appeal court is deciding whether to allow the appeal and, if the appeal is allowed, when the court re-sentences the offender. What this means is, even if an appeal court finds a sentence is manifestly inadequate, it can refuse to intervene to correct the sentence and, even if it does intervene, it can impose a far more lenient sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
The effect of the principle of sentencing double jeopardy has recently come into sharp focus in a matter involving the robbery of Mr Adam Sargent by two offenders in February 2010. There has been considerable community outcry and comment around the sentences imposed on the offenders in the Supreme Court. Each was sentenced to four-and-a-half-years imprisonment with a 12-month non-parole period. The Director of Public Prosecutions advised publicly he would not be appealing the sentences. The DPP cited, as one of the reasons for his decision, that:
The ‘special constraints’ the DPP was referring to is the principle of sentencing double jeopardy. As a matter of principle, if an appeal court considers a sentence was manifestly inadequate, then an offender should not be able to escape just punishment solely because of the double jeopardy he or she faces. The double jeopardy of being sentenced again is not as severe a prospect as a double jeopardy an acquitted person would face if ordered to stand trial again, as the offender has already been found guilty. The trauma and inconvenience of being sentenced twice needs to be weighed up against the overriding interest of the community in seeing offenders appropriately punished. It is evident the principle of sentencing double jeopardy can and does lead to injustices in some cases.
The proposed amendment implements a recommendation, Recommendation 4, of the Double Jeopardy Law Reform COAG Working Group Report of 2007 to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, that:
The reform brings the Northern Territory in line with Western Australia, Victoria, and South Australia, where the principle of sentencing double jeopardy has been abolished. The amendment will ensure that when appeal courts find a sentence is manifestly inadequate, they will be able to impose the appropriate sentence on appeal. I stress the amendment does not affect the underlying principles in relation to prosecution appeals; namely, that prosecution appeals should be rare; an appeal court will only intervene when it identifies a sentencing error; and the court has a discretion to refuse to intervene even if an error is established. For example, the error might be trivial and may still impose a discounted sentence if it does re-sentence, for example, on the ground of mercy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the bill is titled the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 153) ...
Madam SPEAKER: I think that should be 2011.
Ms LAWRIE: It is 2011; there has been a printing error on the cover of the bill, Madam Speaker. It is the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, and I will ensure that the printing error is corrected.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act to:
establish a single pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin;
clearly specify stevedoring and pilotage licence applications criteria in statute;
remove unnecessary barriers to entry in existing stevedoring licensing criteria; and
introduce an independent appeals mechanism for stevedoring and pilotage licensing decisions.
In February 2006, the Council of Australian Governments signed the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, CIRA. The agreement aims to provide the efficient use of nationally significant infrastructure including ports and rail. To achieve this, the CIRA requires that all jurisdictions undertake a review of the regulatory framework for all significant ports to facilitate competition in the provision of port and related infrastructure services.
A working group of officials from the Northern Territory Treasury, Darwin Port Corporation and Departments of the Chief Minister, Business and Employment, and the former Planning and Infrastructure undertook the review of the regulatory framework for the Port of Darwin, which consulted with all relevant industry and public stakeholders.
The draft review was sent to 47 major stakeholders and a notice was placed in the NT News inviting all interested stakeholders to make submissions. Six organisations made submissions including: the Australian Customs Service; the Australian Defence Forces; Compass Resources NL, a member of the NT Resources Council; International Business Council/Chamber of Commerce NT; Maritime Union of Australia; and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association. There were no objections to the draft report’s recommendations.
The review was finalised in October 2008 and recommended implementing several improvements to the Port of Darwin’s regulatory framework. These changes would enhance competition in both port and related infrastructure services. While the review found no evidence to suggest that DPC has abused any market power it may have, it recommended that a non-exclusive pilotage licensing framework be formalised. However, given the nature of the port infrastructure and the specific circumstances of the industry in the Territory, it is considered more economically optimal to create competition for the market rather than competition within the market.
The Port of Darwin is increasingly busy and handles some movements of dangerous and high-risk freight. Combined with the navigational and other challenges posed by the port’s waters, safety is an important consideration in determining suitable pilotage services provision. A non-exclusive regime - which means there is more than one pilotage services provider - may compromise the safety of vessels, people, and cargo at the port.
Internationally accepted best practice in the European Union, Canada, and the United States of America usually involves a regulated single service provider. This also recognises the need to promote economies of scale in the delivery of pilotage services. As such, the bill provides for a single pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin, which will be appointed by the Minister for Transport for a period determined by the minister. However, DPC will have the exclusive right to provide pilotage services at the port for 10 years in the first instance.
Currently, the Marine Act provides the DPC is the pilotage authority at the port. To address the potential conflicts of interest where DPC acts as both pilotage services provider and regulator, the bill establishes the Harbourmaster as the pilotage authority of Darwin Port. The Harbourmaster would be appointed by the minister and may be an employee of the DPC. In carrying out his or her statutory functions, the Harbourmaster will be independent of any directions from DPC, DPC’s chief executive officer, or any other person. Nevertheless, the Harbourmaster must act impartially and in the public interest.
The current functions of the Harbourmaster will also be expanded to include making technical and safety standards as set out in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Marine Orders, and granting pilotage licences and exemption certificates, a role currently carried out by DPC.
The bill also proposes to remove certain stevedoring licence criteria from the Darwin Port Corporation Act. The review found the financial position and operational efficiency criteria currently required under the act will be better assessed by investors or lenders who would undertake all the necessary due diligence assessments of a stevedoring venture. As such, these criteria have been removed. Conversely, DPC would be best placed to determine the technical and safety aspect of stevedore licence applications. Therefore, the licensing process will focus on these criteria.
Establishing an appeals mechanism for stevedoring licensing decisions will further enhance transparency in the licensing process, and build public trust and confidence in administrative procedures. A robust appeals mechanism will also be introduced to allow persons to appeal against any licensing decision through the Marine Appeals Tribunal. This can include a decision to refuse, cancel, or suspend a licence, as well as a decision to vary or impose a condition on a licence.
Under the current provisions in the Marine Act, a pilot whose licence has been cancelled or suspended can appeal against the decision through the Marine Appeals Tribunal. The current provisions do not provide for an appeal against a decision to refuse a licence application or renewal. The bill proposes to extend the current appeals mechanism for pilotage licences to include licence applications and renewals.
These amendments aim to align the pilotage services provision at the Port of Darwin with internationally accepted best practice, where the preferred approach is for a regulated single services pilotage regime. The amendments will also enhance transparency in the pilot and stevedore licensing process which will, in turn, help to promote increased competition in stevedoring and pilotage services. The amendments will, ultimately, result in increased productivity and reduced costs of services at the Port of Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts and regulations which fall within the Justice and related portfolios. The bill amends the Bail Act, Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, Firearms Act, Weapons Control Act, and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act.
The Bail Act is amended so that the Master of the Supreme Court has the power to exercise the functions of a judge to grant bail where permitted to do so by the Supreme Court Rules. This amendment was requested by His Honour Justice Mildren due to a restructuring of the functions of the Master which will enable the Master to preside over arraignment day. A necessary consequence of this is that the Master must have the power to exercise the functions of a judge to grant bail.
The Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act is amended so accountants, as well as legal practitioners, may issue certificates of exemption under section 26 of the act. Under Section 26 of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, the term for which a retail shop lease is entered into is not to be less than five years. The purpose of this section is to prevent tenants from being pressured to enter a short-term lease, or from entering a lease without being fully aware of the financial implications. The section 26 requirement does not apply if a legal practitioner who is not acting for the landlord certifies in writing that he or she has, at the request of the prospective tenant, explained to the prospective tenant both the effect of the provisions and that the giving of the certification will result in the provision not applying to the lease.
The Property and Commercial Law Task Force, which was an advisory body set up by a former Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, acting in consultation with stakeholders, recommended the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act be amended so accountants, as well as lawyers, may provide certificates waiving the five-year lease requirement under section 26.
Some other jurisdictions allow other professionals such as licensed conveyors to provide this certification. Given that the Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction, there is a need to extend the ability to certify to other professionals. As the advice required is predominantly about financial implications, accountants are able to competently provide the advice and certification under section 26. However, this power is not being extended to conveyancers as they do not always possess the necessary legal or financial knowledge.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Firearms Act and the Weapons Control Act. The majority of these amendments are minor statute law revisions. The more substantial amendments are aimed at removing outdated references to orders ‘to keep the peace’ which previously existed under section 99 of the Justices Act. In 2008, these orders were replaced by ‘personal violence restraining orders’ as the section 99 orders were no longer effective to address all the circumstances in which a person might want to restrain another person with whom they are not in a family-type relationship. The orders also suffered from technical and operational problems. It has now become clear that not all the appropriate consequential amendments were made to the Northern Territory statute book when the personal violence restraining orders came into operation.
The Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act is also being amended to provide the Commonwealth, through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), with regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety under the new Australian Consumer Law which came into operation on 1 January 2011.
Pursuant to an agreement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth, the ACCC is to take over regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety. Previously, these functions were the responsibility of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. With the responsibility for the setting of product safety bans and standards moving to the Commonwealth under the new Australian Consumer Law, it was agreed to also transfer the regulatory and enforcement functions to the Commonwealth. In order for the ACCC to take over regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety, these functions must be expressly conferred upon the Commonwealth by Northern Territory legislation. Under the Australian Consumer Law, the regulatory and enforcement functions are the role of the regulator.
Pursuant to section 29 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, ‘regulator’ means the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. In order that the ACCC may take over the product safety role, it is necessary that the definition of ‘regulator’ in section 29 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act be amended to include the ACCC. Without this amendment, any exercise of power by the ACCC in respect of product safety will be inconsistent with section 140E of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of the Commonwealth, which allows for the conferral of functions and powers by a state or territory only if they are expressly conferred by the state or territory application law.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time, and I point out a typographical error on the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 to reflect internationally-recognised legal standards in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005. The bill seeks to increase certainty for international and domestic transactions conducted by an electronic medium, and to encourage the growth of electronic commerce.
The bill strengthens the existing regime by:
recognising the use of automated message systems in contract formation;
clarifying the rules in relation to invitations to treat;
creating rules to determine the location of the parties in an electronic environment;
amending electronic signature provisions; and
amending default rules for time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic communications.
Currently, the Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 facilitates the use of electronic transactions based on the principles contained in the 1996 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law and Electronic Commerce. The Commonwealth and all other states and territories also have electronic transactions legislation based on that 1996 Model Law.
In 2005, the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications and International Contracts was adopted by the United Nations. It updates many of the concepts in the 1996 Model Law. The convention applies to international contracts. It confirms the validity of electronic transactions and clarifies the traditional rules of contract formation to accommodate electronic commerce. Its purpose is to facilitate international trade by removing possible legal obstacles or uncertainty in the use of electronic communications.
A consultation paper discussing the proposed amendments to Australian electronic transactions legislation was released for public comment in 2008. Following the receipt of supportive comments, ministers agreed at the May 2010 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to update their electronic transactions legislation and adopt new model legislation to implement the convention. It is proposed that Australia will accede to the 2005 convention when model legislation is enacted in each jurisdiction.
Although the convention only relates to international contracts, ministers also agreed the model legislation should apply to both international and domestic contracts to ensure commonality of rules for contracts using electronic communications. The new model legislation offers practical solutions for problems arising from the use of electronic communications in the formation or performance of contracts between parties located in different countries to enhance legal certainty and commercial predictability. The model legislation does not otherwise purport to vary or create contract law.
The 2005 convention reflects the view that party autonomy is vital in contractual negotiations; therefore, nothing in this bill affects the principal that contracting parties should be free to agree on matters affecting the formation and performance of a contract between them.
I now outline the key elements of the bill.
Automated Message System: the purchase of goods through a website is often automated and, therefore, handled by a computer program rather than the vendor themselves. The bill recognises this growing practice and confirms the absence of human intervention on one or both sides of the transaction will not preclude contract formation.
The bill confirms that contracts formed by means of an automated message system will be legally effective and enforceable. The bill also makes minor amendments to provide a certain level of protection for consumers if a website does not provide an opportunity for correction. It enables a person who makes an input error, which has been dealt with by an automated message system, to withdraw a portion of the electronic communication in certain circumstances. However, the right to withdraw a portion of an electronic communication will not confer a right to rescind or otherwise terminate a contract.
Invitation to Treat: the bill clarifies that a proposal to enter into a contract made by electronic means to the world at large is to be treated as an invitation to make an offer, unless there is a clear indication by the trader of an intention to be bound. Thus, an offer of goods and services made through the Internet will not, prima facie, constitute a binding offer.
Location of Parties: the bill also creates rules to determine the location of the parties. As a result of businesses adopting technological advances, business practices may involve transactions taking place in a variety of ways and places. The bill clarifies that the location of the parties is to be determined by the place of business rather than the location of equipment and technologies supporting an information system, which may be in a different location or jurisdiction to the business.
Electronic Signature Provisions: the current legislation provides that an electronic signature must be capable of identifying the signatory and indicating the signatory’s approval of the information contained in the electronic communication. However, there are instances in which the law requires a signature, but that signature does not have the function of indicating the signing party’s approval of the information contained in the electronic communication; for example, notarisation or attestation by a Commissioner for Oaths. The bill remedies this problem by recognising that the notion of a ‘signature’ does not necessarily imply a party’s approval of the entire content of the communication to which the signature is attached.
Time and Place of Dispatch and Receipt of Electronic Communications: the bill also amends the current default rules for time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications. For example, the amendments provide that the time of dispatch of an electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication leaves an information system, and the time of receipt of an electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address.
Overall, adopting the amendments contained in the model bill will serve to:
modernise the Territory’s laws on e-commerce so that they reflect internationally-recognised legal standards and enhance cross-border online commerce;
confirm the Territory’s commitment to facilitating electronic communications in international trade transactions as reflected in free trade agreements.
The bill will ensure the Territory’s electronic transactions legislation reflects current international standards.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals support recycling and the concept of container deposit legislation. However, I will not just provide an open acceptance of this particular model as proposed by the minister and this government - as this government appears to just expect from the opposition - for a whole lot of reasons I will detail.
First, in opposition in a Westminster system of government, we have a responsibility to scrutinise government proposals, to investigate legislation, point out faults, review options and, where it is felt necessary or prudent, provide alternatives and, in some cases, amendments to legislation. We do not just run a tick-and-flick operation for government; we take our job seriously, as Territorians expect that is what we should do in opposition. What the government expected us to do is akin to buying a car without bothering to look under the bonnet. In all fairness, who in this room would buy a car without looking under the bonnet or kicking the tyres?
I need to stress again that the Country Liberals went into the 2008 election with a promise to introduce a CDL program. That does not necessarily mean we would have chosen this particular model proposed by government. I must admit, when I first learnt this legislation was to be brought forward, I thought to myself: ‘This will be a no-brainer. Well done to the minister for bringing this forward. How can I help?’, as from the Country Liberals’ and my point of view, we all supported the concept behind container deposit legislation, or at least in the outcomes promised for our environment after the implementation.
I am so glad I started to take the time, as I should have, to investigate the process further. The journey thus far has been like a game of tennis: the heads swinging left and right, trying to keep up with the ball, keep up with the game being played out by government, industry and, of course, our environmentalists. All have had their own barrows to push, their own agendas, and I took on the role of trying to find some level of truth in all of it, and common sense.
One of the most basic concerns I have with this legislation is it is underpinned by regulations which we have not seen. The mechanics have not been ironed out, costings have not been provided, but this government seems to expect this side of the House to simply sign off and offer its absolute support without the need for any scrutiny whatsoever.
Minister, I have some real questions for you that, hopefully, you can answer - no rhetoric, no politics, no spin, just simple and straightforward answers to my questions. You might ask why I cannot trust this minister, this government; why I have to play the devil’s advocate on legislation which, on the surface, as many as 80% of the community support. I will tell you why. I am in opposition. I have a responsibility to flesh out, to hold the government accountable to the community and, even in this case where perhaps 80% of the community agrees, I still have a job to do. The fact is they expect us to do that job. Our job is to explore further, if possible.
Have we all had the wool pulled over our eyes by clever marketing on both sides? Or are we all still reminiscing about the old days where, unfortunately, we can all be found guilty, from time to time, of romancing about or glorifying the good old days? If today’s debate could simply be about the old ways of doing things, count me in because I truly believe in the notion of recycling. I, too, have fond memories of returning our soft drink bottles to the corner store and enjoying the spoils of our efforts. In all seriousness, it is not just that simple and, although like others I have been caught up in the moment truly hoping this will work, the hard truth is, it does not stack up, or perhaps not all that well, for a number of reasons, not to mention that business is done differently today than what it was 30 or 40 years ago.
I truly hope the minister can answer all these questions today. I will not hold my breath, as I sincerely do not think this minister understands the program. He certainly has not bothered to take the time to speak with industry. He has been lumped with introducing this legislation whether he likes it or not, due to a previous commitment and a deal with the member for Nelson.
We would all like to see the concept of recycling work in the Northern Territory; that should be taken as a given. The fact that as much as 80% of recycled products end up in landfill is a major concern, and one I do not see CDL addressing. To date, the government has not convinced me that it is also aware of all the true costs involved in the process of bringing cans, bottles, and other beverage containers from rural and remote areas and sending them interstate for recycling. Will returned containers just end up in landfills due to the cost of transporting interstate? That is one question needing an answer. Please mark my words, minister, we will be here in 12 months time debating amendments to this legislation, perhaps even debating why the program has not worked, why we need to budget additional funds to make it work, or exempting certain areas of the Northern Territory as it is just not economically viable.
On that point, the government has come out strongly saying that it works in South Australia so there is no reason why it should not here in the Northern Territory. Another question I have is: why did government not admit the program does not work in all areas in South Australia; the more remote areas to be more specific? What makes you think it will work here, given the remoteness of the wider Northern Territory in addition to the lack of a recycling market? In Adelaide where they have a recycling industry, even then it does not work in all areas. It is pretty disingenuous to use the South Australia model and infer it works well all over South Australia. Perhaps we will see.
What buy-in does this minister really have for this legislation? At least the Chief Minister met with industry representatives - more on that meeting later; it is very important as you will see. I am very interested to know how much research the minister did on this legislation, who he met with and where he visited to see how this legislation might work in the Northern Territory. I have had more than a dozen meetings with different industry representatives: the Environment Centre, the Boomerang Alliance, a departmental briefing, telephone conversations, read much, and spoke to many people in the community. As most know, I travelled to New Zealand at my cost, Chief Minister. To put that on the record, I paid for my tickets to Wellington and for the Chief Minister to infer differently recently was akin to slander.
Chief Minister, I am concerned enough about our environment to use my own funds to learn as much as I can about this legislation, alternatives, and how other jurisdictions manage their recycling programs. I am also concerned we might be signing up to a very expensive program which may not achieve what is hoped for.
My trip to New Zealand included a meeting with the New Zealand Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and other MPs including the member for Christchurch, Nicky Wagner, the Chair of the Blue-Green Caucus and New Zealand government spokesman for the environment. I also met with Department of the Environment staff and industry representatives to see firsthand how the industry’s product stewardship program works in New Zealand.
What did the minister do to study this legislation other than listen to his own department? What community consultation occurred? It is very difficult to extract from the department’s website how many community consultations took place regarding this legislation. Am I convinced the industry has all the answers? No. Even Hon Nick Smith will agree with that. Conversely, does this proposed legislation provide all the answers? The answer is no. I have concluded the government’s legislation provides half the wheel and the industry’s model provides the other half.
If government legislation is only concerned about dealing with litter in our community, it will work. It will be expensive but it will work. Be honest about it: if the intent of this legislation is about litter control, be up-front, tell the community how much it is going to cost and, if the community is prepared to pay the entire cost of a waste removal program, then introduce the legislation. However, if you are really serious about recycling and helping our environment you need industry involvement - you must take industry with you.
Unfortunately, what you will hear from government members today in support of this legislation will be more about politics than the truth, than facts, than understanding the concept of recycling. You will hear government members trying to score political points, perhaps denouncing my environmental credentials in the process. All they will do is open themselves up for what they are: environment opportunists with no understanding of the recycling process, the industry, business and the economy, and existing Commonwealth legislation.
If government was serious it would keep the politics out of this and listen to the alternatives described today, and open its eyes to the real opportunity which exists not just for the Territory, but for the entire country - open its eyes to the reality in front of it; the opportunity to achieve the outcomes it envisages at no cost to government with the potential that could take recycling in this country to the next level. It could have a real chance to be the champion of recycling and demonstrate to the rest of Australia how it can be done.
My investigation into this legislation has uncovered many concerns, not to mention how much it will cost the community, and the disingenuous messages from both sides of the argument. It has also uncovered a constitutional issue I can only hope government has resolved, or has in train the administrative processes to ensure the proposed legislation does not contravene the freedom of interstate trade and commerce, as protected by section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. And while you are seeking advice on that you might also want to ensure the legislation does not contravene the mutual recognition principles under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 ...
Mr Henderson: Who has written this for you, Peter?
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, before I am accused of confusing the minister, I will admit my investigation thus far, and my understanding of the advice I have received …
Mr Henderson: Your investigation!
Mr CHANDLER: … indicates the proposed legislation – I thought you would make that comment ...
Mr Henderson: You are just a puppet, Peter. They are hanging you out to dry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: … I received indicates the proposed legislation would not contravene freedom of interstate trade and commerce, because all traders dealing with beverages in containers are required to comply with the container deposit scheme. However, my understanding is it would, in fact, contravene the mutual recognition principles under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as the proposed provisions include Territory-specific requirements as to the packaging and labelling of goods.
For the record, the mutual recognition principles relating to goods is that goods produced in one state - and that includes the ACT and the Northern Territory - may lawfully be sold in that state, and in a second state, without the necessity for compliance with further requirements. One of the further requirements is that the goods satisfy standards of the second state relating to the way the goods are packaged or labelled.
It needs to be acknowledged that the South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975 is one of the acts relating to the goods that is permanently exempted in Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. As indicated, the South Australian act was in place before the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. There are, of course, administrative processes to correct this anomaly; that is, to either seek an amendment by the Commonwealth to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act, or to seek a temporary exemption. Of course, the second course of action can only be sustained for 12 months. My question to the minister and this government is: what course of action have you taken to ensure your proposed legislation does not clash with Commonwealth legislation?
Madam Speaker, it should be noted that the above process …
Dr Burns: Where did you get this legal advice?
Mr CHANDLER: If you listen, you will find out.
It should be noted, while the above process may sound simple, I need to explain the Northern Territory government could seek an amendment by the Commonwealth government to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 by adding the new Northern Territory legislation to the list of exempt laws. I also understand that the government was made aware of these issues previously, but am advised they were comfortable with their legal position on this legislation.
Reading through the procedural framework, I note that Schedule 2 may be amended by the Governor-General making a regulation to that effect. However, the Governor-General may only make such a regulation after each Governor of each state and the executive head of each territory has published a notice in the Gazette of the jurisdictions setting out the terms of the proposed regulation, and requesting that to be made.
I need to ask the minister: where are we at? Which of your interstate colleagues have you spoken to, including heads of state? Who do you have agreement with and are willing to sign off and publish in their respective government Gazettes so the Governor-General can make the appropriate amendment? Or have you taken the route of requesting a temporary exemption? The minister can request this under section 15, but the exemption can only operate for a maximum of 12 months. After that, the only alternative is to seek permanent amendment.
I truly hope the minister can provide some insight into these important issues in summing up, or we may as well stop right here. We cannot go any further unless the minister can assure this House he is managing this; he has it all in order and has anticipated this challenge to his legislation. I am sure he has. I raise the issue to demonstrate some of the challenges this government must have faced to date given, I am certain, they have worked tirelessly to cover all the issues before introducing this legislation - or at least I hope so.
We often reminisce about the old days, just as I can recall the days of loading up the wheelbarrow after Christmas with all the empty soft drink bottles, heading off down to Turnley’s milk bar in Moulamein where they made the absolute best milkshakes in this country. The shop was air-conditioned, truly something special in the 1970s, and more so after walking in 40C-plus heat in the Mallee. My cousins and I would hand over the bottles and enjoy the spoils of our hard work. Perhaps it was another drink, a lolly, or a Choo-Choo Bar.
Madam Speaker, these stories provide a level of romance, as do many memories, and they invoke a sense of the good old days. Of course, there was one clear difference back then: the deposit scheme was voluntary, industry-driven, and was not through legislation. Why? Well, things were different then. Industry, the cordial factories, needed their bottles back to wash, sterilise, and refill. If they did not get them back, they were required to order new, expensive bottles. It was in the industry’s interest to have the very best recycle scheme they could, driven by industry.
Today, of course, it is rare to see refilled bottles, particularly in the beverage industry. Industry has evolved, as have materials they use. Aluminium is just one new product introduced since the 1970s and, with it, there is certainly a cost saving in recycling the material compared to using new material and energy to produce. Glass is actually cheaper to melt down and use again compared to new material to produce new jars and bottles.
One of the major hurdles of this legislation is the tyranny of distance and the high cost of transport. One of my criticisms of the government’s advertising program has always been their suggesting or inferring consumers will not be worse off; that consumers will actually pocket 10 for every container they collect and return to a depot, indicating that just because consumers pay no more in South Australia there is no reason they should in the Northern Territory. This is simply wrong and you know it. All things are affected by the cost of freight in the NT. I would like you to explain to people living in Nhulunbuy that things purchased in Nhulunbuy should not cost any more than things purchased in South Australia. Say the same thing to people living in Port Keats, or any other remote location in the Northern Territory; that they should not be paying any more for their goods and services than people do in South Australia. You know it is not true! Why? It is because of the tyranny of distance. You know that the cost of freight is a major component and to tell people they will not pay any more for beverages is dishonest. People may be prepared to pay, but be honest, tell them. Or do you not know? Have you not done the homework? Perhaps you should have.
I will just point out a map for everyone in the Chamber they might be familiar with, called Australia. There is a difference between South Australia and the Northern Territory. As you see on this little map – I feel like Mr Squiggle here, I am upside down ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: You will see South Australia, and, in particular Adelaide, pretty much in the centre - everything flows into Adelaide. In the Northern Territory, we have to get things in from remote areas to our main centres before being trucked to southern markets, because we do not have a recycle program in the Northern Territory. The fact is, we have a bit of a double dip; not only do we have to transport beverage containers back in from rural and remote areas, they then have to be doubly trucked down to southern markets. The difference with Adelaide is the market is already there. So, there is a difference in cost, and to say different is just disingenuous.
Another question I ask is: how much of the expected set-up budget has been eroded due to the extraordinary advertising you have had to do to counter the industry-led ads? I am sure that has cut into the budget big time. It is amazing what comes your way in regard to information when you either ask the right questions or investigate just enough. I would like to share with you and provide some insight to a meeting between the industry and the Chief Minister. This information came directly from someone in that meeting. I must say, at least the Chief Minister took the time to meet with industry representatives - well done, Chief Minister - unlike the minister for the Environment who did not move. Word has it on the street the department tried to keep the minister away from industry as they might convince him otherwise.
It would appear, at that meeting, the Chief Minister said he really did not want to shove this legislation down industry’s throat. He even thanked the industry representatives for bringing forward an alternative, the first he had seen, but unfortunately, there was nothing he could do. In fact, the question was asked at that meeting: ‘Have you spoken to the member for Nelson?’
It gets more interesting, because these industry representatives did meet with the member for Nelson and, when told of the meeting with the Chief Minister, the member for Nelson told industry representatives it had nothing to do with him as it was government’s legislation. I was also told that the member for Nelson did take some interest in the industry’s model, and even went as far as suggesting perhaps he had held onto the CDL model too long, and there was an alternative worth exploring.
It should be noted that I was not present at either of these meetings …
Mr Henderson: Who said that?
Mr CHANDLER: I am just relaying what I have been told occurred.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I find it very interesting that we have a Chief Minister who advises industry that he does not want to shove this down industry’s throat, but his hands were tied due to an agreement with the member for Nelson. I have to tell you, CDL does form part of that agreement; it is there for all to see, shoring up the member for Nelson’s support for keeping this miserable government in place ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: One starts to draw conclusions. Perhaps we should all start to investigate this a little further.
The NT government says that its Cash for Containers system will mirror the system in place in South Australia. It is important we understand a little more about the South Australian model. From what I understand of the South Australian model, it involves 77 collection depots in metropolitan and regional areas where members of the community take eligible containers to redeem the legislative 10 deposit. There are also two major super collectors, owned and managed by the beverage industry, where collected containers which come from the depots are sorted, baled, and sent for recycling – glass goes to Adelaide, and other materials either interstate or overseas.
The collection depots are operated by private service providers and are paid a handling fee of 4 per container to cover the cost of their services; that is, the labour capital, land and transport. The super collectors – that is, the beverage industry and so forth - pay the handling fee to the collection depots, plus the 10 deposit. In South Australia, beverage manufacturers are required to add 10 to the wholesale price of all eligible beverages sold in South Australia; this 10 is then remitted to the super collectors.
Perhaps the minister can provide answers to the following questions I have - which I am certain Territorians should be aware of - to understand the complexities around CDL. I know these are the type of questions I would want my department to answer prior to drafting legislation. These questions are for you, minister: where is the NT government’s modelling on the number of collection depots which will be required for its Cash for Containers scheme? Where will these collection depots be located? How far will the average household have to travel to redeem their deposit? What will it cost to run these collection depots? What rate per container will collection depots be paid in handling fees?
It is very important to note that in 2006 the NT government, through the then Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, commissioned the Centre for Appropriate Technologies to look at the handling fees associated with establishing a container deposit system in three remote communities in the NT. The study found the handling fees – that is, the cost of collecting, storing, and transporting collected containers - of between 16 and 31 per container would be required. I do not quite understand how you have so openly misled Territorians in your advertising which suggests there should be no additional costs to consumers, when your own advice suggested an additional cost between 16 and 31.
Territorians deserve to know the truth. What is the true cost, taking into consideration the cost of our remote communities? Would that cost in remote communities be shared with the rest of the Territory?
Ms Scrymgour: Talk about spin.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura! Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an important debate and the members opposite will have their opportunity to reply in the appropriate manner. I ask the member be allowed to make his comments without interruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, Leader of the Opposition, I have been calling order. Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Member for Brennan, you have the call.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The truth is these huge costs will be shared across the Northern Territory. As I indicated earlier, despite the South Australian system having been in place for more than 35 years, there are still some remote communities which do not participate in South Australia’s container deposit system.
My questions continue: how many super collectors will be established in the Northern Territory? Has the NT government consulted with beverage manufacturers or the Australian Food Grocery Council on how the super collectors may work in the Northern Territory? Where will these super collectors be located? Where will collected materials be sent?
It needs highlighting that the Northern Territory has insufficient population for a glass bottle-making plant, aluminium plant or plastic re-manufacturer, so collected materials will need to be sent to Adelaide or Brisbane for recycling, or to landfill if transport costs are too high. Tell me how the environment is helped overall if collected materials end up in landfill? Who will pay for the collection depot handling costs, and the costs of transporting beverage containers to Adelaide or Brisbane for recycling? If 10 is added to the wholesale price of beverage containers and the beverage industry is required to pay collectors a handling fee, why does the NT government maintain its Cash for Containers scheme will not increase the price of beverages in the Northern Territory?
There will, no doubt, be an impact on the beverage industry which will be passed on to consumers, adding to the heavy burden of ordinary Territorians already facing the most expensive living conditions in Australia. If the government was honest and up-front and told Territorians the true cost, they may be prepared to pay. After they know the true cost, conduct a survey and see what the figures show. If people are prepared to pay – fantastic! We want this to work.
As outlined, the Country Liberals are supportive of the concept of CDL; however, any model needs to be economically viable. Nothing I have seen has convinced me this government fully appreciates the cost involved. If it does end up costing more, the blame will be attributed directly to the industry, with this government not accepting any blame whatsoever. When have they accepted fault for anything?
Minister, has the NT government undertaken any analysis of the impact its Cash for Containers system could have on the industry and retailers - not anecdotal, real analysis? What other alternatives to Cash for Containers did the NT government investigate and where are the results?
I indicated earlier that at a meeting with industry the Chief Minister indicated it was the first time he had seen an alternative. What alternatives were investigated? What alternatives did Cabinet consider before going ahead with CDL, or was it to do with an agreement? Did the Northern Territory government have any consultations with industry or the AFGC about other alternatives prior to or in the drafting of the legislation? I cannot understand why the government has decided to jump the gun when, nationally, container deposit legislation and other issues will be analysed, considered, and debated later this year through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, of which the honourable member for Stuart is a member.
I cannot emphasise this point enough: my understanding is the Environment Protection and Heritage Council has established a rigorous, transparent, and consultative national process to develop a regulatory impact statement into national beverage container deposit legislation, and a limited number of other options which may have a positive cost benefit and tangible impact on recovery rates and litter reduction. My question is: why has the minister, and this government, jumped the gun and gone against an agreement he was party to, and moved to introduce this legislation outside that agreement, with no public cost analysis of how it is going to work in our more rural and remote areas - unless it has more to do with an agreement with the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson?
Let us look at some of the issues around roadside recycling and the impact on direct operating costs for ratepayers. Currently, Darwin and Palmerston councils offer a first-class recycling program where 240 L bins are picked up fortnightly, backed up by a good media education program. As with all waste removal programs it does have its problems, including the fact we have some pigs living amongst us who use the bins for general waste, including dirty nappies, etcetera. This has the effect of contaminating much of what is collected and, ultimately, it ends up in the landfill. These services are expensive for councils to maintain, with general rate revenue often used to offset the costs. It should be acknowledged some of the recycled material collected does provide a return to the business and offsets the cost passed on to councils and, ultimately, residents.
One downside to the CDL program is the potential loss in revenue to the collectors, as people will keep their containers rather than throw them in the recycle bins. It is hard to estimate the true cost of lost revenue due to the fact - and this is true - they may pick up some revenue from people who are not interested in getting their deposit back. But that would be hard to accept. The flow-on may be more costly service for councils and, ultimately, residents.
It also needs to be acknowledged that much of the recycle material collected in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Darwin and Palmerston areas, unfortunately ends up in landfill. Why? Well, it has a lot to do with market forces and a lack of a local recycling industry. By example - and please do not quote me on these figures, they do change and this is simply to illustrate the problem - if it cost $70 a tonne to get waste paper or cardboard to the Australian Paper mill interstate and the return is less than $70, there is no economical justification to take the material south and, unfortunately, it ends up at the tip face. So, as you might understand, I still have reservations about CDL as proposed, as I would hate to think all that material collected, with all the costs to collect it, only ends up as expensive landfill.
Most people in here have, or would have, heard at least a little about the product stewardship program that industry would like to see introduced Australia-wide. I will be the first to admit industry has had 35-plus years to do this, and have provided their fair share of challenges to any government looking at introducing legislation impacting their business. But the fact is, it has only been in the last few years where real programs have been developed and quite successfully introduced in jurisdictions such as New Zealand.
As indicated earlier, the Minister for Environment in New Zealand, Dr Nick Smith, is the first to admit their legislation and the product stewardship program is not without fault. The one thing it does have is a focus on recycling, not just the collecting. The minister has indicated if industry drops the ball, he has no hesitation in reviewing CDL. In fact, industry has provided advice to suggest they welcome the minister rattling the chains from time to time, as they recognise they have some within their ranks who would prefer to do nothing. Their collective view is they can no longer do nothing, and they are only too aware of the risks associated with individual states going down the road of separate CDL programs.
For economic reasons a national stewardship program makes sense for them and, from my briefings, they have provided this government an extraordinary offer. Before I explain that offer, it needs to be acknowledged the stewardship program has been in operation in New Zealand since 2006 in accordance with New Zealand’s Waste Minimisation Act 2008. As you can see, the program was introduced before the act. It was industry driven but now operates in accordance with that act.
By way of example of its success to date, since its introduction in 2006, 92 825 tonnes of glass was recycled, 49% of total production. In 2007, that increased to 109 860 tonnes and 53% of total production. In 2008, this increased to 138 115 tonnes or 62%. By 2009, 147 201 tonnes or 64% and, in 2010, 166 576 tonnes of glass was recovered or 66% of total production. This year, they anticipate reaching more than 70% recycled material from total produced. Not a bad effort from an industry-driven program, and close to what this government expects from the CDL program.
Industry is quite up-front about their lack of previous leadership with driving recycling and waste minimisation in Australia. They are also acutely aware this is no longer acceptable by the general public and they are interested in a national product stewardship program.
My advice is industry has offered government a unique opportunity in operating a pilot product stewardship program in the Northern Territory. One might think this is yet another delay tactic from a very coordinated group of businesses. As the member for Nelson has pointed out, time and time again, they have had 35 years to get it right. Think about this for just a moment: government has the upper hand here - it has CDL. It has the sword of Damocles. It also has the ability to introduce this at any time. They could set some pretty strict time lines on industry and allow them to run their pilot program. At the end of that time frame, as set by government, you will be able to see if it has been successful. If it has not been successful, or they have failed to deliver, introduce CDL.
In my humble opinion, if industry is looking for this program to set a glowing example for the rest of the nation, they are going to throw plenty of resources at it. They will not want it to fail; they have too much to lose. We, on the other hand, have everything to gain. The reality is - and I implore everyone out there who is truly interested in our environment to consider this for just one moment - the prospect of a successful product stewardship program in the Northern Territory, then rolled out nationally. Think of the advances this would take recycling in this country, not just from the Northern Territory, but all over Australia.
Just like a double-edged sword, consider the Northern Territory’s CDL failing and what damage this could do to the cause nationwide. It has the potential to take recycling back a decade, leaving no chance another government would look at it. In fact, it may play into industry’s hands, giving them all the ammunition to delay any national scheme, whether that scheme be stewardship or CDL-based. For me, the opportunities outweigh the potential loss to recycling and to the nation in regard to our environment, and at what cost? A year or two?
Madam Speaker, we all want this to work. We want any program that supports, drives, and ensures we have a cost-effective recycling program in Australia. But, from what I have seen, CDL only offers half of the wheel and, perhaps, a stewardship program provides the other half. What I do know is that if any program is going to succeed, it is going to take both sides to work together and, more importantly, we must all recognise that the end product - its value, its usefulness - is important in any of these debates.
The journey for me, thus far, has provided a lot of interesting information, the occasional curve ball, misleading and just plain dishonest information - perhaps from all sides of the argument. This minefield of information, even from people I thought had the environment at heart, has made it a challenge. Some of the figures different groups sent me were misleading. Some figures were presented in either figures or graphs and often referred to very impressive results. You might appreciate my disappointment when, in some cases, figures of recycling were put forward and, when investigated further were, in fact, collected material, not recycled materials. That is disingenuous at best. I even found myself questioning the Boomerang Alliance’s claims of 300 jobs in the Northern Territory after discovering the same group suggested 600 jobs in Victoria, should CDL be introduced in Victoria - a jurisdiction perhaps 20 times that of the Northern Territory. What methodology was used to get to that figure? Yesterday, I asked the very question, and I am still not convinced the answer stacks up.
Anyway, let us accept 300 jobs in the Northern Territory. If we take this as true, and applying that to the average full-time annual earnings in the Northern Territory of $61 771 - that was sourced from the ABS figures – that equates to $18 531 300 in salaries every year. Minister, I need to ask the question: who is going to pay that $18.5m annually? You continue to maintain Territorians will pay a deposit and get it back, and there will be no further cost to Territorians. Accepting the Boomerang Alliance’s figures as fact - and you openly admit this legislation will provide jobs - we have to conclude that $18.5m is significant and would need to be funded somehow and by someone. The question is: how can you continue to maintain this will not cost Territorians?
I applaud government for trying to do what they must think is the right thing to do. I only wish I could understand why the need to rush, why the focus on cardboard, glass, aluminium, etcetera, which is pretty inert compared to some of the more toxic chemicals we release into our environment each day. Why is this legislation seen as more important than say, asbestos, lead, refrigerant gasses, as well as many toxic substances? Even with simple things like our so-called environmentally-friendly fluorescent tubes, we do not seem to care because they just get tossed into our waste stream each day. When is government going to appreciate there are far more toxins released every day into our waste streams, into our waterways and water tables than the material in most beverage containers?
After detailing some of the concerns in regard to the model CDL as proposed, unless the minister can provide detailed costings and demonstrate, above all, that he understands the process intimately, and is managing the Commonwealth legislation issues, it makes it very difficult to provide unconditional support for this legislation. The truth is, we all want this to work; we all want to do what we can to protect our environment. Is it the best model for the Northern Territory? Is it just being introduced because of an agreement? Will it cost far more than has been anticipated? All good questions I hope the minister can answer comprehensively.
Recalling everything I have read, researched, and learned about recycling and, in particular, options which lay before us, at the very least I expect government to take the time to enter into open negotiations with industry, and see how they can work together and, perhaps, even consider the offer of a pilot program in the NT. It has the potential to take recycling into the next decade.
I suggest, depending on the minister’s response, that we take this legislation into the committee stage.
I now move on to the second part of the legislation, which is about plastic bags.
That statement is taken from a major New Zealand retailer’s sustainability charter and underpins its commitment to the environment; in particular, its approach to plastic bags and their supply by that group. Further, I like the following statement taken from the website:
Most of my debate on banning plastic bags will focus on why government chose this model over other well-established and successful programs operating around the world. Similar to CDL, I first thought this was a no-brainer. Yes, let us all ban plastic bags. It sounds good but, until you understand the human condition, the habits, and the modern waste stream, you may be surprised at the position you end up in.
I share the community’s concerns regarding our environment and the need to do whatever we can to protect our most valuable asset. Banning plastic bags would appear quite reasonable on the surface and I, like many others, understand the damage plastic bags can cause to our wildlife, our sea life, and how they add to our already congested landfills. I, like many other boat users in the Northern Territory, have often turned around after seeing plastic bags in the harbour, but I must say most bags I have retrieved over the years have been crushed ice bags, not the simple grocery bag - and these bags are not listed in the banned list.
Until you take the time to explore the waste stream and people’s habits, and look into alternative programs, you truly cannot just have a simple view to this legislation. We want to reduce waste, no doubt about it – absolutely. Perhaps the government has it right: this legislation will change people’s habits and reduce plastic bags entering the waste stream. I sincerely hope it does.
However, I have conducted a thorough investigation of how plastic bags are used and, moreover, investigated methods and legislation introduced in other jurisdictions around the world. Interestingly, my investigation led me to Ireland - not physically, so do not panic. I reviewed how they manage plastic bags in Ireland. By way of background, Ireland was often referred to as the plastic bag capital of the world where, due to the windy conditions, most fence lines across the countryside were strewn with hundreds of thousands of plastic bags. It was unsightly and showed no signs of decreasing ...
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Surveys were undertaken to gauge how locals used plastic bags they obtained from local supermarkets. The statistics were interesting: between 12 and 14 bags used in every shop. On average, when people went to the supermarket they used between 12 and 14 bags. Six or seven of those bags were used for other purposes and six or seven went to the landfill, often ending up all over the countryside.
What they also found is that no one really took an interest in the number of bags because they had no buy into the transaction. They were disinterested; they just watched people fill the bags up with products and off they would go. One method they considered was to ban plastic bags, but people turned to other less environmentally-friendly alternatives. In areas I investigated where they had banned plastic bags, retailers did not mind because they were selling more of the plastic bags which were more damaging for our environment - the ones you would find in the supermarket aisles. As I said, the retailers did not mind this; they were selling more plastic bags.
However, the problem is that landfills did not change. In fact, heavier plastics were now on the increase as people turned to these heavier plastics to do the things they used the old plastic bags for. In Ireland, the option taken was to introduce a levy on plastic bags. Shopping centres were required to introduce an environmentally friendly, biodegradable plastic bag and charged a 20 levy, which was then used for environmental initiatives such as supporting local environmental groups, planting trees, etcetera.
The amazing thing was when a follow-up survey was undertaken it showed a dramatic reduction in the use of plastic bags. Consumers had literally bought into the argument. They now took an interest in how many bags were being used. The levy had altered habits - not an easy thing to do. People now took an interest as it was costing them not to. The follow-up survey demonstrated the average number of bags used each time a person shopped had reduced to between six and seven, with the same number having a second or third life. It had a dramatic effect on the environment with a huge reduction on wayward plastic bags being strewn across the country, and fence lines were no longer lined with plastic bags. The additional benefit to the environment was the levy was providing a good income for environmental initiatives - a win/win situation.
Minister, why did you go down this path instead of the Irish program? Can you provide a guarantee your proposal will deliver similar results to Ireland?
My electorate office is outside Target, which last year introduced a fee on plastic bags. I cannot believe the difference this has made in people’s habits ...
Mr Wood: Bunnings did that many years ago.
Mr CHANDLER: Bunnings have done it, too. People now choose to carry their items out rather than in a bag. I see people coming out of Target with their purchases in shopping trolleys, not bags or, if a few things are purchased, in their hands. No bags because they do not want to pay 20. Fair enough. However, that is sometimes 10 or 12 bags not going to our landfills. It proved to me by the introduction of a very small levy you could change people’s habits. People who choose to buy the bags - in some cases, people have to - that money was used on environmental initiatives. Fantastic!
I have a chart I will show. This was taken from a New Zealand study showing what people used plastic bags for. You can see 80% of people used their bags as kitchen tidy bag liners. It continues: general garbage bag, general carry bag, household storage, dog dropping bag, school sports clothes, school lunches, nappy bags, and to hold papers for recycling. Only 1% used plastic bags for groceries alone ...
Ms Purick: What about cane toads?
Mr CHANDLER: They could be used for cane toads as well. This is a random survey of residential use of supermarket plastic bags.
Another wonderful idea is a local young lady, Deb, who has set up an industry making bags. I know minister Hampton uses a similar recycled bag. This is another initiative. People are realising we need to provide alternatives to bags. I recommend people give Deb a call and become involved. This offers a young person a very good business opportunity and does a wonderful thing for our environment. It is good for business, good for our environment, and another way people can support our environment.
In regard to plastic bags, again, like CDL, support the concept of what you are delivering and what you are trying to achieve for our environment. We all want to see less plastic go into waste streams. I would like the government to spend more time focusing on toxic wastes which go into our landfills and waterways. If we can find programs to reduce that - fantastic.
Madam Speaker, I hope this legislation is successful. I hope you have covered all the legislative issues that have been raised today. That is about it from me.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before I call you, I draw members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Sacred Heart Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Michelle Wright and Ms Rachael McDowall. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to stand here today as the Chief Minister in our government, with our minister for the Environment who is bringing in a scheme that will be great for the Territory, the environment, and our community - something that is long overdue in the Northern Territory and around Australia.
I am absolutely stunned and amazed at the backflip and backdown the Country Liberal Party have put forward to this parliament and the Northern Territory today. The member for Brennan’s personal credibility is in tatters. His credibility is shattered. The Country Liberal Party is doing the bidding of big business - some of them multinational businesses - flying in the face of public opinion and all of the research and evidence of this scheme operating in South Australia for decades now. It is a last-minute backdown and backflip by the CLP.
If the member for Brennan believes for one moment that anyone thinks he wrote that speech and did all the research to conclude those arguments, he is nothing but a lackey of the beverage industry which provided him with a speech - all the questions to put forward to the minister in the committee stage debate. To pretend, member for Brennan, you have done all that research yourself and that speech is all your own work, is absolutely a shame on you.
This is the biggest betrayal and treachery of the trust of our public since the CLP allowed the Hotel Darwin to be bulldozed in the middle of the night …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … without lifting a finger to stop it.
The facts are, two weeks ago the member for Brennan, the shadow minister who has done all of this research - he has just been to New Zealand, he has been in to all of the books, he has travelled everywhere, he has done all of this research on this particular bill - had a briefing in the minister’s office on the legislation. He turned up to that briefing without a copy of the bill, without even so much as a pen and a piece of paper. There were no questions in that particular briefing on all the questions and issues he put on the table as things he had researched - unless he has done all this research in the last two weeks since that meeting. He spent about 10 minutes of the briefing justifying to public servants that he paid his own way to visit New Zealand to see the schemes they run over there. I take him on his word that he paid his own way - that is fine. He may have paid, but I ask him to clarify whether the beverage industry reimbursed him for any parts of those travels. I will go as far as that, but I take him on his word.
Two weeks ago: no issues. He went in, had a briefing and, at the last minute, a total cave-in from the CLP from a position they have held for quite some time now.
I will also go to the allegations that were made. I will follow up; I will go back to my diary and the people I met from a particular sector of the industry. People in business know I am very accessible; I meet with all sorts of people. However, the member for Brennan has come in here and said that I said to those particular people who came to see me – he was not game enough to say who it was who had advised him of this; verballing me in this House – that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: … we were not going to shove CDL down industry’s throats, and there was nothing I could do about it because my hands were tied with the agreement with the member for Nelson. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is an outrageous lie and a slur. I will personally ask the people who were in that meeting whether they told the member for Brennan this is what I said at that meeting. I had staff attend and minutes were taken at that meeting.
I point to the fact that, in regard to my government’s announcement of CDL, we actually announced that we were going to introduce CDL on 11 March 2009. That was some six months prior to the agreement with the member for Nelson.
At the time, the members for Fannie Bay and the member for Nelson - we asked the member for Nelson if he would join with us in working together to introduce the CDL scheme, recognising he had been passionate about this issue for many years and had far more knowledge of the subject of CDL than anyone on this side of the Chamber. To try to run some mucky line that I was dragged kicking and screaming into this position because of the agreement with the member for Nelson - well, all I ask you is go back to media releases of 11 March when we announced it.
I will be back in here if those industry people turn around and say they said no such thing to the member for Brennan. His credibility is in further tatters and shreds than at the moment in this backflip.
I will go to a series of quotes in regard to the CLP’s support for Cash for Containers going back some time. The member for Brennan – the learned member for Brennan who has done so much research into constitutional law and trans-Tasman international and interstate …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … legal agreements, has done so much research into these issues. I go to his quotes from the Parliamentary Record of 30 April 2009:
He went on:
Nothing could be clearer …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: All of the issues that he argued about landfill or financial incentive are absolute rubbish. If it was good enough in 2009, why is it not good enough today? The reason it is not good enough today is because the Country Liberal Party has dollar signs in its eyes. Those dollar signs are no more illustrated than by their own president, Sue Fraser-Adams, saying clearly in leaked e-mails to this side of the House, that they need $1.5m …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You were careful to point out to me yesterday not to digress from debate. I suggest the same advice be given to the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The truth hurts, Madam Speaker; that their business backers have walked away from them. Their business backers in the Territory decided they are so bereft, so inept, so incompetent, so poorly led, they have walked away from them. They need $1.5m to fight the next Territory election. Along comes the big multinational bovver boys from the food and beverage industry who, basically, look at an opportunity, given the closeness of the parliament, and have spun a line to the CLP which they have swallowed hook, line and sinker - regurgitated by the member for Brennan in his contribution to the House - to fight tooth and nail against this scheme.
I am absolutely convinced - because, unless something dramatic is going to happen today, this legislation will pass with the support of the member for Nelson who has been such a strident advocate of this scheme for so many years - the CLP will go to the next election saying they are going to ditch this scheme and introduce another scheme which will have the tick of approval from the Beverage Industry Association and - hey presto! - in the returns for that election we will see a nice, big, fat cheque from the industry to the Country Liberal Party. This is what it is all about. I have been around this game for long enough to know how it works, and this is exactly what has happened here.
How do you reconcile this backflip which has occurred in the last couple of weeks since the beverage industry has run a disgraceful campaign in the Northern Territory? I will go through a series of quotes from those opposite, which is a warning to Territorians in the lead-up to the next election: you cannot believe anything these people on the other side of the House say. They will backflip on any issue, on any policy, as soon as it suits them.
The Opposition Leader said in this House on 26 November 2003:
What is different today?
The member for Fong Lim is a sceptic about most things environmental. The member for Fong Lim and other people in the House have, obviously, had their way and forced the Leader of the Opposition and the Alice Springs members to fold and backflip on Angela Pamela. We know who is running the show on that side of the House. In the member for Fong Lim’s September 2004 newsletter, he said:
What a backflip! The member for Port Darwin said in this House on 26 November 2003:
Member for Port Darwin, you said that on 26 November 2003, that is 2643 days ago. Where is your model?
They are totally bereft. They have no policy ideas. They are not committed to the environment. They are lackeys of big business and interstate big business.
The member for Brennan cuddles up to the Environment Centre, cloaks himself in green and says: ‘Trust us, we are the future face of the environment in the Northern Territory’. They are nothing but a Trojan horse and the CLP - call them the Country Liberals, call them anything you like - if they are returned to government, will go back to being the arrogant, high-handed, deceitful government they were in the past. This is a great betrayal of everything they have stood for on CDL since they lost the government benches.
The member for Greatorex said in a media release on 7 April 2009:
That just goes back to 7 April - the member for Greatorex thought it was okay. How could I forget the member for Brennan, who said in this House on 30 April:
As I recall, this has been such a long-standing Country Liberals policy that, prior to the 2001 election when Labor won government, there was actually a motion from their Central Council - their version of our administration committee - requiring the Country Liberal Party to go to the 2001 election supporting CDL. At the time, Denis Burke and the team decided they were not going to listen to their own branch and their own party. It was prior to that election they also had a motion for the party to introduce FOI, which they also squibbed, which they are now such strong proponents for - such strong proponents for open government, but they would not do it when they were in government.
This is an absolutely breathtaking backdown and betrayal. For the member for Brennan to come in here and say the reason they have backed down, backflipped, and betrayed the community on this is because he has done some research into constitutional law defies all credibility. He has done nothing more than read a speech which was probably written by the beverage industry council: ‘Here are the questions you need to ask the minister in the committee stage amendments, and ask them by rote’.
In relation to much of the detail, he and the opposition well know this bill I hope we are passing today establishes the legislative framework which gives certainty to industry in the design of the scheme and how the costs of the scheme will be accommodated. It is not about having every answer.
Today, I call on the beverage industry to back down from their lies and misinformation because this is not about the Northern Territory. The industry in the Territory can absorb these costs, as they do in South Australia. We are talking about multinational companies. We are talking about companies like Coca-Cola, which spreads the globe - the biggest brand in the world. They are saying they cannot absorb 10 in the Northern Territory. Come off it! Of course they can; it would not be noticed on their balance sheets.
This is all about big business; multinationals running scared. Now that the Northern Territory has joined South Australia the race will be on. Other jurisdictions will see this is the right thing to do. We are in it as well. This scheme will spread across Australia and, once it is across Australia, yes, there will be a cost on industry. However, a cost on industry versus a massive impact in improving environmental outcomes, reducing litter and supporting community groups across Australia.
I said at a media conference recently - I am quite angry about this - these big multinational companies have triple bottom line responsibility, not only to profits for their shareholders, but to the environment and the community in which they operate - not just to their profits and their shareholders. If industry decides to price gouge in the Northern Territory and say: ‘We are going to jack it up the Northern Territory government because we know if the CLP get into government, they will fold. They will give us what we want in return for the cheque. So, we are going to jack up prices’. We will sool the ACCC onto them, because there is no reason prices should be more impacted in the Northern Territory than they have been in South Australia.
Look at big brand stores - whether it is Coles, Dan Murphy, or Liquorland - advertisements in the Melbourne or Adelaide media for products - exactly the same price. If they can absorb the costs in South Australia, surely to goodness they can absorb costs in the Northern Territory. To say the multinationals, the big beverage industries, cannot absorb this cost is a betrayal of their responsibility to community and the environment.
I am aghast! After everything that has been on the public record, five minutes to midnight, after a bit of pressure from big business, dollar signs in their eyes, needing to raise money for the next Territory election, the Country Liberal Party has folded. The member for Brennan has been put out like some fall guy to run an argument he could not be bothered to run in a briefing two weeks ago, where many of those questions could have been answered. This is outrageous! The lily-livered Country Liberal Party has been calling for this since they lost the government benches in 2001. Their policy position for 10 years has been to support Cash for Containers and, implicitly, the South Australia model.
The member for Fong Lim said on ABC 8DDD on 5 October 2004:
The member for Goyder, on 19 August 2009 said:
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It does not matter what they say going into the next Territory election, you can bet London to a brick it is all up for grabs, post the election, if they were to win the government benches. We would have a rerun of John Howard’s core and non-core promises – that is what we would have: ‘Oh, well, that was our policy but, now, business has come to us and they are running scared of it; we have been forced to reconsider’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura! Member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: I believe it is a very torrid day when, for 10 years – 10 years! - the opposition, all over the public record - I have many more quotes here; I do not have time to use them all – said the South Australian scheme is a good scheme and it should be introduced in the Northern Territory. All of a sudden, once they get the slightest pressure from multinational businesses and, once they get a sniff of political donations, given their Territory-based backers are flying away from them in droves: ‘We will put up the member for Brennan, the new guy. He can be the sacrificial lamb. We do not care if he loses all credibility on this’. You really have been put up as a fall guy, member for Brennan. ‘We are going to backflip on what was, for us, a core promise, a core belief, something we really believed in’.
If it is that this is not a good scheme, where have the great policy brains of the CLP been since 2003 - 2646 long days ago – when they said they would come up with a scheme for Cash for Containers? They are nothing but a fraud, a shallow, hollow, political shell bereft of any integrity or commitment at all. They deserve to be condemned for betraying the Territory environment, Territorians, and local government.
I will read what the Katherine Town Council Mayor, Anne Shepherd, said. The industry heavies were, obviously, trying to lobby everyone. They wanted to oppose the Territory government’s legislation. The only people they have to oppose the legislation are the opposition and the Chamber of Commerce - and I will get to the Chamber of Commerce in a moment. The Mayor of Katherine wrote to Kate Carnell, former Liberal Chief Minister of the ACT, and said:
The Environment Protection Authority is an institution much beloved of the member for Brennan - much beloved; he loves the EPA. In fact, we partnered with the member for Brennan in a conciliatory way to further strengthen the powers of the EPA, an independent voice and arbiter for the environment in the Northern Territory. This is an institution we certainly believe in. I am beginning to wonder whether they believe in it, or will it be something else they tear down if they come to government? The EPA’s Dr Andrew Tupper said, on 23 February 2011:
That is from the EPA, the body the Country Liberal Party supposedly supports. I will also use a quote from Alice Springs. I pay tribute to Mayor, Damien Ryan, and the Alice Springs Town Council, because they have been out there ahead of government:
Ten million containers in Alice Springs. Damien Ryan said:
The member for Brennan talked about setting up a trial scheme: ‘Let us set up a trial scheme. Let us delay this until after the election. The CLP has a change to get back in, and we will get our nice, fat political donation from big business and industry’. Well, the trial scheme has been working in Alice Springs. I do not normally swear in here, but I am quoting from the Mayor:
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, perhaps if you could withdraw that, even though …
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
The CLP collectively should hang their heads in shame today. I am sure there is not unanimity on that side of the House, as they are divided on virtually everything at the moment. I am sure, in their party room, common sense would have prevailed with some of them saying: ‘This is going a bit far. We have been promising to do this for 10 years. The community expects us to do it. For us to walk away from a core commitment at this stage is really a step too far’. Someone else has run the lines in there: ‘Well, no, no, we have to look to the future and look to our political donations’.
The Leader of the Opposition really has no clothes on, on this particular issue; he is like the emperor with no clothes. He goes out to the community and says: ‘I am an honourable person. I am a trustworthy man; trust me. I will deliver in the best interests of Territorians’. As soon as he gets a bit of heat on him, he folds. To fold in the light of a disingenuous fear campaign run by big southern and multinational businesses - to go to water; just what sort of leadership is that? Then he hangs out the poor member for Brennan to dry on this particular issue. The language that is being used around this we will hear in some of the more colourful speeches from the opposition in this debate.
On the plastic bags issue, the member for Brennan lauded the fact some retail businesses have a levy on plastic bags and people chose not to pay a levy. However, it is a levy in regard to plastic bags. Then, they talk in the language of big multinational businesses and say Cash for Containers is a tax. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot support a levy on plastic bags and then not support Cash for Containers and call it a tax. It just goes to show how confused, muddled, divided and desperate they are to walk away from a fundamental commitment from the Leader of the Opposition - the members for Port Darwin, Brennan, Fong Lim, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and virtually every other Tom Cobley and all over there. To fall away at the last minute is absolutely deplorable.
I support the minister and thank him for all the work he, his agency, and his department have done on this. I commend the leadership which has been shown in the public debate on this by the member for Nelson, who has been a consistent supporter of this particular issue …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and much more well informed on this issue than me.
It is good to see the member for Fong Lim in here. As I quoted before, the member for Fong Lim has been an absolute rap for this particular …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: It is good to see the member for Fong Lim here. It will be interesting to see how he weasels his way out of this one. In his September newsletter in 2004 he said:
What has happened, Dave? Jeepers creepers, I thought you would have a bit more leadership and stand up for Territorians instead of doing the bidding of big business. I reckon the member for Fong Lim has a pretty good nose for the political wind. I reckon he would be one of the people inside the party room saying: ‘It is the wrong thing to do to back away from this. We are too far out on a limb to back away at this point in time’. The member for Fong Lim does not normally do backflips. Whether he gets it right or wrong in his opinion, you usually know where the member for Fong Lim stands - once he has made his position clear he does not waiver from it, no matter how much heat is applied to him.
I do not think the member for Fong Lim has backed away from this. It is all the doing of the other aspirant for the leadership, the member for Port Darwin, who is pretty worried about those donations - as is Sue Fraser-Adams - coming into the next Territory election.
The CLP deserves to be condemned for walking away from this legislation. This is the right thing to do …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering if I should seek leave to table my speech so the Chief Minister can read it and understand what I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, resume your seat!
Mr HENDERSON: We can read the speech in Hansard, so eloquently read by the member for Brennan, which was so comprehensively written for him by multinational big businesses. If anyone thinks the member for Brennan has some sort of great legal knowledge of multilateral trade agreement, cross-Tasman law, knowledge of the Australian Constitution, then they think that snow is going to fall on Ayers Rock at Christmas.
Madam Speaker, the CLP deserves to be condemned. This is good legislation. This is a great framework for the Northern Territory because it is good for our environment and our community. I urge big business to absorb these costs and do the right thing by the Territory, the environment, and the community. I am sure their shareholders would support it.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the final report and recommendations by the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dated 6 December 2010, an information paper titled What Might the Terms and Conditions of Northern Territory Statehood Be, dated January 2011; and the federal government’s response to the Long Road to Statehood which was tabled in the House of Representatives in October 2009.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and papers, and that I have leave to continue to my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, to be very honest with you, the contribution made by the Chief Minister, and the attempts by the Labor government to extract whatever political advantage they can from this important matter is appalling. I have to say the member for Brennan has engaged this issue responsibly. He has asked questions, conducted serious research, and followed through on lines of argument that have been put to him. He has made his conclusion. I respect the work the member for Brennan has done. Members involved in the debate should have given some respect to the presentation he made to this parliament; at least the courtesy of a response to the questions which were put in a well-researched and well-presented presentation to this parliament to the advancement of a debate.
What we had from the Chief Minister, sadly, was a series of assertions which do not make an argument. There were a number of legitimate questions that require a mature, thoughtful, considered response. That is a debate; that is an argument. This was a very thin, disappointing, confused political rant with the only objective to take political advantage of this issue.
I know in matters like this there is always a certain amount of politics but, at the end of the day, as legislators you have to ensure what you present is actually going to work so people have confidence in the institutions, in the machinery we provide for them to be able to realise their aspirations.
First, it is absolutely clear that people want a response to these sorts of issues. They have wanted it for a long time; the Country Liberals have for a period of time. The greatest part of research the Chief Minister appears to have done is going back and looking at our media releases. That is really a demonstration of a juvenile approach to a serious issue.
Yes, we have responded because we know the community wants something done in this space. Therefore, you need to take care when you take the steps to meet their expectations. There are expectations. We do not want to put anything in place that is going to appear to be okay, but may have internal flaws and cause a lack of confidence in government to be able to meet the needs of people. We have to build confidence.
I am hoping the case is that government - in all their excitement and their distraction about this being a political issue rather than an environmental and public policy issue - did not actually hear what the member for Brennan said. That is the only conclusion I could reasonably draw; that they did not hear what he said.
He said at the beginning there is support for container deposit legislation, but there is a need for serious questions to be presented and responded to. That is what this is about. Politics should be much more than going out and asserting things and playing a game just to try to win the affections of the crowd today. We have to live with it tomorrow. There were a number of very real questions that required a proper response, and we had a juvenile Politics 101 you would have had from freshmen at university trying to make a name for themselves on the campus, or in high school. This is real stuff. There are a number of questions and they were put - and put very well - by the member for Brennan who, once again, I applaud for the work he has done.
I only hope reasonable members over there will read the speech because we are going to be living with something we must ensure is going to deliver on those expectations.
When the member for Johnston contributes to this debate, I would like him to explain what occurred at the time when the Labor government was …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes. We are not trying to spin this. We just want to know what actually happened there ...
Dr Burns: It is on the agenda. I will talk about that.
Mr MILLS: I am sure it is, but I will put this out and then it can be responded to. I have one question: what actually happened? The Country Liberals had a position. The Labor Party had the same position in opposition, came to government, started to move in that direction, and then something frightened the horses and they were there no more. That requires an explanation. Were they just frightened, or was there some weight of argument that caused them to hesitate? We need to have an insight into what occurred at that time, in order to have confidence that you have adjusted, that you have overcome some difficulty you had in the past.
I have another question. It is very disappointing the Chief Minister went nowhere near this. It really was very disappointing. It is a genuine question and I am sure it was touched on a number of times in many people’s minds. Is it such a good scheme? If you do any survey and ask anyone the question, anyone and everyone wants it. Yes, you can cite figures. Do you want one of those schemes where you take your rubbish and you get 10 for it? That would be great, because I remember that when I was a kid. We have that notion out there so we do not trespass on that notion with the machinery of how it works and how things are different today than they were then. We just say: ‘Do you like that idea? We will put a big ad in the paper and ask people if they like that idea?’ Yes, of course. Who likes motherhood? We all do. Who likes that lovely feeling you get remembering what it was like in the good old days, when mum and dad told you what it was like, and you could get bottles and take them back? Well, you have that out there, so you will ask people that question. Of course, you are going to get overwhelming support for that. Wow!
Given that, how is it that South Australia has been the only jurisdiction state or territory, which has gone into this space in all those years? I would like to have a genuine …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, all right, you can have your …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: No, you will have your chance. It is a question that needs a response. I am puzzled by what really is the underlying cause of having popularity being challenged, again and again, over all those years, that no other state or territory has ventured into that space.
The Northern Territory Labor government, after 10 long years of Labor, now finds itself backflipping on a position it had once before and wants to give it another shot. This is an outfit, to be frank, in which not many people have confidence in their capacity to actually deliver on programs. They cannot maintain order in the streets, they cannot build houses for people who need accommodation, even though they have been given millions and millions of dollars. Now they can do something - venture into a space where no other jurisdiction has ventured, without even the Chief Minister being able to give an explanation or answer any basic question – and it is a cause for real concern. We want confidence the government has the capacity to deliver on the people’s expectations and not just exploit something because it is popular and use it for political purposes. Perhaps they think they are in the twilight of their political careers and this is something they are going to go out with, and someone else is going to have to be managing it.
Well, I have conservative instincts. Though I would like to give my kids anything they want, I have to ensure what I give them is going to be good for them. We have an obligation to ask the questions, and I would expect the proponents to be able to provide some substantive response.
What has changed in the mind and attitude of government? Where have they now found the political will for this? Where has it, in fact, come from? Many would assert this change of mind, change of heart - whether it is politically inspired or is acquired by virtue of paying some respect to the arrangement in minority government to maintain some value to that arrangement - keeps them in power. All of these things really have to be scrutinised and the Chief Minister failed on every front.
These things are genuine concerns, if we are going to have any confidence this is a real government. I cannot see it with the responses so far, which have been absolutely amazing - trying to run this line because they have not bothered to listen to what the member for Brennan had to say. We even spoke to people during the recess, saying: ‘Isn’t it terrible? ‘What is terrible? That you are opposing it?’ Well, they did not listen to what the man said. They were so desperate to try to extract political advantage from this it makes me suspicious of whether they really had the capacity.
What research has been conducted? Is it true what the member for Brennan said the Chief Minister said: ‘Well, look, I do not know. We do not want to ram anything down your throat, but we are going to have to do this because of the member for Nelson’, and the member for Nelson said: ‘We do not know; it is the government’. These things need to be, not just refuted, but explained.
Then we had the Deputy Chief Minister trying to weave in some other little narrative that it is all about us wanting some money. We want to do the right thing. We believe we need a model, a program, but we have not had any details of this program. Nonetheless, through this debate, I hope we are going to have something far better than the childish response of the Chief Minister and have some arguments, meaningful response and explanation, rather than just the sheer bloody politics of it, so we can be persuaded you are at least taking this seriously.
I look forward to hearing from the member for Nelson. Please persuade us. We need to be persuaded. I have many reasons to find it difficult to come to the view that I can actually support your plan because it appears, on the face of it, judging by the Chief Minister’s contribution, the only research being conducted is polling of the community to see whether they like this so they can give it to them.
I believe we need better than that. Are we going to have some serious response to that which has been outlined by the member for Brennan? At least pay him the courtesy of a response and do not distort what he has stated; that we are willing to enter into this, we are willing to allow you to explain yourselves so we can allow that which has been a long-standing position to progress. It is as simple as that. Let us cut the silly business about this and get on to a real debate so we can get to the point where, through committee stages, we can test this and see whether you are genuine about this.
In fact, I was in a reasonably strong position in my own mind after hearing the member for Brennan. I was thinking, yes, we are right, these are very good questions. Then, when the Chief Minister stood, I thought the he would respond to the questions. You started it, member for Brennan, by saying we have support but we have reservations. I thought fine, those reservations will be put in their right place as the debate continues. I will tell you, those reservations just enlarged after the Chief Minister’s contribution, and made me reconsider.
Member for Johnston, please help us. Persuade us; give us some better insights rather than the sheer politics of this. We are very genuine about this. It has been a long-standing position of the Country Liberals. We want some details - as the member for Brennan said, have a look under the bonnet. Just let us in on it more than the advertisements you have been running in the paper. Tell us a bit more about it: what went on in the past, and how there is a change of position but, most importantly, how it is actually going to work. I would love to give anyone anything they want, but I would like to ensure what I give them is going to be something that delivers on their expectations. Explain how it is going to work. I would like the Treasurer to explain the economics of this. Explain that, because they were good questions that needed answering.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope we can now get the debate back on the right footing it started with, with the member for Brennan - derailed by the Chief Minister who was running wild with this and frightening us all. We now need to get it back on an even keel and let us begin the task of persuading so we can have a genuine response and meet the expectations of people - which the Country Liberals want to do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I can take up some of the advice from the Leader of the Opposition because the member for Brennan’s contribution, except for the odd remark here or there, was well put together. He has put together arguments which, in some cases, are from the beverage industry. That does not make those arguments any more legitimate than if I decided to read the paper, take someone else’s opinion out of it, and use those to ask the government similar questions.
I would like to put the debate back on track. The opposition is the opposition. The opposition’s job is to scrutinise government legislation and this is no different than any other legislation. I would rather take it out of the political spectrum because it is important environmental legislation which will benefit the whole Territory. I could pull apart different speeches by many people in this House over the time I have been here - that will not achieve anything. The issue before us is the legislation, which is the concept of a container deposit scheme and plastic bags.
At the outset I believe the mistake - and I am told this is by the drafting people – is these two bills have been put together. It would have been good to debate each one separately. The member for Brennan discussed plastic bags, which is another area I would like to discuss more fully. With the time I have, considering the importance of the container deposit scheme, we are not going to have enough time.
This is an historical day. Today, the NT will become the second part of Australia to put in place a Cash for Containers scheme, South Australia being the first 35 years ago. I am going to work backwards because of time, and thank those people who have worked tirelessly over many years to see this day happen in the Northern Territory.
I specifically thank Lorna Woods, who ran the Keep Australia Beautiful Council for many years. I have some documentation she wrote in 2002. When you read what she was writing about, you could put it in 2011 – the same issues from the beverage industry; same answers; just a different date. She was a tireless campaigner for bringing in container deposit legislation. She worked with Territory Tidy Towns and knew how important it was to introduce a scheme like this, especially for the remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The beverage industry will talk about kerbside recycling. Anyone who has been to Adelaide and spoken to the councils and the recycling people, kerbside recycling has contributed to increasing recycling rates, not decreasing. There is much hoo-hah about that in the debate and people forget that about 99% of the Northern Territory does not have kerbs anyway.
I read an interesting note from this letter Lorna Woods sent me in 2002 which applies today. One of the things missing in this debate is how much extra it will cost for me to be part of this container deposit scheme. I have no doubt, if the industry does not absorb the price as they do in South Australia, it will cost a certain amount of money – whether it is 4 or 5 extra. We hope the industry will come on board because the Northern Territory is such a small part of the whole sale of beverage containers in Australia; they would not even notice, would not even blink, at the cost. To me, that cost is their contribution to making our community cleaner. They do not do much at the present time.
In the old days when you got your 5 or 10, or shilling, for your bottle, the industry paid you to take their bottle back. Then came the throw away container. In South Australia, you do not take that container directly back to the manufacturer - they do it in a roundabout way. They are not really interested in that. Those products go back to a recycler; they do not go back to the company which used them in the first place for their industry. The forgotten thing is there are cost savings - we have to look at the bigger picture. There are cost savings in landfill.
I come to this argument with a passion developed by many years in local government on Bathurst Island, Daly River, and in Litchfield, seeing the enormous waste of cans and bottles in those communities which were buried and, in many cases, buried at a high cost.
I used to go down to the Humpty Doo landfill site. I could not believe the amount of plastic materials that were buried. That is an expense to the ratepayer; it is not paid for by the industry. They talk about - what are their words? They talk about product – I will get the right name for it - product stewardship. If it was product stewardship, they would be paying for that, not us, not the councils. We pay for landfill, we pay for litter. They do not pay for picking up litter and, unfortunately, that is missed in this debate.
On one side, this may cost more - I hope it does not - and that has to be worked through but, on the other side, there are offsets and that needs to be looked at.
I will read out this article which was done by an independent review of container deposit legislation in New South Wales around 2002:
That report was held secret for a number of weeks before it was actually issued to the public. That is part of a whole range of information out there to show you container deposits will benefit our community.
Lorna Woods should be applauded for the years and years of effort she has put into it.
John Watson, a recycler from South Australia, used to recycle the plastic fronts of cars, where the steering wheel is. He used to recycle that plastic. He released this document on behalf of KAB, which is the self-funding container deposit system. This document was released in 1999. Not a great deal has changed, except the deposit has gone up to 10 and we now do wax-paper cartons. The work has been done. The work was done to show it can work. Of course, people can stand here and say that it will not work. What we need is a group of people, on both sides of parliament and the industry, to say we can make it work. There are too many egos in here, and there are many people who simply see a position that they will not move from.
This is good for the Territory. The industry, if it comes on board, will make it work. I know much is said in public about the industry. I am saying to industry to come on board. The Territory is not a big part of the world; it is a small part. You can make it work, and you can make many changes to many people in remote communities or in the major towns and to our environment if you come on board and help with this. If you deliberately sabotage it, you will be named for doing it. I do not think you need to do that.
I thank Loraine Braham. She introduced a matter of public importance, a motion, and a private member’s bill, which were all defeated in this parliament. She worked tirelessly to introduce legislation in regard to container deposits. I thank her for all her work. She also recognised the importance of container deposits and the benefits to the Northern Territory.
I used to go to local government meetings with the late Andy McNeill. We discussed this time and time again. He was a great supporter of container deposit legislation. Damien Ryan – you only have to go on to the website and find how many containers the Alice Springs council is now recycling. Last year, it was seven million; it is now up to 10 million. This is proof of the pudding. At 5 a can, a council, with the help of the ratepayers and the government, has been able to pull 10 million cans and bottles out of the Alice Springs area’s rubbish. Sometimes, it is hard to believe people do not accept it will work; it just needs the old fashioned motto: where there is a will, there is a way. We have to work together instead of looking at all the negatives.
Jimmy Forscutt from Katherine, was always a great supporter, as was old Merv Myer at the Shoal Bay recycling - I do not think he is there any more. He would hammer you about the importance of container deposits. He is an old South Australian. He used to run the Howard Springs tip occasionally and the Humpty Doo tip, and he ran the Darwin recycling centre for a while, for better or worse. He was a great supporter and always promoted the benefits of the container deposits.
The Local Government Association, in their submission on the National Waste Policy, was a strong supporter. In fact, they said:
We have to remember it is local government which cops all this. It is local government that has to pick up litter and cover up landfill. If you can reduce those costs, you are helping local government. That is what it is about.
The beverage industry wants to keep talking about litter. It might have been that when South Australia put together its legislation. The South Australian legislation was based on the concept of throw away your beverage bottle. It had to be a container that you would find littering. I believe those principles need to be changed a bit because this legislation increases recycling, reduces landfill, and decreases litter. It has a lot more than that original concept which has been pushed much of the time by the beverage industry.
Mr Ian Kiernan of the Clean Up Australia group used not be a supporter of CDL. I remember when it first started I had spoken to him: ‘No, it would not work’. He is now a strong supporter. He has been in the creeks and the gutters and the roads, and has seen how it is something which will change and help the environment. He is not politically aligned with anyone, but he sees the importance.
The Lajamanu residents won the Melaleuca Awards in 2008:
That is from the Power and Water media release.
Believe it or not, way back in the old days, a good friend of mine - it was nice to hear Len Notaras had an old media release going back a fair way, saying the CLP supported the legislation. I thought that was good. I have always regarded Len Notaras as a good friend, and it is nice to see that he also, at that time, supported it. Even Dave Tollner, my colleague who sits next to me - I have a little article out of the NT News on 15 April 2005:
What was new?
It went on:
I know Dave was supporting it. He was supporting it while he was in the federal parliament.
I thank the Chief Minister. He has been a strong supporter of container deposit. As he said, and other comments have been made, the Territory government for a long time was not the greatest supporter. However, on 11 March 2009, much to my delight, they said they were going to introduce a Cash for Containers scheme.
The agreement with me was in August, long after that came into being. You have to read the agreement. It said: ‘… continued commitment to the implementation of a container deposit scheme’. I put it in there because I wanted to ensure the government went along with its own promise. That is what it was about. I was so encouraged that someone at least said they were going to introduce it. I wanted to ensure it kept going. You can read what you like into that but, for me, that is what it was all about.
I also thank the previous minister, Alison Anderson, who was part of the original campaign for getting this project off the ground, and she still is. I went to South Australia with her to look at the recycling depots, to talk to the industry. I have been to South Australia a couple of times. I was taken there amongst a group of Australian Local Government Association representatives quite some years ago. I believe Peter Wood was the New South Wales representative. I went with him and some other representatives on behalf of the beverage industry and we all came back from South Australia absolutely convinced that container deposits was the way to go.
I also thank the present minister, Karl Hampton, who has been a great supporter and has carriage of this legislation. It has not been easy to get to where we are today. I also thank the minister’s staff, especially Andrew Buick who, I suppose, is slightly biased - he is an ex-South Australian I gather. He and his colleagues have done all the hard work in putting this legislation together.
There is a comment the beverage industry made that Gerry Wood really did not have much to do with the legislation. That is dead right; the reason I was here was to push the concept. This legislation has been extremely difficult, the minister will tell you, because of the Constitution. Legislation went through originally; I did not need to see it because the legislation went to those people who are more knowledgeable about legislation. They said that legislation would not stand up, so there has been a great deal of work done to ensure we have legislation that can work.
I regard this legislation as the foundation for container deposits. There is a long way still to go, but it is important legislation. To me, what you need to do is read Division 2 of the legislation, Establishment, waste management arrangements and CDS principles. I will read it:
(1) This Part establishes a container deposit scheme (the CDS) that includes the following features:
(a) prohibiting the sale in the Territory of regulated containers unless they are approved containers;
(c) the approval of operators of collection depots and persons carrying on business as CDS coordinator;
(d) imposing conditions on the approvals to ensure the reuse, recycling, or other appropriate disposal of returned containers;
(e) waste management arrangements that give effect to the CDS principles.
(2) The CDS does not require beverage retailers to:
I have heard people say: ‘Are you going to be able to take it back to the shop?’ In South Australia there are a few people, I gather, who are still retailers who take them back; they are a depot and a retailer. In general, the recycling depots are spread throughout Adelaide.
Clause 11 talks about the waste management arrangement:
(1) A waste management arrangement is an arrangement made by the CDS participants for:
(1) For achieving the object of this Act, the Minister must develop principles for ensuring effective, efficient and equitable waste management arrangements ...
(a) manufacturers, distributors and beverage retailers of the regulated containers; and
(c) consumers of beverages in regulated containers.
(3) The principles must deal with the following matters:
(a) The responsibilities of CDS participants in managing the collection, reuse, recycling, or other appropriate disposal of regulated containers in a cost effective and efficient way including, for example, by:
(ii) minimising costs to consumers and CDS participants while at the same time providing business opportunities and maximising benefits to the community and industry;
And it goes on.
There are some basic principles there which will be the foundation for how this program works. There are some important things in here which I believe are good. It talks about how the refund will be paid and also says ‘collection depot to pay refund amount for empty containers’. It makes a note - and it probably would have been nice if this was a ‘must’ – in clause 18:
That highlights one of the difficulties with this legislation. We have had to follow the South Australian model, and it would be nice if some things it has in it were not there, because there are some inefficiencies in it. The process where all the products come back to get sorted and, then, the product has to go to the people who actually own the product, gets really messy.
Also, South Australia has certain goods which collect the deposit. If you get on to the web, you will find a guide to the containers which collect a refund. In containers up to and including 3 litres, there can be carbonated soft drink, beers, ale, stouts, water, wine-based and spirit-based beverages - any beverage that contains wine or spirituous liquor plus additional ingredients or flavours. This can include but is not limited to fruit-flavoured wine, wine coolers, ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages and alcohol beverages derived from the fermentation of fruit. In containers less than one litre, it can be flavoured milk and pure juice.
In the case of flavoured milk, you get 10 back for iced coffee, but you cannot get 10 back for plain milk. That is silly because some have argued some do not drink milk, they only drink iced coffee. You take your milk home and put it in the fridge. I do not know about that. One advantage of us being uniform with South Australia is that, hopefully, we can talk to South Australia and ask if we can put some of these particular beverages on the deposit scheme so you increase the amount of recycling.
I hope the industry will come on board. I believe if the NT is successful, Tasmania - which is looking at it right now - and Western Australia might come back to the fold. Western Australia was just about to bring it in when there was a change of government - funny thing. Tasmania is certainly looking at it at the moment.
That is the big fear from the beverage industry; they do not want a national campaign. That is what this is all about. I heard the discussion about a national container scheme being looked at. I say that Peter Garrett will be back playing on the last night of the last concert of Midnight Oil before we get anywhere close to having a national container scheme. The reason is the power of the beverage industry.
I will give you an example. This is the Keep Australia Beautiful Northern Territory document that was sent to me. Basically, it says if the government introduces CDL they will lose funding under product stewardship. This is what it says:
Which is packaging stewardship forum:
Which is this book I have here which they send out to councils to try to get them to clean up areas. It is not a bad book, do not get me wrong:
Why is it jeopardy? Because the beverage industry threatened - and I think they might have done it by now - to withdraw funds from KAB if this legislation was brought before this House. I have lived under that. If you want to you can call it tyranny. I was a member of the Territory Anti-litter Committee for years. The government, at that time, received $200 000 to $250 000 for anti-litter campaigns based on the unwritten - you would not find it anywhere but you knew when you went to a meeting – belief that CDL would not be introduced in the Northern Territory. That is why it has been so hard for it to be introduced in the major states. Ask how many KABs in other states are funded heavily by the beverage industry and why some actually have a completely different point of view than Lorna Woods when she was in KAB, because they are a very powerful lobby group.
I met with them and had good discussions with Lion Nathan – two good meetings. I said I am willing to look at product stewardship, but I do not believe it will work in the Northern Territory, at least at the moment. It might work in some sophisticated community where they are all very much all green and everything is ‘we will work together’. It will not pick up the rubbish outside on the road near the Howard Springs Tavern, and it will not pick up the rubbish in Kintore. That is what this does, not the product stewardship.
I have said to the industry: ‘If you want product stewardship, you take over the councils because then you will pay the cost of the litter pick-ups and the landfill recycling’. Of course, they will not do that. If you really ask yourself what this product stewardship is all about, it is an excuse for the industry to get out of being responsible for their products. They will pull out the charts - I have seen them all - and show you most litter is cigarette butts and straws. However, the one you have to see from a council’s point of view is the one by volume; that is, bottles and cans. If you walk into a landfill - have a look even in Darwin, I bet you – you will see how many bottles and cans. Two litre bottles with the top on them take up a lot of space in landfill. It costs a lot of money to bury all that.
The reality is, yes, there is a lot of litter. I will put it on record now and I have said it to the beverage industry: the original reason they gave me why they did not support this is because it was discriminatory. I said I would be happy to see it on more products. I do not know why it cannot be on jam jars, liquid soap containers, pesticides and herbicides, batteries - materials that usually get put in the tip. Why could it not be on that? In some of that deposit is a certain amount to transport it to a recycling place down south or overseas.
I believe it is the way to clean up a lot of our landfill. Some places in Australia have a target of zero landfill. I remember George Brown saying years ago at a local government meeting that he wanted to see zero landfill. At the moment, that is a very hard thing to do. By putting a value on product, you do not need to have the bleeding heart. That is good, but you will get more success from something that is value in the pocket; that is the way humans are. Why are recycling rates higher in South Australia than New Zealand? Why are they higher in South Australia for container products than any other state? Because of a combined herbicide and container deposit scheme.
The member for Brennan talked about distance - and distance is a problem. It is a problem for people who live at Oodnadatta, Ceduna, or on Kangaroo Island where you have to take things across by barge. However, nothing is insurmountable. When this was first being discussed, they looked at that. They had a deal with Perkins at the time to bring all product back to Darwin free. I am not saying Perkins might stick with that now, but they might. This is part of what has to happen after this legislation goes through. There has to be negotiations.
They say people will have to travel into a town. Of course they will travel into a town because the footy is on. So, you load up the car with all the empties, head into town, and get your money back - probably enough money to buy, hopefully, the fuel to take you home again. Do people live out there and do not travel? They do travel, and when the grocery truck goes out to a community, it goes back empty. So, you have to look at this from a point of view, not the hypothetical, but the practical on-ground approach. That will require a clever person who takes this over - and I hope it is industry - to negotiate those things with communities and transport companies. If there is a will, there will be a way to make this work, and it will be great.
Little kids out in those communities will get some entrepreneurial skills they probably never had in their life. They will make some money out of picking up the rubbish, and they will have a cleaner town than they have ever had. We will have less landfill on those communities and more recycling. The person who collects all that material will also get the benefit of larger volumes of recyclable materials, because there are a number of ways in which this particular program is funded. People have to realise that is part of this …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Johnston. I am reading from John Watson’s report. People have asked where the money will come from. There are a couple of things. First of all, there is the levy. There is also container losses. That is important, even in South Australia. A percentage of containers never come back, and that is known in South Australia. In fact, that is why they increased it from 5 to 10, because they thought they could increase the returns. That money goes into a fund, and can be used to help run the program.
You also have to remember that the sale of materials is important. I have already had a couple of recycling companies ring me up - they are not going to get up in public and say they love it. I had brought to my attention an advertisement in the Tennant Creek & District Times which says it is good to recycle scrap metal, say, aluminium cans. It says in the ad:
One of the issues you can never get the industry to find a clear argument against is the fact that aluminium cans are the perfect example of cash for cans. You get a percentage - I do not know – 0.5 per can, it is done by weight. In fact, every can weighs the same. You take your cans to the Scouts, to the recycling depot, and you will get paid for them. That is why aluminium cans are the highest recycled beverage container in the Northern Territory; because they are valuable. Is anyone saying: ‘Oh, it costs a lot to get there’? I did not hear about that. People go to the recycling depot or the Scouts and they get money. That is what this is about. If you add money and value to the plastic, waste paper, and glass, you will get those products back. That, to me, is one of the major things we are doing here: getting those products back.
Why should we slave to a philosophy - and it is - of the throwaway society: if we want to fix it then we have to pay for it, not the industry. You have to remember, the industry once was reusable. It made a bottle that was used time and time again. I remember going to the Coca-Cola factory when I was a kid, seeing all those poor people sitting in front of bottles all day, watching them to see there were no rats, mice and cracks in them. We reused all the glasses and we got money for them. No one complained about that. Remember, it was not a tax, it was a deposit, a refund - you name it. We got money and you then bought more drinks.
Then along came the plastic one-way containers. Of course, the industry thought it was great; they did not have to have big bottling machines, did not have to wash them, did not have to pick them up in the crates. They did not have to do any of that; it was great. Where does all the litter end up? In the streams, out in the harbour, in the rubbish, everywhere. People slowly realised and said: ‘Hey, this is no good’. South Australia, of course, got in a bit earlier, because its scheme has been going longer than plastic bottles. It kept a scheme that many of other states had. It kept it current and converted it into modern beverage containers. That is where Australia should have gone but, unfortunately, big industry got in first.
I wrote some notes about some of the issues the member for Brennan mentioned. I will say again: his contribution was excellent. I did not agree with all of it but, if I am going to sit here and hope people say nice things about me, I will be waiting until hell freezes over. That is all right, I am not that touchy. I had some other notes here. I expect the opposition to question it. I would ask them: ‘How come you have not challenged some of the issues in here?’. I believe it is good you do; it would make better legislation. After all, that is what the job of opposition is.
I also hope - and I have not spoken to government about it - with the regulations we ensure there is a regulatory committee. I hope some of that information that is coming regarding what the regulations will be, will be available to all of us to look at. I do not know what those regulations will be, and it would be nice to see what they are about. Naturally, I will support it.
I will thank people like Lorna Woods until the day the cows come home, because of the effort she and people like John Watson have made. Whilst I am a strong supporter, I am not the person who wants his name attached to this scheme - not because I am scared of it, but because that would be immodest and wrong. There are other people who have worked very hard to make this legislation work, such as Damien Ryan. He has introduced a scheme. All right, he has had his issues about litter with licensing outlets and so on, but he is trying to do something. To introduce a container scheme and recycle 10 million containers was fantastic. He also has a glass crushing machine, so they are putting their glass into the roads there. Actions speak louder than words, as Damien would say, and it is fantastic.
I could go on, but I need to spend some time on the plastic bags. Member for Brennan, I have spoken before about the Irish model. I agree with it. I am not sure the Territory government can put a tax on a plastic …
Mr Chandler: No, a donation.
Mr WOOD: That may be the case. The Irish model has been around for quite a while now; it may be 10 years, I am not sure. In one year, it went from X number of plastic bags to about 10% of that figure. There was about a 90% reduction because they charged for it. The fault has always been that we have allowed businesses to give plastic bags away free. If you said they are not allowed to give them away free, people would think twice about taking a handful of them; it is not rocket science. The companies want you to have plastic bags free because they want you going to the shop and carrying as many goods out of there as you can. You have not come in with a bag in the first place, so it is for convenience. You pay for it, of course. It would be 0.0001 per bag, which would be added on to the cost of the product. They do not do anything for nothing.
I believe companies such as Bunnings - even before Bunnings, one of my favourite supermarkets, Rite Price at Nightcliff, used to have all the cardboard boxes out the front. You could not have that in Coles and Woolies because that would spoil their image. Mr Milhinhos used to put all the boxes out the front; you saw them, you grabbed one and put all your goods in them. He was one of the first to get away from plastic bags. Bunnings – fantastic - you do not expect a plastic bag when you go to Bunnings ...
Mr Elferink: They were doing that before there were plastic bags, mate. He was doing that when there were paper bags.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was good. It is only because of image that some of the big companies like Woolies and Coles do not do it. Who else? Target - great, but Target has corn bags. I think they are biodegradable bags. I would have preferred to see that system. That means you do not get something for free but, if you still wanted to use it as your rubbish bag, you paid for it. It was not a product which was just given out willy-nilly. It goes somewhere towards doing that, I suppose. We are saying plastic is a problem; we will put a biodegradable plastic bag out there. I am not sure that it stops it from being unsightly if you have to wait for it to break down, or for the termites or whatever eats corn bags to get rid of it. It is still floating around, but I suppose it will not be there for a long time because it is made of different material.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support both parts of the legislation. I think they should have been done separately. I would like to keep a watching brief on the bags. I want to see if it is actually going to work. If I still see bags floating around the countryside, then I do not think you have solved the problem. You might look at it again and say that plastic bags should have some sort of charge. If you do not buy one, you will not be a cause of litter. Even corn bags can be a form of litter if they are left to float around.
With that, I again thank the member for Brennan for his contribution. I thank other members. I hope people on both sides can take this as a serious debate about a serious issue that needs a good commonsense approach. We want the best legislation, the best for the Territory, and the best for the environment out of this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, so the scuttlebutt is not put out there that I am opposing this, I would like to say I shall not be opposing this nor shall this side of the House be opposing this.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister took that position because of a few critical questions asked by the member for Brennan. All of a sudden, he is announcing that we are opposing this and is trotting out some arrangement we have with the packaging industry of funding into the future. That is arrant nonsense! It is, essentially, nothing more than a lie for any person to come into this place and articulate that thought. The government was, obviously, of the impression, for some reason, that this side of the House would be opposing this legislation and started trotting out rumours yesterday. I was reading about it in the newspaper today because of the rumours circulating yesterday about some arrangement that had been reached. Nonsense!
However, that does not prevent this side of the House asking a few critical questions about this container deposit legislation that is before the House at the moment - and so we should because it is not inconceivable that, if what the liquor industry is saying as one of its arguments is correct, this legislative instrument may actually be struck down at some point by a court in the future.
I heard the interjections from the Leader of Government Business this morning to the member for Brennan, asking: ‘Where did you get that information from?’ when the member for Brennan raised the issue of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. Clearly, the minister was aware of the particular issue. What I am concerned about, at this point, is if we proceed down this path recklessly, the very things the government and the member for Nelson are saying they are trying to achieve may be undermined by the argument the packaging industry is putting forward.
Let us remove, for one second, the issue that the packaging industry has made these comments and put it to one side. Let us look at the argument they have actually raised themselves. It is an issue that, potentially, could undermine this legislative instrument. One of the issues that has come from the industry is in relation to the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. I really would like the minister to pay attention to these issues because it is something that has direct bearing on the viability of this arrangement. I will join the dots shortly as to how this argument runs.
If the packaging industry is successful in running an action - I presume in the federal court - trying to strike down this legislation based on the argument they have run, then they will have the effect of running a shiver up the spine of every other jurisdiction that is contemplating this sort of legislation. Unseemly haste may actually result in an outcome which is the very opposite of that which members of government, the member for Nelson and so many other people – Lorna Woods and all those other people we have heard about - have been trying to achieve.
The argument goes like this. In 1992, I presume through a COAG arrangement, all the jurisdictions became part of an agreement which saw the federal government passing a legislative instrument called the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. I will now quote from that act, section 9, Entitlement to sell goods:
I will not read out the whole of section 10, but I will read out section 10(b) which goes like this:
…
(b) a requirement that the goods satisfy the standards of the second State relating to the way the goods are presented, including, for example, requirements relating to their packaging, labelling, date stamping or age.
The requirement of this form of legislation is, if you look at any can you buy at the moment in this company, it has a little mark down the side, ‘redeemable deposit 10 in South Australia’. The argument runs that the requirement to change that label will breach the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This is the complicating factor. The reason it is a problem is we, in the Northern Territory, as at 23 June 1993, adopted the federal government’s Mutual Recognition Act 1992 in its entirety down to the last comma into Northern Territory legislation, as has every other jurisdiction. This is where the complications start.
The problem you have, in this instance, is to change the requirements of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 - and I have to pause here quickly. The reason the South Australian act does not apply is because in Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, the South Australian legislation is exempt by virtue of the fact that it existed prior to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. There is quite a number of acts that are exempt from this legislation. The current legislation under debate will not be exempt under Schedule 2 unless it is introduced to Schedule 2. This is something we have to pay attention to, because you are then stuck with a particular problem which is: you cannot change Schedule 2 under the terms of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 unless the Governor-General – that is, acting in counsel - has the agreement of each Governor or Administrator from each jurisdiction which is a signatory to this legislation - which is every jurisdiction. In short, the way this operates is the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and its schedules cannot be changed unless every jurisdiction signs off on that change.
I will happily stand corrected on this but, if that is true, then what happens if one jurisdiction refuses to allow this required change to the schedule? The only other vehicle under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 is the temporary vehicle where you are allowed, for environmental reasons, to set aside the purposes of the act for a period not exceeding 12 months. I am not sure if it is from the day of passage of legislation or the day it receives assent, or the day it begins operation. I seek guidance on that. However, the bill before the House is meant to be a permanent arrangement.
The packaging industry could well begin actions. I presume the reason they are so aggressively defending these positions is because there are big dollars involved. We are talking tens of millions on a national basis. We have heard that Tasmania is flirting with the idea, New South Wales perhaps, Western Australia had a look at it; they are possibly looking at it now, I do not know. However, there is a potential cascade of states that are looking at going down this path. So, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars. The packaging industry will be more than happy to stump up the few hundred thousand dollars for lawyers fees if we are talking about tens of millions of dollars-worth of outcome, and they will fight it.
If the argument the packaging industry is referring to is correct, then this legislation is potentially challengeable. What greater calamity could befall the CDL process in this country - that process of other governments looking at it – than if one government who goes out on a limb, tries it on, and comes unstuck. It will be huge egg on face for the government of the day. I am not trying to be nasty, but please understand the political consequences if it turns out the legislative instrument we try to pass today is struck down because it does not comply with the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
Other governments will run away from it - too hard, too painful. If you cannot get every other jurisdiction to sign up to this so the Governor-General can give it a tick to add this legislative instrument to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 then, again, the potential of this legislative instrument to fail is substantial. This is the next place where the packaging industry is going to be coming from.
I want to hear from government specific reassurances in relation to these specific issues. Have you spoken to the other jurisdictions - and I mean all other jurisdictions - to ensure you have their guaranteed support for the changing of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992? If not, what steps will you be taking in order to ensure that such agreement is confirmed? The third question is: why have you chosen to go down this path, potentially prematurely, if you have not secured the required support from other jurisdictions? Fourth, are you going to be relying on the 12-month moratorium, if you like, allowed under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 to sustain life in this legislation if you are doing those negotiations? Fifth, have you considered at the very outset - in fact, this should be the first question - the implications of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, or was it overlooked? If it was overlooked, why?
I would like those questions answered. If it has not been overlooked, then I seek the government supplies to this House a detailed response, even if it is a written one, tabled in a legal advice or whatever – fine. However, it would be calamitous for the future of CDL in this country if, because of an oversight or because of haste, the process of pushing this legislative instrument through has led to a result which is contrary to that which the government desires.
As I said at the outset, I will not be opposing this legislative instrument, but what I will do, and continue to do as a member of this House, is ask critical questions as they arise. This issue has been raised by the packaging industry, but it stands alone as an issue in its own right - not because it is their issue. Upon examining the legislative instruments - and I have not read the whole of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 from cover to cover - I think I have covered all the essential components. If you have covered all of this stuff, then I would like to see some evidence of it. If the evidence is available and you have covered all of these issues, and it has been raised and thought about, if you table that material we may not even need to go into the committee stage. I am mindful of the time.
That is my contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to the government’s response.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this legislation and congratulate the government and the minister, and also the department. It is fantastic legislation. As the member for Nelson said, the members for Fannie Bay and Nelson and I took a trip to South Australia to have a look at the CDL in South Australia and had a fantastic briefing from the Environment minister’s office of the South Australian government.
I pick up on some things the member for Brennan said about freight, mostly to Indigenous communities. We know that freight is a little more expensive for drinks in our communities, but this is a great opportunity for our Indigenous kids to be picking up cans and earning a bit of money for schools and sporting clubs and, at the same time, cleaning the environment. It is also protecting the environment because we have huge problems with plastic bags in our communities, as the member for Stuart will tell you. If you go to some of the communities you will see plastic bags hanging on trees and it looks like Christmas every day. Cans are usually a big problem. Member for Brennan, we know that the freight cost of drinks in remote Aboriginal communities is a little dearer, but this is a fantastic opportunity for kids to have after-school jobs to pick up cans and get a little pocket money so they can have the lollies, chips, and drinks again.
It is a great opportunity for sporting organisations in remote Aboriginal communities to pick the cans up and put the money towards a community bus. These are the great opportunities this legislation gives to Indigenous people in communities.
I will talk about the environment. If you go into remote Aboriginal communities, apart from the plastic bags, there are always cans lying around. I went to a sports weekend, and I will not say which community it was. To make sure, I put my initials on a plastic bottle and, the next year when I went back, that plastic bottle was still there. The rubbish continues to stay there. This is a great opportunity for the communities to get cleaned up.
Have a look at our rivers - the member for Stuart will tell you that in his electorate he has the large Napperby Creek, and there is the Derwent River. Sometimes, all those rivers and creeks are clogged with plastic bags and cans. This is the greatest opportunity to save the environment. I have to refer to the Chief Minister because he made a valid point when he made his contribution to this legislation and said we all have a duty of care to the environment. The environment is something we should cherish, enjoy, and protect at the same time. It is a legacy we will leave behind for our children and our great-grandchildren. They will test us by what they see in the future. What have we done to save the environment?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister, the department, and the government for going ahead with this legislation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, what has changed? I was Environment minister in 2003 when, as the member for Nelson said, there were various propositions brought forward by KAB, etcetera, which I did not endorse. At that stage, government did not endorse those positions. I will come back to the reasons for that soon.
I commend the member for Nelson. I also commend the member for Macdonnell who was Environment minister when a committee was formed of members of this parliament, consisting of her, and the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay. An invitation was given to the member for Brennan to be part of that committee and, from memory - I might stand corrected - the member for Brennan declined it.
Mr Chandler: Wrong, the opportunity was taken away.
Dr BURNS: My recollection is that you were offered a chance to be on that committee. You may want to clarify that by personal explanation. Ample opportunity was given to the opposition to engage in this process when the member for Macdonnell was Environment minister, but they declined. I do not think they wanted to be fully engaged in this process, although they maintain they have had a consistent position of support for CDL. That frames the opposition’s response in parliament today regarding the CDL legislation.
The member for Blain asked a direct question of me regarding what has changed from 2003. I am more than happy to place on the public record, once again, the concerns I had and put forward in this parliament in 2003. To some degree, they revolve around what the member for Brennan said about the Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, which is a ministerial council of Heritage and Environment ministers across all Australian jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth.
At that stage, in 2003, nearly eight or nine years ago, the ministerial council was moving towards having national container deposit legislation. I was a very new minister and I had a good deal of confidence the ministerial council would move along that path. I felt that was the best path to have nationally consistent legislation. Unfortunately, member for Brennan, that has not occurred and, as a government and as evidenced by the committee that was formed in March 2009 - long before we had an agreement with the member for Nelson about being in minority government - to move container deposit legislation forward.
Government was signalling it was more than happy to look at this issue again. I also place on the public record that I was concerned about another issue you raised here today about how CDL would work in remote settings. Basically, I thought there might have been some issues of its workability and efficiency in remote areas. Since that time, there has been extensive work done within government, and in the submissions that have come back to government on CDL. As a Cabinet member, I can say it was an issue I raised at the outset with the minister as he continued the work that had been started by the member for Macdonnell when she was minister. I was, and am, satisfied about the workability of CDL in remote areas.
I hope I have placed on the public record some of the history in relation to this as honestly and as straightforwardly as I can. There has been a change in stance of government on CDL, and I have explained some of that history. I have commended the member for Macdonnell. I do not commend her very often about things, but I do in this case. It was a strong stance she took and, with the member for Nelson and the former member for Braitling, Loraine Braham, was very passionate on this issue. She used to buttonhole me when I was minister and put that case forward.
Lorna Woods is another person who really pushed this issue. As the member for Nelson said, there are quite a number of people who have been very passionate about this. Some have departed, such as poor George Brown, who was also a staunch supporter of CDL.
I will try to answer some of the questions which have been put forward by the members for Brennan and Port Darwin about concerns the opposition has about container deposit legislation. Sometimes, we find reasons not to support something. My wife said something to me in relation to the kids when they were little: ‘Why say no when you can say yes?’ That is a pretty good motto because, sometimes as parents we say, ‘No, you cannot do that. No, you are not allowed to do that’, when we could be saying yes. We find all the reasons in the world why something cannot be done. I really have that sense about the opposition in a number of their concerns related to container deposit legislation.
I am reminded of the scripture in Matthew 23:24 when the good Lord was talking about the scribes and Pharisees. He said something like: ‘You strain at a gnat and you swallow a camel’. What that scripture is all about, and what he was saying to the scribes and Pharisees is you are worried about the minutiae. You find all these things that are wrong in the minutiae, but you forget the main game. The main game is there is much public support - nearly 80% public support - for the introduction of container deposit legislation so it is incumbent on government to try to support that public support.
As legislators, we have responsibilities to ensure the legislation and the regulations are right. Sometimes we have to push through, member for Brennan. I know a few times, as minister, I have been told by departments: ‘No, minister, you cannot do that’. However, as I test that against what the public want and expect of government and the way things are run, sometimes you just have to cut through and really try to deliver for people what they expect. It cannot happen all the time, but we should be mindful of that.
I will try to answer some of the questions you have raised. Just before I do that, in relation to the member for Nelson, I note, on 27 April 2009, there was an article in the NT News and you were talking about Gerry Wood:
Well, don’t we all?
I am afraid to say, member for Brennan, whilst many of the questions you have asked are valid questions, they are questions that have been posed by the food, beverage and liquor industries. One gets the sense you have been constrained in your position on this particular issue by a decision within the party room about what you might say and do.
This morning when there were children in the gallery and you were talking about all the concerns and why you think it would not work, I was wondering what those children were thinking because, at the level of those children, they would endorse container deposit legislation. They would see the wisdom of it, the plainness of it. It has worked well in South Australia for many years - that is an important element - as it has in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister read out the quote from Damien Ryan that says:
Damien certainly laid it on the record. I understand at Lajamanu also there has been up to 70% return rate on their recycling, which is extraordinary for a remote community. There are places in the Northern Territory where it is working.
One of the questions you asked was in relation to how it is working in the remote regions in South Australia. I have a document I would like to table, member for Brennan, showing some 80-odd depots across the state of South Australia, many of them in very remote areas. Attached to that is a table about the locations. The advice I had is it is working well in remote South Australia. I am sure there are plenty of challenges associated with it, but it is something that is working in South Australia.
I will try to turn to your speech, member for Brennan, regarding the questions you asked. In the time I have had, I have tried to annotate your speech and answer some of the questions as best I can. You said the legislation is underpinned by regulations we have not seen; mechanics have not been ironed out; costings have not been provided. I believe the minister will go into some detail about this.
Of course, the regulations will be developed in consultation with the community and industry, I would say with some differences. The minister outlined those in his second reading speech regarding some of the differences with the South Australian scheme, member for Brennan. I have it here. He talked about some of the differences. He talked about the responsibilities of participants in managing the collection, reuse, recycling or other disposal of regulated containers in a cost-effective efficient way; the provision of reasonable access to collection depots throughout the Northern Territory; the establishment of a standard and transparent process for receiving and paying refunds and handling costs, including those processed in bulk; a dispute resolution process for participants; and an accountable and transparent monitoring process. What the minister said in his second reading speech is he wants to be consultative, he wants government to be consultative, and the development of what is required regarding any differences between the Northern Territory and South Australia will focus on those elements I have just talked about.
You talked about the costings not being provided. There has been endless debate, member for Brennan, about the costings. Of course, industry has its spin on the costings. The member for Nelson mentioned a number of reports he has received regarding how this particular program would work economically. At one point in your speech, you mentioned it was even misleading regarding the amount it would take to actually recycle those containers in the more remote places in the Northern Territory. You talked about an NRETAS report; how they commissioned the Centre for Appropriate Technologies to look at the handling of fees associated with container deposit in three remote communities. The study found that handling fees between 16 and 31 per container would be required. The industry, as I understand it, member for Brennan, has used those figures of 16 to 31 and almost said that would be the cost right across the Northern Territory.
I understand the costs across the Territory, averaged out to some degree, would be somewhere between 2 and 5. That is the information I have. In relation to that figure of 16 to 31 cost was about stand-alone voluntary schemes in remote communities. That is a big difference from those communities participating in a whole-of-Territory scheme. Whilst those costs may be reflected in the voluntary scheme on three remote communities, you have to remember there is actually going to be a network, a scheme right across the Territory, and those costs will not be anything like that. That was an issue you raised. I am trying to address your issues. I am sure the minister, in his closing remarks, will also talk about it.
You talked about your trip to New Zealand and you have placed on the public record, member for Brennan, that you paid for your own fare and, I assume, your accommodation and sustenance while you were there. Well done, member for Brennan, and well done for you for doing that research in New Zealand. My understanding from what you are saying is you did not receive any support from any external source for your trip to New Zealand for your travel, accommodation, and sustenance.
You talked about what you saw in New Zealand. You saw it, I did not. I would like to talk to you sometime about what you did see in New Zealand. However, it is my understanding the stewardship program in New Zealand only refers to glass weights. Our container deposit refers to quite a number of things other than glass. We only have to walk around our major centres to see the whole gamut of container waste that is here.
I must confess there is one major issue I am concerned about if we bring in container deposit legislation. I do not want to see Trevor, the rubbish warrior, out of a job, because he does a fantastic job. I am sure Trevor would love a lot of assistance out on the road. I place on the public record that he is a very special person and I think he is much loved by Darwin people. We all appreciate Trevor and his efforts. He is a bit different but, then, so are many Territorians. It will be great to see a few other community people collecting waste, and not just Trevor on his lonesome.
You raised constitutional issues in relation to section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution and the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as did the member for Port Darwin. I will read the briefing notes I have been given into the Parliamentary Record:
The member for Port Darwin asked us to table the legal advice. I do not have the legal advice here, but I would be very reticent and advise the minister against tabling any legal advice. The member for Port Darwin said himself the beverage industry is red hot on this. If there was some sort of legal battle, why would you telegraph your detailed position and advice to them and give them a leg up? I do not think, as a government, we should be doing that. It is not a very wise tactical move; it is a bit like a football coach sending his game plan to the opposition. That is something I advise against, but I can assure the House we have received highly credentialed legal advice to that effect.
The member for Brennan raised the issue, as did the member for Port Darwin, about the mutual recognition legislation. The member for Port Darwin gave some of the background of that legislation. Once again, I will read the advice I have been given. Basically, it is not correct that it will contravene the legislation:
That specific exemption, as I understand it, has been secured for the South Australian CDL scheme.
That is the advice we have had and I do not think it is advice we will be tabling. We have a great deal of confidence, and I challenge the beverage industry to make a legal battle out of this. I challenge Kate Carnell and all the heavies of the beverage industry to get into court and see how far they get with the Australian public, because we know this is a very popular measure. The beverage industry should be thinking very carefully about where they stand with the Australian public. They do not want to be labelled, like the tobacco industry, as being absolutely recalcitrant, only looking at their bottom line, flying in the face of a public opinion, and using all sorts of lobbying techniques to save their bottom line. It would be a decision for the beverage industry, but they also have to think about their public face. I do not think it will be a good look for them to be challenging this legislation. But, then, who knows?
That is the legal advice. The member went on at quite some length about the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, but I have encapsulated the legal advice we have had access to.
There was one edgy bit in the member for Brennan’s contribution, and that is when he talked about a meeting of the Chief Minister with, I think it was the liquor industry - was it? Between industry and the Chief Minister. I assume it is probably the liquor industry, but it could be the beverage industry. You asserted that you had heard the Chief Minister had made certain statements which he has vehemently denied, and took some offence - a bit the same as you took offence at the inference that the beverage industry may have paid your fares and accommodation to New Zealand. So, we should just leave that there. The Chief Minister has given the assurance that he has not said any such thing. So, just the same as we accept what you say, member for Brennan, we accept what the Chief Minister has said.
You asked some specific questions also about the modelling on the number of collection depots that will be required for its Cash for Containers scheme. Where will these collection depots be located? How far will the average household have to travel to redeem their deposit? It is probably pretty hard to say what an average household is in the Northern Territory. We probably have a few average households depending on where you live. What will it cost to run these collection depots? At what rate will container collection depots be paid in handling fees? There were four issues you raised, member for Brennan.
I am advised many of the issues you have raised will be encapsulated and captured within the regulations under this legislation. It is also fair to say the people who will be running these collection depots - it will be a business. There will be a process by which people tender or put in an expression of interest. I am not going to foreshadow or say any more on that because that will be a competitive process, and so it should be, subject to commercial-in-confidence.
Another issue you raised was about the good old days, the nostalgic days - and so did the member for Blain - about getting your bottles and going to the shop and getting a refund. In my case, it was threepence. I do not know what it was when you were young. That is probably going a fair way back. Threepence could buy a hell of a lot of lollies. I had my favourites, but I will not bore the parliament. They were usually the ones that lasted a long time. I liked the jujubes, the hot ones, as well. The dentist probably loved it for all sorts of reasons.
You talked about that being an arrangement where industry was keen to get their bottles back so they could sterilise them and reuse them. Of course, the economics of that industry, to some degree, has changed. It is important to place on the record, member for Brennan, that, at the end of the day, it will be industry that will be front and centre in our container deposit scheme, as it is in South Australia. Industry will be front and centre in this, and I hope industry will change their stance and be cooperative, to a large degree.
I just had a memory of my past, member for Brennan. When I was a university student, I actually worked in a glass factory making beer bottles. That is just a little aside. There you go. I have done my bit for Australia in bottles.
You have asked many questions about super collectors. I might leave those answers to the minister. Basically, there are many questions you have asked. I have tried to cover the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, which is an interesting group. As a government, we decided, to some degree, things were not progressing very well at a national level, and we were just going to push through on container deposit legislation. I believe the public is demanding of us that we do it. We have made a commitment.
I do not have much more to say. The Chief Minister certainly made quite a number of political points, and I am not going to repeat them, except to say that it is disappointing the opposition is not wholeheartedly supporting this legislation. The opposition has made commitments in the past and said they supported container deposit legislation. However, when push has come to shove, I do not see wholesome support. I do not see them standing up and saying: ‘This is great; let us do it’. I see reluctance in this, and a political position they are taking in relation to this so they are not getting offside with the 80% of people who want it. By the same token, they have obviously been visited and leaned on by the beverage industry and others, and are trying to have two bob each way to some extent. That is disappointing.
We have seen, as the Chief Minister said, your changing position over the Angela Pamela uranium mine out of Alice Springs. It is going to be interesting to see how the Leader of the Opposition is going to traverse the two positions the party now has. He has come out and said during the by-election campaign: ‘We oppose it’, even though, weeks before, I understand he was trying to organise industry meetings and telling the industry how much support he was going to give them. Suddenly, the political reality – a by-election – and he came out and said: ‘We do not support the mine’, supporting the member for Greatorex who, I understand, is quite nervous about the green vote in his electorate. Then, at the Central Council meeting, he was rolled where the party is talking about supporting the mine. It is going to be interesting to see how the member for Blain straddles these two contradictory positions. I am never amazed too much at this sort of thing. It is going to be interesting; it is going to be a political highwire act for the member for Blain. It is going to test him out a bit. We are going to watch that very carefully.
The public has a reason to be sceptical about the opposition. They promise one thing one day and then flip over on the next. They need to be careful about their record. Trying to be a low target in the last 12 to 18 months before an election maybe is not going to get them there.
I really hope the debate from here on is constructive; that we are not going to have a silly time in committee as we had with the pool legislation, where the whole world was going to fall over because we were having pool fences. But, it saved lives. It has saved lives; it was positive. So, let us have a sensible committee stage debate.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is great to hear the member for Johnston having a bit of a rant, mulling over a few things that may or may not be. He says we are not offering this wholesome support; he senses some sort of reluctance. I have to say it is probably a correct assessment by the member for Johnston - certainly on my part anyhow.
I put on the record right now that I support this bill, because this bill is a concept. I have been on the record in the past saying I support the concept. In this regard, I am happy to support this bill because I am supporting the concept - and that is all it is at this stage, simply a concept. We are buying a pig in a poke. For my part, my wholesome support for container deposit legislation in years gone by leads me to want to support this bill and to put some faith in the government that this concept will develop into a reality and a workable policy. That is the hope of everyone in this Chamber.
A couple of people in this place have talked about my support for CDL in the past. As I said, it is true: I have supported CDL in the past. In fact, when I was the federal member, I went to the 2004 election using CDL as one of the platforms for my re-election. At the time, we had the support of the federal minister, Ian Campbell. I took the minister to talk to people all over Darwin and, most importantly, Lorna Woods. After several discussions with Lorna and the KAB mob, we managed to convince the minister it was a worthwhile thing to do; put in place a pilot program in the Northern Territory to see whether we could get it to work. It is one of the great embarrassments of my political career that, upon being re-elected, the then Environment minister, Ian Campbell, reneged on that commitment. I am highly embarrassed about that. I am highly supportive of the concept of CDL, have been for a very long time and I felt very much betrayed and let down by the minister. So much so, it became very difficult to look Lorna Woods in the eye after that because I felt such a great deal of guilt about the way that minister treated us during the campaign.
Having said that, I have reservations about the competence of this government to handle this legislation. They have shown in the past, as you would be well aware, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that they are an incompetent mob. These people are flat out running a Sunday school picnic, let alone a full-scale, full-blown container deposit legislation scheme.
I cannot help but believe this is the Labor way: you create a big, flash headline, populist, something that gets the support of the public behind them, something that gathers a groundswell of support and then, over time, it peters out and all they actually ever deliver is a disaster. So it was federally, most famously, with Peter Garrett and his pink batts scheme. We were going to save the environment with the $2bn pink batts scheme. Every house was going to be better insulated. We would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and there would be work for people, and that sort of stuff. It sounded absolutely brilliant. They did a wonderful job of selling that concept. Look at the result: more than 400 homes burnt to the ground, people dead, contractors out of work all over the country, a glut of pink batts lying around in warehouses unused which, ultimately, cost the taxpayers more than twice what it was to said to have cost - and we are still paying for that typical Labor Party disaster.
We are now in this place being expected to support a concept which Labor says they are going to deliver. With their track record for delivering, I believe, member for Johnston, it is not surprising the wholesome support you expect is not there. There is a certain level of reluctance on our part to support this pig-in-a-poke you are trying to sell us. We have no meat on the bones whatsoever. There have been no costings of this program done, there has been no business case run, and we do not even have a glimpse of what the regulations might look like. It is clearly a concept we are debating today – nothing more, nothing less. So, in that regard, it is very difficult to stand up and sing the praises of government, not knowing what is in store for us down the track.
The other thing which is so typical of the Labor way is, whenever they have one of these sensational, big headline items, ultimately it costs us money. They have their hand in our pocket while they are telling us how wonderful everything is going to be. In this case, they are putting a tax on industry. They cannot tell us how much it is going to cost industry, whether it is going save the community money or cost the community money - all we know is they are going to be putting their grubby, dirty hand into the pockets of industry. We all know what happens when industry is forced to pay more: those costs are simply passed onto the consumer; in this case, all the residents of the Northern Territory who drink anything out of a container purchased at some shop. So, in that regard, we will all be paying more one way or the other.
I do not believe this is a point the government will deny. That is far from something they would deny. Everyone in this Chamber knows this is going to cost us money. The only question we have is if there is going to be a benefit or not for the cost we will be forking out in extra prices for drinks and so on.
I also find it interesting that they bundle into this bill their decision to get rid of single-use plastic bags, as if it is somehow related to this. I cannot understand why you would not take that out and debate that as a separate item. I find the concept, even the term ‘single-use plastic bag’, a bit deceptive. I know in my household none of those bags have a single use. They are used to bring your shopping home and, more often than not, they are used to put rubbish you collect around the house into, or used for other purposes such as to pack clothes in for kids to take to sports days or whatever.
There are a million and one uses that people have for those plastic bags. Those uses, those requirements people have, are not going to go away simply because you get rid of the plastic bags. What people will now do is, instead of going to the shopping centre and coming home with a heap of plastic bags, they will come home with plastic bags they purchased. You are still going to require the same amount of storage space for your rubbish and the like; the only difference is now you will be purchasing them from the shop. Is it any wonder that the large retail chains, Coles and Woolies, would be behind such a concept? They lose a cost – that is, the plastic bags which they have to hand out - and pick up a profit from the plastic bags people now buy. There is a big win in all of this for those major retailers that currently use plastic bags, because they will, ultimately, be selling them at the checkouts for much more than it costs them to buy. It is something, again, that the public, the taxpayer, will be paying more for.
I would have loved to have had separate debates on these two issues because, as I said, whilst I support the concept of CDL, I am not certain I support the concept of taxing everyone for the bags they receive as they are leaving the shopping centres. In my view, those bags are not single-use plastic bags. Very few of them, if any, are disposed of immediately once getting home. Some people do, I suppose - the rich and stupid, the people with more money than sense - but most people I know use those plastic bags for a variety of uses, most obviously for rubbish before they take it outside.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I did not want to speak for long on this bill, but I thought it was important to clarify my position on this. I support this bill because I support the concept, and that is all this bill is; it is a concept. I am very reluctant to leave all of the management in the hands of government because they have proven time and time again they are an incompetent, useless mob more often completely driven by the idea of raising revenue and putting their grubby, dirty hands into people’s pockets. For that reason, I have some reluctance and - as the member for Johnston quite rightly pointed out - that wholesome support for this bill is just not there. However, in the interests of supporting the concept, I am more than happy to do that.
Time will be the great judge on whether this works. I can tell you, in a couple of years time, if this thing is working a treat, I will be the first person out there congratulating the government and saying, well done. My goodness me, I hope it does.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. It is a large piece of legislation, the Environmental Protection Bill 2010, and a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes, putting the nuts and bolts together. There are many people to thank along the way. Members have mentioned some of those people who deserve to have their names on the public record for the work they have done, not only in pushing for this type of legislation to be brought to the House and into the Northern Territory - people such as Loraine Braham, the former member for Braitling, who has certainly been a champion, and the member for Nelson, who has also been a great supporter and has advocated very strongly for many years for container deposit legislation. Lorna Woods from Keep Australia Beautiful is another person people have talked about very highly. They are some of the people who deserve a mention at the beginning of my contribution, with the others I will mention in the conclusion.
I have been very privileged to be the minister who has brought this legislation before the House. Previous ministers and this government have, for a long time, talked about container deposit legislation. We know how hugely popular it is for Territorians. Previous ministers, along the way, have championed this, not only within their own government with Cabinet colleagues and Caucus members, but in the broader community and their department. I feel privileged today to be the minister who brings this bill before the House.
The member for Macdonnell, during her time as the minister for Environment, was a very active supporter of container deposit legislation. She has reiterated her support for the bill in her debate.
During his time as the former minister for the Environment, the member for Johnston attended those Environment Protection and Heritage Council meetings. There are agenda items on those council meetings. As the member for Johnston said, national legislation for container deposit legislation has been there for years, and it is something that is still there today. At the last meeting I attended, federal and state ministers for Environment congratulated me and the rest of the Territory for having the courage to work on our legislation and for listening to the community. There is support amongst other states and jurisdictions.
As members have quite rightly pointed out, South Australia has had this running for 30-odd years. We are the first jurisdiction to follow in the footsteps of South Australia. That is something we can all be proud of, as Territorians. Others will follow - Western Australia and Tasmania. I was talking to the Environment minister from Tasmania, and they are well on their way to putting together their own container deposit scheme.
There have been many questions raised, and quite rightly so; this is important legislation. I will attempt to go through many of those questions. The member for Johnston was able to answer some of the questions the member for Brennan asked during his contribution, and the member for Port Darwin from a legal perspective. Some very important questions were asked.
I thought the member for Brennan’s contribution was very good. He has, obviously, put a lot of work into it ...
Mr Elferink: Did you tell the Chief Minister that? He missed the point.
Mr HAMPTON: I am talking to the member for Brennan as the shadow spokesman. I thank you for the work you have done. It does make it hard when you go to a briefing - the first one you have had in two years - without the bill, pen or paper, or questions. It raises questions in that there was some stuff we could have worked on during that briefing to answer your questions. That is the way it is. I will attempt to do that during my contribution in wrapping things up here.
I will go to the member for Fong Lim’s contribution, and his time in federal politics. We are, in many regards, lucky in this House to have people who have had time in the federal parliament. He was disappointed in his own government - when they were in government at the federal level - not going ahead and delivering a national container deposit scheme. Talking around the table to other ministers from other states at MINCO and listening to the member for Fong Lim, this has been kicked around like a football for many years and it has not been delivered at the national level.
That is one thing that has driven me and we are not going to wait any longer. When I picked up the ball from other ministers in this government, it was a goal I wanted to kick with Territorians. We need to have this container deposit scheme up and running as soon as we can because we cannot afford to wait for the rest of Australia to lead. We can be leaders in our own right.
We know what the statistics are in our landfill waste. People have mentioned the Mayor of Alice Springs who has also been a champion: ‘There are 10 million good reasons why we should do it’. In such a short space of time 10 million containers have been picked up off the streets and out of the creeks in Alice Springs alone. It is 10 million good reasons why we need to do it. I have seen the waste facility in Alice Springs with the mayor, looking at the glass crusher this government contributed to the Alice Springs Town Council. We had a look at some of the concrete that has been laid with crushed glass and how we can recycle things such as bottles that end up in our creeks or in our tip. There are many benefits to this, and that is just one example.
The member for Macdonnell, being a bush member as I am - we see the litter in those remote communities, and the attempts by the people at Lajamanu to get something going. There have been attempts at Santa Teresa and many other remote communities but, because there is no Territory-wide scheme, these are small voluntary schemes that, without the economies of scale, without the backing of a Territory scheme, are struggling. With people such as the Boomerang Alliance, we know there are job opportunities out there. That is one of the strengths of the scheme that this government has put forward today before the House through this legislation.
In how it will work there are many details to be worked through. What we are doing today is presenting the legislative framework of the container deposit legislation, but there is much work to be done. There is considerable work to be done on the service level charter. That is something we have that the South Australian model does not have. While we are following the South Australian model, in things such as a service level charter and the flexibility to add other containers along the way, our model is much more flexible and stronger than the South Australian model in that regard.
The service level charter will map out expectations, roles, and responsibilities amongst the major participants. A considerable amount of work has already been undertaken on what a viable collection network might look like. This scheme puts the beverage industry in a central position on implementation. They have not yet engaged on that detail because they prefer to fight CDL. We need to move past that point, as the member for Nelson has said; we need the beverage industry to be at the table engaging in this process because they are the ones that are going to be running it. We have been quite open with them on that.
Pricing was an issue raised by members. The price of beverages in South Australia is not significantly different to the rest of Australia. If you go there now, you can buy a can of coke for the same price as you would pay here. So, there is no reason why these prices should increase once we have a container deposit scheme up and running by the end of 2011.
It is a competitive market and I do not expect the beverage industry to price gorge Territory consumers. If they do, we will certainly be bringing that to the attention of the ACCC. Our analysis suggests a maximum cost of 6 per container for the handling fee. This is gross, before unredeemed deposits are taken into account, which will reduce the handling fee to the operator. Again, I call on the beverage industry to absorb this cost, as they do in South Australia. Even if this cost was passed through to the consumers, it would amount to about $1.44 for a carton of beer after redeeming the deposit.
The beverage industry is selectively quoting from this report from the Centre for Appropriate Technologies. The member for Brennan, the shadow spokesman on the Environment, used this particular report from the Centre for Appropriate Technologies in his contribution. However, the member for Johnston put it into context.
I will also mention the scheme at Lajamanu. The report by the Centre for Appropriate Technologies was about a stand-alone, voluntary scheme in remote communities. That is a big difference to remote communities participating in a whole-of-Territory scheme. Because of this, the handling fee ignores one of the key aspects that helps reduce handling fees to the operator of the scheme; that is, unredeemed deposits as I have just mentioned. It is not the gross handling fee that counts, it is the nett handling fee, once unredeemed deposits and resale of recyclable material is taken out. It is simply not right for the beverage industry to use the Centre for Appropriate Technologies’ analysis as a valid figure for remote communities in the Territory-wide scheme.
The study also noted some limitations to its own analysis. For example, the report states:
The Chief Minister and I were at NT Recycling Solutions today. Leon Schulz, the guy who owns the company, employs around 20 Territorians. It might have been the member for Nelson who mentioned the way around some of these costs, particularly in freight and transport. I know the member for Nhulunbuy is also concerned about this. As Mr Schulz pointed out, he had containers from McArthur River Mine there, which, as part of Xstrata’s environmental policy, they are sending back to Darwin. They are filling up trucks that go there, dropping off material or whatever - it might be to the mine site from Darwin - but they are coming back empty. So, there is a great opportunity to avoid freight costs being passed onto consumers by refilling - whether they are barges going to some of the coastal communities, the store trucks to some communities, or other vehicles going to communities. They go there with their load of goods and are coming back empty, so there are opportunities there, something which Leon Schulz raised today with what is happening with the McArthur River Mine and their containers coming back in those trucks.
Another question members raised was about the legal issues, which I will touch on now. The member for Port Darwin had some questions about CDL contravening the mutual recognition legislation, and the government needing the approval of COAG in other states. The advice is that these types of bills go through a fairly rigorous process, not only through Parliamentary Counsel but through Cabinet submissions, the Department of Justice, and NRETAS’s own legal advice. This is the advice I am referring to:
Also regarding this question:
In the design of the scheme, from the outset, the government has indicated any CDL scheme has to be legally, regionally, and financially viable. There are three types of CDL models around the world. There is the one run by the beverage industry, the independently-run CDL schemes, and the government-run scheme. Government has looked at all these types of models, and advice from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia is that neither the independent- nor the government-run models will satisfactorily avoid the issue of taxation. Since the Territory, under our Constitution, cannot make a tax, these two models are not viable. The beverage industry-run model is legally viable and is the most successfully run model in South Australia for 35 years.
The containers to be included in the scheme will be along the same lines as the South Australian model, certainly for containers less than one litre - we are talking about flavoured milks and fruit juices; containers up to and including three litres - we are talking about the vitamin drinks, soft drinks we all know, such as sports drinks, iced teas, beer, stouts and ciders, alcoholic sodas, spirit-based beverages, and some wine-based beverages as well.
There has been some debate regarding consultation. Some people are unclear of what government has done. Government has made every effort to communicate and engage with the beverage industry. Government wrote to the Australian Food and Grocery Council over 18 months ago, clearly flagging government’s intentions and expressing our desire to work on implementation issues. From mid-last year my department and a team of consultants have been making considerable effort to consult with the beverage industry and others such as local government. During this period, five meetings with the beverage companies and three meetings with the beverage industry organisations were held, and a letter was sent to 35 individual companies. Following the introduction, my department also sent copies of the bill to all stakeholders.
In December 2010, the first beverage industry workshop was held in Darwin to commence discussions on the container deposit scheme principles to be established under the scheme, and discuss implementation more generally. Further workshops have been planned for March and May this year. I am happy to table a summary of the consultations.
There was also a question regarding the release of documents. The member for Johnston pointed this out in no uncertain terms. In our legal advice, the core elements of this legislation are no different to South Australia’s. The beverage industry has operated under those laws for 35 years. You would think that, given the hostility to CDL and their deep pockets, if the beverage industry thought they had half a chance to run an argument against these laws - that these laws are unconstitutional - they would have done that over the 35 years the legislation has been operating in South Australia.
With regard to the financial and economic analysis, government has based its analysis on real-world experience, not theoretical reports. We have done the analysis to confirm that the scheme will be financially, legally and regionally viable. This analysis has been used to help design the scheme and the bill.
In relation to the national issues - and I touched on that briefly not long ago; whether a national packaging covenant is better and a cheaper way to go - we do not believe it is. In the larger states such as New South Wales or Victoria, a packaging covenant might be fine where there is more kerbside and bigger population, but it has never been a good fit for the Territory. That is why this government has not signed up, and neither did the CLP when they were in government. After 10 years, the packaging covenant is only now starting to look at litter issues, but it still cannot demonstrate how a single can or bottle from places like Yuendumu will get picked up. Our scheme, which is legally, regionally and financially viable, will be able to do that.
In an ideal world, CDL would be implemented nationally, and government has argued for this. As the member for Fong Lim said, during his time as a federal member of parliament, he tried hard and, without the support of his own government, it fell over. This Northern Territory government is not prepared to wait and we are taking a lead.
The new Commonwealth product stewardship legislation is talked about quite often at the ministerial council meetings. This legislation is not yet in place. The Australian government released a discussion paper in November last year. Regardless, the Commonwealth’s discussion paper makes it clear that both extended producer responsibility schemes, of which CDL is one example in mandatory approaches, fit within the scope of their considerations for this legislation. I also note the Environment ministers across Australia decided, on 5 November 2009, that computers and televisions would be the first products to be considered under such legislation.
As I pointed out today in Question Time, there are many small businesses, but larger retailers such as Coles and Woolies are supporting the banning of the single-use plastic bag because they know it is a significant litter problem, particularly in the Northern Territory. It is also not just a litter problem in our streets and creeks, but it is also an issue of killing wildlife throughout the Northern Territory. The member for Macdonnell alluded to driving around the town camps in Alice Springs and, in many of our remote communities, seeing the plastic bags which are just a blight on the environment. Particularly during sports times, people gather and leave their litter. One item of that litter is plastic bags, and they hang around for a long time. In waste in landfills, it is estimated that 47% are plastic shopping bags.
The member for Fong Lim raised the economics of banning plastic bags and the costs to families and poorer people. The lightweight plastic bags we are going to ban after we introduce this legislation are not free and costs are imbedded in our groceries. So, in banning plastic bags, some of those costs are there already; we already pay for them by it being incorporated into our groceries.
The important thing is the support of the small business community, and the support of the broader retail outlets such as Coles and Woolies. It is fantastic. Through my own shopping habits, I have had green bags for some time and they last a lot longer. There are non-biodegradable bags being sold and there is no reason why they cannot be used for bin liners and those issues people have talked about.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, being aware of the time, I hope through my wrapping up of this debate I have covered some of those issues members have raised regarding the legal, financial, and regional viability of our container deposit scheme, and also the legislation banning plastic bags.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr Elferink: We are not going into committee?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realise that. I am going to read that and, then, I will put the committee on the Notice Paper and we will go into General Business. That is what I was doing.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm. The remaining stages of the bill will be placed on the Notice Paper.
Debate suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that - The Northern Territory government considers changes to the Building Code which would allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed under certain conditions.
This is a very important debate that has been needed for a long time. For me, one of the main reasons is the lack of affordability of accommodation in the Northern Territory. I will put today some arguments I hope will convince the government to support this motion, which does not force the government to necessarily agree, but asks the government to consider this as an option to allow people to have a start in life which, under the present system, is very hard for many people.
If you have tried to buy land in the rural area of Darwin - and when I say Darwin, other people can fill in the gaps for other parts of the Territory - then you will know how expensive it is. A 2 ha block of land in the rural area around Howard Springs and Humpty Doo sells for $300 000 to $350 000 to $400 000. In fact, a 2 ha block of land just down the road from me with no bore, but has electricity, sold for $400 000 last year. For someone to build a house, at say, $250 000 to $300 000 – which would probably be an average price for a two-bedroom home - then the cost starts to become prohibitive, especially if you are a young family starting out.
Rents are also very high as well. This makes it very difficult for people to live reasonably after they have paid rent. We know that many people are leaving Darwin, and probably other parts of the Territory, because of high rents. The government needs to look at other options to make living in the Northern Territory more affordable. Affordability, or lack of it, is a common complaint these days.
If you can buy a shed for about $40 000 to $80 000 and put it on your block to live in, why should this government stop you doing it? After all, if the shed had an office in it, you could legally have a toilet and shower in it. So why could you not add a sink and a laundry - even locate them outside of the shed - and just move in? You can park a caravan next to a shed and use the shower and toilet in your office and that is legal. You can even pitch a tent, and live in that tent and be legal, and use the shower and toilet in the shed. But if you installed a bed and a sink in the shed, and used the toilet and shower, you are illegal.
Many people in the rural area and out bush have, for years, lived in sheds. I lived in a Sidney Williams hut at Daly River for three years, and it does not seem to have affected me, although others may have another point of view. It was in a floodplain, although I noticed on the aerial photograph of Daly River yesterday, it was still high and dry. It had a concrete floor, push out windows, no insulation, no flywire, no fans, the lights came on at 8 pm and went off at 10 pm. It was hot, but it was all I had. What is wrong with that? Why can’t you live in a shed? Is it immoral? I do not think so.
According to the wise men who believe in the Australian Standards - a standard that I always find very strange, because you have to buy it if you want to know what is in it, and it seems to be developed by people who, somewhere down in Canberra, develop new changes to everything every year. It is a little like having to have tags on every electrical cord in existence in your office, one of those areas I would love to debate one day, the cost of those …
Ms Purick: Do not put your hairdryer in the bathtub.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is another issue. They are regulations designed by those people who are supposed to know what they are doing. In the Northern Territory, we support those with our own regulations. They have all come up with the idea that we are not allowed to live in a shed. The closest thing I can come to finding out why a person cannot live in a shed is that a shed is a Class 10A building, a non-habitable building which, according to someone, does not meet the standards of the Building Code of Australia. You must live in a house or, in technical terms, a single detached dwelling, a Class 1A building. This, so they say, provides for a higher requirement in structure, health, safety, and amenity standards.
What is the difference between the shed and the house, or the single detached dwelling? According to the Department of Lands and Planning guidelines you can get off the web, the standards differ in regard to the following: weather proofing; natural light; fire protection; structural wind design - that is, the cyclone coding; ceiling heights; moisture barrier; energy efficiency; sanitary facilities such as kitchen, laundry, and bathroom; slab height; ventilation; smoke alarms; and requirements in flood-prone areas.
Let us look at these matters separately. Water proofing: you can buy a shed today and it will be waterproof; they make them waterproof. They have a roof, they have walls, and they are waterproof. I have one at home. It is waterproof unless I leave the door up and the windows open. So, I am not sure what they mean by that. You can design a shed that is waterproof. Of course, what is wrong with living with the elements on a verandah? At my house, we have our meals on the verandah ...
A member: Oh! Shame!
Mr WOOD: I know. I suppose there is some regulation that says that it is not allowed, but we have our dinner on the verandah. The rain does come in there occasionally. There is a washing machine, the dishwasher, and the fridge on the verandah. The dogs are on the verandah. There is probably a health reason - I am probably in trouble now. Where else are you going to feed the chicken bones from? Oh, I am not supposed to feed the chicken bones to dogs, I know. We live for much of our time on the verandah. Occasionally, it is subject to wind – terrible. When there is no wind we turn on the fan. There are occasions when it rains …
Ms Purick: Natural air-conditioning.
Mr WOOD: No air-conditioning; natural air-conditioning. We have light and, if we do not have light, we turn on the light. We have an area on which we basically live - the verandah - not much different than living in a shed.
Natural light is the next one. I wondered what natural light means. If I live in a house, unless I have – what do you call them; they come down through the roof?
Mr Vatskalis: Skylights.
Mr WOOD: Skylights. Unless you have skylights, the only natural light you get in a house is through your windows and doors. That is all you have in a shed too, so I am not sure what the big problem is with a shed.
Fire protection: my shed is made out of metal. Good old metal, it will not burn. Things in it might burn but not the walls - no different than my house. The argument may be that you might be storing flammable materials because, at times, that is what people have in their sheds. They might have a vehicle, tractor, or lawn mower. So they might say you have flammable materials. What is to stop me keeping two drums of petrol on the back verandah of my house? I stick the lawn mower on the back verandah when it is raining. There is nothing to distinguish why one should be more dangerous than the other. The danger is if you are silly enough to put fuel next to where you live - that should not happen, whether it is in a house or a shed. You should ensure it is safely put away.
Then it says: ‘structural wind design cyclone coding’. This is one issue where there may be a difference between a house and a shed. I am not sure, because of the Australian Standards, but there seems to be a difference. That is not to say a shed is not built to a cyclone standard; you must build your shed to a cyclone standard. However, it might be a slightly lower standard than for a house.
You have to put this into reality. If you live in the Territory - I have lived in the Territory for 40-something years. Cyclone Max was probably the strongest one I have been through. I did not go through Tracy because it missed us at Bathurst Island. I have worked out I have probably lived most of my time without a cyclone. Well, say, 99.8% of the time my house has not gone through a cyclone.
Are we saying, for 0.02% or 0.01%, because the shed is not up to code, you cannot live there? Why could we not, for instance - and I saw this at, I think, Elcho Island - placed on the side of the shed: ‘This shed is not constructed to residential cyclone code requirements. It is suggested you do not stay in this shed during a cyclone. Go to your nearest shelter’, or something similar so, if people buy your property later on, it said the shed is not up to residential cyclone code. The other 99.8% of the time, there is nothing wrong with that shed at all; it is structurally sound. Can’t we find ways around these so-called regulations so people can have a less costly form of accommodation?
Ceiling heights: I have to work hard on this one. I can only think that ceiling heights are either too low for a fan or they are not insulated. You can easily insulate a ceiling in a shed, even if it has a gabled roof. If the ceiling happens to be too low for a fan, you buy a pedestal fan - not too hard, you just cannot have a ceiling fan. I must admit, I am living in one of those houses with lower ceilings where you do not get dressed under the fan, otherwise you tend to come out short at the elbows. You adjust to these things. They are not life-threatening issues.
Moisture barrier: I had to look up what a moisture barrier is. A moisture barrier is where you put down plastic or other materials when you are pouring the floor so the moisture does not come through the floor. You do that for a house. You do it for a shed. You do not want the moisture coming through your shed as it starts to rust out the walls. That does not seem to be a big deal.
Energy efficiency: the minister will like me when I get on to energy efficiency. We are going to look at energy efficiency for other things later on. You are going to review the 5-star efficiency rating. However, this is a shed - big deal. As one shed builder said to me when I told him I was going to bring this before parliament, what many people do is put a small room inside the shed and air-condition it. It will be lined, probably 5-star efficient. But it is just one room so people can sleep at night. The rest of the shed is a shed. If I was to live in a shed, I would ensure it had a verandah, because I would live on the verandah - perfectly okay for most of the time in the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End. I do not think that is a big deal. It might be a big deal for those energy-efficient fundamentalists - and I know there are a few of them around …
Ms Purick: Zealots!
Mr WOOD: Zealots, yes, same thing. There is no reason for not being able to live in a shed.
Sanitary facilities: I like this one. A toilet and a shower can already be built into a shed. Why not a kitchen and a laundry? If you do not want them built inside, you can build them outside, because you can buy outside things today. I have seen them. They are moulded plastic. You can also, as we do, put the washing machine outside. Heaven help me if the department of environmental health is looking. Ah, there is the minister. We water the palm trees, I am afraid to tell you. We do not put that water into our septic tanks. One reason is it would probably kill the septics, because you know what goes into your washing machine. We try to save that water and it keeps some of the garden green. I do not think that is a big deal either. I reckon most people in the rural area do not put their grey water into the septics; they run it out onto the lawn or somewhere. That is the way it is.
Slab height: I have a shed and it is built this high at the back and this high at the front, and it has been through all that rain and did not get wet. I do not know what is hard about this. Why would you build a shed flat on the ground? I have seen houses flat on the ground. I was on Pioneer Drive the other day and there was block of land as flat as a tack. It is not a wet block in the sense it is in a flood-prone area; it is just flat, so when the rain comes it takes a while to get away and the house is dead level with the ground. Slab height is a matter of common sense. Build your shed up; build your house up. Why would that be a problem, whether you live in a shed or not?
Ventilation: I say: ‘Open the windows; turn on the fan’. With a shed, you could put a vent in the roof where the air can go out if you want. The building they call the Old Timers at Bees Creek - classic building, one of the best tropical designs. It is just a long hallway; you can call it a shed. It has a long vent right along the top of the roof. It does not have any louvres now because the Vietnam Vets took it over and put mesh on the windows with security screens instead. Beautiful! With the long verandahs, you hardly ever get any rain in there. You actually get a beautiful breeze from under the verandah and out through the roof. Easy! So, I cannot see ventilation is a problem. If you are hot, go out on to the verandah or sit outside. That is what most people do. I am talking about rural areas here for the last two minutes or so; I understand there can be certain issues trying to do this in Fannie Bay.
Smoke alarms: when the electrician comes along to put in your lights and your switches that you have in your shed, because you still want to be able do something in the shed at night, just get him to put in some smoke alarms. You would want a trip switch in a shed anyway if you are using a bit of equipment. Again, I do not see these as unsurmountable issues that would be the cause of anyone saying it is immoral or unsafe to live in a shed.
Requirements in flood-prone areas: I had friends from Katherine come to see me. He was one of the reasons this has been brought forward today. It is not the only reason; I have had concerns about this for a long time. Unfortunately, he has built his house in a flood-prone area. You probably know about him, minister. However, I cannot argue the case for him; he should have known he was in a flood-prone area and he should have got permission. He might be able to find ways around that. This issue is a secondary issue: can you live in a shed? There are rules about living in flood-prone areas, and there are rules for a house. It should be the same for the shed. Again, I do not see that as an insurmountable problem.
They also mentioned health, safety and amenity. Health: I am not sure what the problem is. I have a concrete floor on my back verandah. It is not bad; sometimes it is not as good as it should be, but you can hose it down; you can sweep it. It is okay and it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure what the health aspect is.
Safety: I am not sure what the safety issue is, unless it falls down on me, or it could be an issue as in cyclones. I agree on the cyclones. A thin-walled shed could be hit by a structure which goes through that wall. I have said that is why you should have a sign on the side of the shed saying: ‘If this shed is to be used as a residence, then we advise you to go to the nearest shelter or a place where it is guaranteed to be safe’. So, I do not think it is a problem.
Amenity could be a problem for some people. One of the joys of living in the rural area used to always be if the neighbour wants to build a pink house, let him build a pink house. It would upset the covenants in Farrar like you would not believe. However, if someone wanted to build a pink house, as long as it is off the fenceline with a few trees, I could not care. It is not interfering with me. Maybe if it was five storeys high I might have a different opinion, but not with a single dwelling. One of the nice things about living in the rural area is you tend to be able to do your own thing to some extent. Living in a shed is one of those things you should be allowed to do. You may have to have it a certain distance from your fence. That could possibly be looked at if you knew that shed was going to be used as a residence.
Many people cannot afford to build but, by allowing them to build and live in a shed, they will have a period of less mortgage stress and more time to save for a house. Many people in the rural area - and I am talking again about the Darwin rural area - have come out there since the early 1960s and lived in sheds until they got enough money to build a house. There are many - I would not say the majority. That was a common practice, and a very good practice. People had a roof over their heads and had time to save to buy a house.
That mortgage stress is not taken into account enough. We see these figures for affordable housing and I know they might be affordable for two people or one-and-a-half, but I can tell you from my daughter’s point of view, she has no hope of buying a house. She is a single mum with three kids. We used to look after them as well. She would not have the money and, if she did have the money, she would be flat out paying for it, and would have no money to live on. The problem with mortgage stress is it is one of those social issues that you might say leads to some of the problems we have today, with kids not being cared for, being able to run amok as mum and dad are working flat out. They come home and are so tired they just sit down; they are not really interested in kids that much and, then, they are back to work again trying to make up the money to pay for the mortgage. This, in some little way, would try to help reduce that.
Certain costs would apply, regardless whether you build a shed or a house. For instance, you have to have a septic tank, and water and power have to be connected. If the power and septic are planned to be used for the shed and designed to be used for the house at a later time, there will be no doubling up on the cost. It may be that when you show your plans for the shed, you must show where the future house will be built so you can ensure the design means you can still use the septic, and the connection of the power and water from the road is the same connection. Another condition, as I said before, may be the distance from the boundary so you are not intruding on the neighbours. Perhaps there could be a limit to the size of the living section of the shed, depending on the number in the family. A granny flat is generally for two people and is 50 m2. Maybe if you have three or four kids it might be 100 m2.
I am only throwing those ideas around because what I am looking for is for the government to say: ‘All right, we might agree to this but there might be certain conditions’. I believe there is an opportunity for the government to show some positive initiative and give people a more affordable way to live.
I have also said - and other people may have a different opinion - a shed for living may only be built on a block 1 ha or larger. In Litchfield - not in other places - we regard 1 ha and above as rural and believe below that is not rural. Other people might have an opinion, but the idea was I could not see people living in sheds in Farrar or Johnston, or maybe even Parap; the neighbours might get a bit upset. It is horses for courses, and sheds are not uncommon in the rural area. There is enough space for you not to be intruding on your neighbour.
The question I ask is: is it immoral for someone to live in a shed? When the Building Board speaks and acts, one feels to live in a shed is a sinful occupation - maybe what you do in there might be sinful, but just living in it is not - and those partaking in such evil action should be thrown out and made to live in a tent or a caravan right next to the shed which is, obviously, a moral lifestyle. No matter about the cyclone proofing of the caravan or tent, or any other of the limiting determinants stated before. This is where it is very hard for me to understand where these rules and regulations fit.
I can put in a caravan and I do not have to tie it down. It could be a second-hand caravan from Buds – it might be about 20 years old and looking a bit worse for wear. It is not the greatest place and could even be a fire hazard; probably does not even have a fire alarm in it. But, I can live in that legally, use the toilet and the shower in the office, and everyone is happy. If they do the right thing, you might say, by building a room with the fire alarms and making sure it is above the flood area and all that sort of stuff, then I am told they cannot do it. And the same with a tent. A tent is definitely not going to be cyclone proof, but that is legal.
I cannot see one good reason why one cannot live in a shed. If there is a reason why not, it can be overcome. I should remind people there was a company called Northstar. Around the rural area, about 15 years ago, it was a little controversial, because the old Building Board was not too happy with the idea. He built sheds and they were homes, and they are still. A friend of mine, Caroline, has one. My friend down the road on Barker Road has one and he rents it out. It is, basically, a shed. If you walk in, the walls are metal. You see the outside of the shed and it is the inside; they are not lined. You can line them. He built quite a number of those sheds in the rural area at that stage. As far as I know, they have lasted and they have not blown over. They are not the classiest place. It is like a shed with a verandah. That is, basically, what he has done and they are around the rural area now.
The rural area was settled by people living in sheds and, when they made enough money, they began to build their house. We are not giving young people an opportunity to live in the rural area because land has become so expensive. Where their parents live, they cannot afford to live there. Rural living is a good life, with a few chooks, a horse and a dog, and a few mangoes or maybe just the bush. There will be a house and there will be a shed, so why should it matter if the shed comes first and is lived in first, and then the house later on? Affordable housing for some in the suburbs may be someone’s cup of tea, but it will not suit those who want to live rural.
So, government, please do not knock this on the head because the bureaucrats have told you to do it. They probably all have well-paid jobs to fund their beautiful Class A1 detached dwellings, but not everyone is so lucky. I am asking the government to give those who are not so well off a chance. Give those families a chance not to be tied to high debt where both parents have to work long hours and then have little time for their children. Call this early intervention.
Show us that you believe in the Labor principles you always espouse: a fair go for the less well off and a hand up for families. This is a matter of principle. Not the principle of the Building Code of Australia or the NT Planning Scheme; it is the principle of people having a right to shelter at an affordable price. Be brave, support this motion, and allow people to live in a shed. It will not be for everyone, but it will give people an option - a cheaper option, a sensible option and a chance to get ahead.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing on this debate tonight. There have been many interesting elements, and we can see many elements we are going to agree on, and that means agreement with government.
I will start off by talking about affordability. I must acknowledge the Housing the Territory strategy, which is a really good proactive strategy to drive affordability into the market. It is interesting that you talked about your first dwelling at Daly River. I would like to share a story with you, too. It is all around affordability.
I can remember my father taking me out on to Juno Parade, Greenacre and pointing at the neighbour’s house over the road and suggesting I should buy that house. I was in my third year at teacher’s college. I had the whole world as my oyster, and I certainly had a plan, and it did not involve investing in real estate in downtown Greenacre where I was born and bred. From memory, the family who lived in that house lived there their whole lives. The house was in the vicinity of about $45 000, and I turned that offer down and ignored my father’s good advice. To buy that land in downtown Greenacre these days would be about $500 000, and the house that sits on it at the moment would be a couple of million dollars. I let a good opportunity go by the wayside. Yes, that was affordability.
Leading from that, we have a responsibility to talk to young Territorians about affordability, because there is a perception amongst young people I talk to that a $600 000 home is your first home. Well, guess what? It was not for me, and I do not think it is going to be for my children either. It is about how we can have that discussion. Sometimes that means walking through the unpalatable ‘crawling before you can walk’, and looking at renting, saving and hard work, as our parents did and their parents did before them. We need to have this discussion to rationalise it. However, an option which the member for Nelson has put in a rural environment - absolutely and fantastic!
To share another anecdote from the home front, I am just a bit sad my wife will not live in a shed. I have encouraged her on a number of occasions when we have had the opportunity to get a start if we could start in a shed. It goes back to the days where I made her live without a shed, without a tent - we were actually on the riverbank. They were wonderful days. I did upgrade that accommodation not long after the Wet Season kicked in, with a tent. We shared a tent through that Wet Season at Robinson River, which was fantastic. Maybe it was when I took her to Nicholson River to do it all over again that she turned off the shed idea, but she definitely will not live in a shed.
I agree with the member for Nelson. They are fantastic opportunities for getting a start in a rural area by living in a shed. She wants a $600 000 house so, consequently, we do not have our stakehold in the rural area. But we did pick a good one in Tennant Creek in downtown Ambrose Street. That was a great and affordable start for the McCarthy family when we moved back into town.
The government has an important role to play in building regulation. That role is about public safety; that is the bottom line. We have to factor that into the debate. The member for Nelson has outlined the practicalities of it very well. We have to add to that the bottom line of public safety. The member has considered the significance of this role in the wording of the motion, and I commend him for that. It is a good motion; it is a logical motion. Throughout Australia, the community has, for decades, expected government to maintain and ensure minimum health, safety, and amenity standards for habitable dwellings. The Building Code of Australia sets these minimum standards and they are applied in all states and territories.
I do not have any problem with pink houses either. Maybe it is our generation, we go with the flow. Having moved into Ambrose Street, Tennant Creek, I do take an interest in my neighbours and what they are doing regarding any risk to public safety. In this portfolio, I have come to understand how that regulation, on a macro scale, is very necessary to deliver public safety, which the public demands from any government.
The Building Code of Australia is based on best evidence. It is the best evidence available from building and engineering professionals and exists to ensure dwellings are built to withstand the elements; that there is sound plumbing - particularly that waste water is removed; fire safety protection for occupants, and adequate levels of ventilation for those residing in the building, amongst other things. These minimum standards apply to residential areas across Australia, including the building control areas across the Northern Territory. We are talking about the building control areas across the Northern Territory, not my tent structures in the Nicholson or the South Nicholson.
In the Northern Territory, we have a system of private certification. Building certifiers ensure that buildings meet the minimum standards by issuing Building and Occupancy Permits. As the member for Nelson outlined to the House, the Building Code refers to sheds as Class 10A, non-habitable buildings. Examples of Class 10A buildings are garages, carports, garden sheds, and farm sheds. As these buildings are mainly for storage purposes, the Building Code sets minimal requirements of structural, health, safety and amenity standards. These requirements are quite different to what you would expect of a normal home.
Under the Building Code, houses are referred to as Class 1A, single detached dwellings. These dwellings are for people to live in and, as such, the Building Code sets higher structural, health, safety and amenity requirements than required for Class 10A buildings. Class 1A standards specify requirements for such things as energy efficiency - and the member for Nelson has talked about that - fire protection and smoke alarms, weather proofing, natural light, structural wind design, cyclone coding, sanitary facilities - kitchen, laundry, bathrooms - ventilation and requirements in flood-prone areas. They are all important parts of the specifications the member for Nelson adequately described.
It is important to understand the Building Code of Australia does not prohibit people living in a building that is marketed as a shed, provided it is fitted out to the requirements of a Class 1A or a house building. That is the principle issue here tonight. Some manufacturers are building dwellings which, from the casual look, appear to be a shed or resemble a barn, but they can be built in and lived in.
Whilst I appreciate the member for Nelson’s desire to support habitation of sheds, government must ensure standards are in place for health and the wellbeing of the whole community. Living in sheds, particularly in the Darwin rural area, is often seen as a cost-effective option while people save to build their house. That has been outlined very clearly in this motion and, as the member for Nelson has said, is very much a practice of the Darwin rural area, and has been over many years. However, people need to be aware of the minimum standards that need to be complied with to allow it to be certified as a Class 1A dwelling, a residential dwelling. Building certifiers can provide advice on what needs to be done to have a shed certified as a Class 1A dwelling.
Government supports the motion to consider changes to the Building Code which would allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed, provided there is no relaxation of the standards that would impact on health and safety provisions. We will also need to consider any impacts on planning and development control in the rural area.
I want to be clear. Current planning controls mandate a ‘one house per one block’ arrangement, and many rural dwellers will want to be assured this approach is unchanged. Where the issue of people living in sheds or small dwellings has been controversial in the past is where neighbours have believed a second dwelling was being lived in. This has happened, and happens for a variety of reasons. For government, though, the issue is regulating development to ensure the planning requirements around densification are upheld to ensure the amenity of the rural area is not impacted by uncontrolled development.
I have listened with interest tonight to the member for Nelson’s thoughts on the issue. I believe that, with further work and some expert advice from building professionals, we can come up with a way to appropriately regulate the industry to protect Territorians while promoting other building methods.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is supporting this motion. I am looking forward to further work with the member for Nelson in relation to supporting this motion. It is always a pleasure to listen to the member talk about the rural area and about that culture and heritage of the Territory which, I feel, is extremely important and offers a great deal of value for the Territory. As I have tried to outline, there do not seem to be any problems until we start to look at the public safety issue being ignored, and minimum standards being ignored. I believe there is a really good way to move forward on this. There are many people out there already who have demonstrated this is a great concept in housing, particularly for the rural area. I look forward to further work on it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this motion that the Northern Territory government considers changes to the Building Code which will allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed under certain conditions. It is important to note a couple of those key words. That is to ‘consider changes’ and ‘under certain conditions’.
The motion is a commonsense motion; it has a lot of practicalities associated with it. It will be very useful in assisting many young people get into accommodation and start building a life towards a house of a description not associated with corrugated iron. It has the potential to be very accommodating as the rural areas of the Northern Territory continue to grow. If we can come to some kind of satisfactory resolution, it also offers lifestyle choices to many Territorians who possibly do not have that choice at this point in time.
This motion goes across many of the electorates of the Northern Territory on both sides of the parliament. In the Top End it covers the member for Nelson’s and my electorates and, of course, the Daly, Barkly, Katherine, Araluen, Arafura and, possibly, even the Nhulunbuy electorates, where we have many residents in those areas living semi-rural or rural. In the discussions with industry and others that, no doubt, will follow after this motion has gone through the parliament, I suggest there may be an area we need to look at as well regarding dwellings that are built on some of the Aboriginal communities that would be considered rural, given they also have certification issues.
I accept what the minister said in regard to ensuring the amenity and safety of residents. At the end of the day, that is what standards and National Australian Standards is all about - safety and amenity, to ensure people who either reside or pass through dwellings can do so in a safe way.
The member for Nelson referenced the fact that he lived for many years in a Sidney Williams hut. These Sidney Williams huts are well known, particularly to older Territorians or people who have been here for a long time. We have one on our property which was relocated from Darwin and rebuilt. It is still standing. It has gone through Cyclone Tracy and every other cyclone we have had, and not a sheet of iron or anything to do with that Sidney Williams hut was damaged or lost. I know where the other Sidney Williams huts are in and around Darwin, and they too went through Cyclone Tracy and also did not fall down or get blown away. There are sheds out there, from past times, which have been designed incredibly well.
There is a whole flourishing industry of shed designers, constructers and developers. It is not like putting two bits of tin together with a bit of angle iron and a few rusty old bolts. They are designed very well these days for tropical, cyclonic conditions right across northern Australia and down into Western Australia.
In supporting this motion - and the minister has expressed that the government is keen to support it - I am interested to know how it would progress from now on, because it is important to involve not only the community and government but the certifiers, the builders, and those who are the experts in the industry of developing, designing and building sheds.
There are inconsistencies at the moment, as the member for Nelson has highlighted, regarding having a Class 10A shed you cannot live in but, if you stick your caravan underneath it, then that is okay - or a tent for that matter. If you have an office, you can have an ablution facility but you cannot live in it. We need to get some of those inconsistencies sorted out and get some common sense back into the building regulations, such that we can accommodate people who choose to have accommodation arrangements which I would call stepping stones. If they choose to go from a caravan to a shed of any description and style and then on to a house which is commonly referred to as a residential dwelling, they should be able to have that choice, as long as they are doing it appropriately and within the safe boundaries of living arrangements.
If there comes a time when we are threatened by a very serious cyclone, people who live in sheds in the rural area - and there are many of them in my electorate and across the member for Nelson’s electorate - are not going to stay there if they do not feel safe. They will either go to a cyclone shelter or to someone else’s property or house where they believe they will be safe. And they will take their family, their pets, and all their valuables with them. I feel there is some implication that people who live in sheds, or propose to live in sheds, are somehow reckless, which is just not correct and is just nonsense.
The other aspect that was raised previously was it offers an alternative option to a house that might cost $400 000, $600 000, $700 000, and the key word is affordability. Like the member for Nelson’s daughter, who is unlikely to be able to go into a house, she might be able to build a small shed-type house on a block of land and accommodate her family. There is nothing wrong with that.
I also find it a bit curious that people have this notion that because something looks semi-industrial, or is made out of corrugated iron, tin or metal, somehow it is not right and it is ugly. I say that is just an urban namby-pamby fluffy-bunny type of notion. I find sheds quite attractive. I have two lovely sheds on my block, which I would …
Mr Wood: All with permits.
Ms PURICK: All with permits, of course, and very safe. I would be happy to stay in them, except I would not; I would go and stay with my mother in her house.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the parliament, and the minister for advising that the government will support it. I look forward to further discussions with regard to progressing the possible changes to the Building Code which can accommodate and allow people to live in sheds in the rural area.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. Thank you very much for bringing it on, member for Nelson. To the minister, thank you for your support as well. It is a logical step. It is a journey we have actually already been down, because people already occupy these facilities. It is more a procedural recognition that we need to understand this is already in existence. Perhaps some of the problem is the government’s reality has come in and they have a problem they cannot see a solution around. If they try to enforce it, they do not have enough building certifiers to do the job totally. It is a problem.
I would like to highlight some of those problems, if you were to go down this enforcement path and object to some of this stuff. The government would be wearing the cost, and it is a lot of money, particularly under the already existing, expensive SIHIP. Take a look at the Indigenous village at Knuckeys Lagoon. I have just been advised they are down to only three of the old-style homes there - they are sheds; that is all they are. Believe it or not, they have delivered an answer to a need for a long time. How the people personally, individually, treat those dwellings is a different story. That is the individual person. With the intent of keeping people out of the weather; they have done a good job.
At the 15 Mile Palmerston Indigenous Village, roughly half are still just sheds. They have a shed with mesh on them for windows instead of real windows, and a raised shed within a shed. That is all they are. If the minister was to enforce every aspect and really crack down, they have a huge problem just in the cost, because you would have to pay for that replacement. Ironically, they have done a pretty good job delivering what they have needed to do: a habitat, a place where people can sleep, seek safety from the weather - all in all, pretty good. Most of the ones I have seen over my time are also up out of the water; they are not getting flooded out every five minutes, so they have complied with certain aspects there.
If you look through the Department of Lands and Planning paperwork where the standards allegedly differ between sheds and houses, as the member for Nelson just mentioned, it is: weather-proofing; natural light; fire protection; structural wind design; deeming for cyclone coding; ceiling heights; moisture barriers; energy efficiency; sanitary facilities, otherwise known as wet areas; slab height; ventilation; smoke alarms; and requirements in flood-prone areas.
There is not one thing there which people would not want to comply with if they are going to occupy. As the member for Nelson has just pointed out, I would be rather annoyed if I bought myself a shed for any of my toys - my race cars and bikes, my Escape; even my tools - and it was not weatherproof. The idea of the shed is to keep things out of the weather by being weather-proof. It has natural light if I lift the roller door, but the reality is you would put windows in. That is how we get light into our buildings. Surprise, surprise! That is how we would get natural light into a shed. As the member for Nelson said, put a big verandah around it, which aids in the cooling of the building which means it is more energy efficient anyway with plenty of natural light.
The member for Nelson mentioned fire protection – in most cases it is a steel structure. Some of the very old sheds, going back around pre-World War II, may have had some wood structures and they would have burnt a bit differently. However, a steel structure does not burn. It is what you apply to that structure - the gyprock, the wood wall studs - which can become the fire hazard, including the sofa you have in there. Those are the issues you have to consider: what you are putting in there. Maybe we should ban sofas and curtains from houses because, often, they are the things that go up in flames - someone falls asleep while smoking inside their house and their sofa or their bed catches fire. That is where the fire comes from often, by someone setting fire to a curtain, or a kid playing. A steel structure is probably more fireproof than the average home.
Structural wind design: sheds already have to comply. I will go quickly on to that in a little while about some other aspects of the structural wind design, because the materials used in a shed are no different to those in a house.
Ceiling heights: in most cases sheds have greater ceiling heights; they are a bit like cathedrals - a little like my house which has massive ceiling heights. Ceiling heights in a shed are generally not a problem. The biggest problem is the fact you have to find a longer pole for your fan. If you buy the wrong fan, like I did once - the pole to lengthen the fan to suit my pitch was going to cost me as much as a new fan, which was pretty stupid, but that was my fault for buying a fan that looked fancy. The pole was going to be nearly $100 just so I could hang my fan.
The moisture barrier: I agree; there is a difference in moisture barrier. That is normally the bitumen-style barrier before the layer of bricks and what is normally an orange plastic that goes under the slab before you put down the mesh that goes into the slab. You have to have that underneath a shed as well, otherwise you will not get approval. I understand there is some difference. They are talking about stopping that moisture coming up from the ground - even the moisture off the slab in general terms – preventing it from affecting any of the gyprock you may have added. There are secondary moisture barriers on top of the initial slab moisture barrier, which you already have to have in a shed.
The energy efficiency: this is where, as the member for Nelson pointed out, there will be some very interesting conversations around this. In my opinion, when we continue to chase European energy efficiency ratings it steers us away from the real intent, which is to lower the consumption of electricity. In my house, which I will get to soon, I only use, on average, about $420 a quarter for my Power and Water bill. Most people who have the newer 5-star energy-rated houses are chewing up $1200 a quarter because it is a house reliant on air-conditioning. My house is not. I very rarely need an air-conditioner because I have natural ventilation. Air flows through my house; it was built in that design. What is that energy efficiency? If you are looking at the 5-star rating and what has now become the traditional expectation of that, it is, in fact, poor energy efficiency. That is what you get with your house nowadays because you are going to have to build a house that costs more to run. When you are handing over real, hard cash that is not good energy efficiency, is it? It is certainly not cost-efficient. I do not know how people work it out. Sometimes, they get a bit googly eyed and do not really think about what they are doing.
Sanitary facilities: there is no argument there - none whatsoever. A wet area is a wet area and must be built to the appropriate standard. There is nothing prohibiting that wet area being an external wet area. There is nothing prohibiting that wet area being anything like the houses rebuilt in some of our communities under SIHIP. We have seen photos before in this Chamber of different wet areas the government has refurbished on houses, and they are, essentially, a stainless steel bench with a sink, with no doors on it, a couple of bits of tile in front of it and a bit of a splashback behind it. There is nothing super hard about that. Of course, you have to comply with the appropriate plumbing requirements. That is why we use licensed plumbers nowadays. There is nothing difficult about the sanitary facilities, the wet areas, and I support that. It is not a hard thing; we are not asking anything different.
Slab height: again, it comes down to this logical aspect of: ‘If I build a shed, I do not want to build it in a way that my toys are going to get wet. So, I am going to build my slab up’. Of course, you are. Anyone with any brains would do that. It is a natural thing to do. Do not build it in the quagmire. Lift it up to where it needs to be. It is easy enough to comply with, not hard, and makes a lot of sense.
Regarding the ventilation, the member for Nelson pointed it out that he has seen some shed-like designs with full-length gable roof vents. We do not see enough of them anymore. We should because they allow natural ventilation. You almost become cold in these houses because they can allow that much airflow through. When you allow enough air to escape through the roof, it is a very good ventilation system. In fact, those in the Emirates, like the ones I saw in Dubai, have massive ventilation shafts that go up into the roof and away. That is how they air-condition even though it is 45C-plus outside, it is below 30C inside the house because there is beautiful airflow that runs straight through these quadrant four-cornered vents. What we can learn from that is we should be doing more to get through ventilation into our ceilings and out through the roof. We should be looking at reinventing some of the previously used systems which actually worked very well indeed.
Smoke alarms: it goes without saying; you need a smoke alarm. It is not a hard thing to do; you must have it. Get it put in when you are doing your electrical work.
Requirements in flood-prone areas: there is no argument in that.
I turn to, let us call it, the appearance of these buildings. I live in what, if it was not an elevated house as it is, would look just like a shed. It is corrugated iron on the sides, corrugated iron on the roof - it is a shed. The only difference is it is steel studded. There are big steel beams from top to bottom and there are louvred windows. They put Masonite on the lower parts of the walls and cement sheeting in the upper parts of the walls. There are massive gables in my house. For all intents and purposes, it is a shed. In fact, in some parts of my house, it is mini-orbed on the inside so it looks like a shed from the inside as well. There is no difference. It is one of the early Troppo Design homes. It was a showcase, display village house. For all intents and purposes, it is just a shed except, because we have put some sheet at a different angle or called it a home, it is a home. It has complied with every other reasoning here but, in reality, it is a shed.
As I said, my energy consumption bills are only just over $400 a quarter. If you are talking about energy efficient homes, mine would not get much more than a 2-star rating. The reality is, I do not use any power to run my house because it has natural airflow. Fool for you if you think your energy efficient house is something that consumes $1200 a quarter. I am pretty proud of my shed that I live in; it is a great, little house. But, for all intents and purposes, it is just a shed. I am proud to live there; it is my home and, obviously as such, it is my castle.
What the member for Nelson has brought forward is relevant. I thank the members opposite for their support of this. It is common sense to continue down this path.
We were talking about structural wind design and cyclone coding. As I said, the sheds still have to comply to be approved in the first place. Often, a lot of those materials used in that construction have to have what is called a DTC number, which is a Deemed to Comply number. If you pick up your box of screws to put your roof on, you will have a DTC number on it. It if does not, you have to go back and check it against the schedule to ensure it does comply. If not, you will not get your compliance on your house anyway - or on your shed for that matter. The same goes for the roofing iron, the steel itself, the Colorbond; they have all been deemed to comply - the same building materials for a house as for a shed all have DTCs. It is not a big issue as things have already been put in place. The minister knows about the deemed to comply; he understands what I am talking about. We have to screw the roof down the same way, so there is your safety covered. It is really that good.
Ironically, it took me a while to work out where my cyclone shelter was in my house because an object was going to come through my louvres, through the windows, or it was going to come through my tin walls. They built this little shed underneath the house which is ply lined with a combustible material. That becomes my cyclone shelter; it is a stronger place. The other aspect was it also was the corridor from which termites would get into my house. So, for all the compliance, the downfall was that, through legislation, we built in a place from which termites would enter my house. So, good job there; it was great to find those mastotermes having a bit of a chew away. They were big, fat fellas having a great time. Anyway, I knew where I was staying in my cyclone-coded shed. Thank you very much for your support.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I will just say a few words to this motion. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing it forward, and the minister for his support for the motion as well. My contribution is primarily around my electorate.
It is a real situation out there in the rural parts of Darwin and, I am sure, in the other regional centres as well, where many people have built homes that are sheds which they live in. That is very widespread. It is changing of late with more gentrification of the rural area. People moved out there for a whole range of reasons, but mainly for the lifestyle. Many people did not have very high incomes, so I acknowledge the affordability issue the member for Nelson was talking about. I am glad to see he acknowledges - as the minister acknowledged in his contribution - the safety issue that exists. There have to be some basic standards. The health standards need to be recognised as well.
I do think there is some workability in it, some practicalities in it. The lifestyle which people enjoy - and I have been doorknocking in my rural area and seen a whole manner of dwellings. Some of them I would have concerns about, and others are quite safe and healthy, and certainly liveable, and those people enjoy that lifestyle.
That is just my contribution. I thank the minister for supporting the motion. It is a very reasonable stance and, hopefully, we can work through the safety and health issues within, particularly, the rural area of my electorate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate, and the government for supporting this motion. Obviously, there is a fair bit of work to do before we move on from this particular point.
I hope there could be a member from each side, and someone from your department if you do not have time, to be a small working committee which could sit down with people who are independent of the department such as a representative of the shed builders - I do not think they have an association, but there is a number of them around – and an engineer from outside, to have a look at the various issues.
The minister mentioned how we have to fit in with the Building Code of Australia. That is nice, but the Building Code of Australia covers a very big country. The funny thing is, in the Territory, it really only applies to Darwin and the Darwin rural area, Katherine and Alice Springs, maybe a little of Tennant Creek, and maybe Gove, I am not sure. Basically, outside of that, I can put my shed up at the mouth of the Daly River, at Bulgul, where my wife lives, and live happily in that shed. It is one of those strange quirks in the Northern Territory that safety, health, and amenity does not apply, yet, if I come back inside an artificial boundary, safety, health, and amenity do apply. It is the way the Territory is.
I am not an overly great fan of extending, at least compulsorily, the Building Code all over the Territory, simply because it is impractical. If you were to apply some of these rules to Mistake Creek Station, by the time you got down there and back again to inspect it - what problems there would be down there, I do not know. We have to live with the practicalities of a small population in a large area, so we concentrate on those areas where people live in towns.
I noticed certain issues about these growth towns. That is an issue that has to come up for debate; as to whether they become Building Code areas, or whether each house, dwelling, or shed that is built in those communities is built to the standard that would be required in Darwin. They are other issues, but it just highlights that in this debate you do get anomalies.
The minister spoke about making sure the plumbing is correct. Even under the existing laws, if you want to put a toilet and a shower in your shed, you have to get a plumber to install it.
I mentioned about planning regulations; that you are only allowed one dwelling on a rural block, and that is correct. However, the facts are you are allowed to have a granny flat of 50 m2 without a permit. You could combine the two together, shed and house, as long as the dwelling and the shed is no more than 50 m2. So, you really have not changed anything from what is allowable at the moment. People could say they are not sure granny is going to live in the shed, but I do not think it has ever been interpreted that kids could live in the shed and granny lives in the new house. I am not sure what the interpretation is there, but there are certain rules that allow a second small dwelling on a block.
The issues I would like thrashed out were the ones that relate to safety, health, and amenity because, obviously, from a one-page document one does not get much of an idea what that really means. I have had to guess it and, as I said before, it really annoys me if you have to subscribe to the Australian Standards. I know they cost a great deal to put together, but I gather the Australian Standards are run by a private company. If I wanted to check what the Australian Standards were for road widths in a suburban area, it would be nice if I could get on the web and check it. No, it will say subscribe or something; it would make it difficult for me to find out what those Australian Standards are.
The member for Drysdale made some important points. There are a number of buildings at the 15 Mile and the Knuckeys Lagoon community which are, basically, sheds. They are just corrugated iron houses. They are very strong, solid steel houses; they will never blow away. They have mesh on the windows so branches and things will not come through. They are being replaced by more modern houses. If you go past the 15 Mile, you will see some much more modern houses, but the older houses are still there. You have to say they are regarded as dwellings; they have toilets and showers in them. They are not the greatest buildings, but that is because they have been allowed to become run down. In years gone by they have been used as houses.
No matter what we discuss in our little group that might be formed - and we can discuss that later, minister - the principle of making a house, dwelling, or a roof over a head more affordable is really important. It is the principle which should be driving us. It is the principle which has driven the government to build the new, low-cost accommodation in Alice Springs. I am not sure that the member for Macdonnell is a great fan of that but, to be honest, it is at least putting a shelter over someone’s head. It may be a tent; it may be a far better building. However, the government is saying it thinks it can supply a range of accommodation which will at least give people roofs over their heads, so they have allowed tents to be used for accommodation, versus some shelters, versus some one-bedroom units, etcetera. The government put forward a range of options to overcome disadvantage for people who need shelter, and this is not much different than that. We are looking at a range of options, and a shed would be far stronger than a tent. It should be looked at in the light of that.
We are trying to reduce the hardship of people getting a roof over their heads. For me, it is an important social issue. I know the government has been striving to try to reduce the cost of development. I have been to Bellamack Gardens and it is very good. It is not everyone’s cup of tea if you come from the rural area because there is not a huge amount of space. They are well-planned houses and they have space around them, but they are still relatively expensive.
My argument has been that rural living is an alternative option. We need to give those people who want that option a chance. Many young people in the rural area are now staying on their parent’s block because they cannot afford to leave. I am concerned that places like the rural area will become too expensive, and you will get a drift of population. You will have schools where there are no kids or you have to bus them in from another area. Howard Springs is a good example. A house on Whitewood Road recently sold for about $1.4m. A block of land near me sold for $400 000. You are starting to deal with land prices which are getting out of the reach of young people, especially young people with families. Therefore, it becomes harder to service the schools, or you have to bring in children from elsewhere. There is a danger that community becomes a very wealthy community, but not necessarily a young, vibrant, growing community as young people cannot live there because they cannot afford it.
It is about affordability. It is a social issue. It is about giving young families a chance to grow without excessive mortgage stress, which is a real issue we need to be aware of. It is early intervention; we are making sure families are not under the sort of stress which means their children grow up without love and attention. We see so often in our society the results of that in the number of kids running amok - whether it is in Alice Springs, around Palmerston, or wherever in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I hope we can get together as soon as possible within the next few weeks, develop something and move forward on this. It is something many Territorians, especially young Territorians, will take advantage of and will appreciate the government has done something practical in trying to allow people to get a roof over their heads at an affordable price.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, I invite members of this House to place themselves in someone else’s position when dealing with the intent of this legislation. Primarily, whilst not exclusively, I want members of this House to place themselves in the position of a woman who is a rape victim.
In the process of going through the system of justice we have in our community, we have many women, sadly, who are raped. In many instances, they take the courageous decision to pursue the matter criminally through the courts which means, under the normal process of things, they are required, from time to time, to give evidence before a committal hearing and, then, to repeat that evidence describing in detail the nature of their rape to a Supreme Court, often a jury. These details are intimate and personal and, in many respects, go to extend, by virtue of the inquisitorial nature of a court case, the victimisation of the victim.
Whilst I appreciate there are numerous legislative instruments helping with the collection of evidence before a rape trial, the truth of the matter is, it is a necessary continued invasion of a woman’s privacy, or a sexual assault victim’s privacy, when they have to repeatedly tell of their trials and tribulations and the details of the rape which was perpetrated against them.
Should that person who is accused of that rape be found guilty, whilst the Criminal Code carries numerous serious sexual offences and substantial maximum penalties, the truth is that rarely is a full maximum penalty dished out. Typically, for a rape, a penalty of five to eight years with three or four to serve is not unusual in what is issued by a court to an offender. That offender then does their time in gaol and, after completing their time in gaol, they are released from custody into the community, normally through the provisions of the Parole Act.
The position I would like members to place themselves in is this: we all live in small communities. In fact, even Darwin, for the purposes of this legislative instrument, is a small community. I ask members of this House to picture a woman walking into a place - for example, a restaurant - only to be confronted by the person they were raped by not three or four years earlier sitting in the restaurant. At that point, there is nothing the woman or the rape victim could do other than to turn on their heel and leave the restaurant. The offender is there quite lawfully, has broken no law since coming out of prison, and is serving parole. Unfortunately, those circumstances, or circumstances like them, continue to render the victim as a victim in this process.
This bill intends to address that particular issue, and I ask members to approach this bill with the same genuine intent with which I bring it before the House today.
The intent of this legislation is quite straightforward. It cannot be retrospective - by virtue of the principles of double jeopardy you cannot be sentenced twice for the same crime. However, from now on, what I seek the approval of this House to do is render, as part of the sentencing process, not only the prison sentence which is imposed by a court on the offender but, additional to that prison sentence, an order of, essentially, avoidance for a period which can be set by that court but has a default period in this legislative instrument of 20 years. The principle of this order is that the right of way will be afforded in a public domain to the victim, not the offender. This legislative instrument is designed to enforce the opinion of this House upon all offenders; that once you have chosen to commit a rape and be convicted of a rape, part of your penalty will be that you will have to get out of the way of the victim whenever you should, by virtue of happenstance, meet in a public place.
This principle has similar provisions in other legislation, in the sense that avoidance by legislative instrument is not a new concept. There are other legislative instruments which make avoidance one of their central planks. Bail conditions may choose to do so. There may be restraining orders issued under the Justice Act. Domestic violence orders are common, and there are other forms of restraint and avoidance in legislation.
This is unique in the sense that it is attached to the penalty for the crime. It is in addition to, and not to be considered part of, the penalty process. So the penalties which are currently issued for rape are not diminished in deference to one of these orders being made; this order is in addition to the penalty that would normally be issued.
The system would work in the following way. From an evidentiary point of view, the greatest challenge for this legislative instrument is to demonstrate the mens rea or the intent of the offender or the rapist to breach the offence this legislative instrument creates. Essentially, an offender or rapist who is in a public place - or in a private place for that matter but, essentially, in a public place – who, by virtue of happenstance, finds them occupying the same place - and they are subject to this order - as the victim, then the offender must move on. That has to be an offence of intent. The offender must know the victim is present. Therefore, the act anticipates a process by which either the victim or a victim’s agent can make the offender aware of the presence of the victim. This, hopefully, will empower rape victims to be able to walk up to their offender in a public place and say: ‘I am here to be here with my family,’ - or for whatever reason they are there – ‘it is time for you to move on’. The offender will then be expected to stand up, pay his bill, and leave the public place.
If the victim is not feeling sufficiently courageous, there is capacity within this legislative instrument that an agent can be used to simply demonstrate that the offender has become aware of the victim’s presence. For example, if the victim asks a waitress, maitre d’, police officer, other person in the restaurant, or spouse, to point out the presence of the victim, that will be sufficient under this legislative instrument, by pointing out the presence of the victim, thus obliging the offender to move on.
It is intended this legislation be read in that fashion. Different environments will require different responses. The test of reasonableness is the test by which a court will be asked to determine whether the conduct of the offender was, indeed, reasonable in all the circumstances. So, for argument’s sake, should there be, by way of example, a seat allocation on an aircraft where a rape victim and offender have to share joint seats or close proximity, the duty will now fall on to the shoulders of the offender to speak to cabin crew to ensure there is an appropriate seat allocation. In those circumstances, it is the offender’s duty to avoid the victim. Similarly, on a bus, this legislation does not expect an offender to get off a bus, but remove themselves to a place on the bus which is remote from the victim. At all times, it is the offender’s duty to move.
The legislative instrument does not contain itself particularly to rape victims. Rape is a colloquial word; it does not actually appear in the Criminal Code as far as I am aware, but it deals with a series of sexual assaults outlined in the bill. There are section numbers there. I have chosen, by virtue of the nature of these sorts of crimes, to extend it also to the victims of kidnapping and attempted murder.
The order will be sought as a matter of course by the prosecution when the sentencing process is conducted by a court, which means the prosecution will automatically apply for the issuing of the order. That will not be captured in this bill, but it is expected it would be enforced by the Department of Public Prosecution, unless the victim chooses otherwise. Consequently, if the victim does not want the order to exist for whatever reason, the victim can ask for the application not to be made. However, a court is left with full discretion to apply this legislative instrument in circumstances which it may deem to be appropriate. For argument’s sake, in the instance where a court considers that a shorter term of avoidance is necessary or is required - and they may do so based on the evidence of a victim, or on the evidence they have become aware of during the process of the trial - the court may do so.
On the other side of that coin, if a court feels an avoidance order for life could be deemed to be necessary, then that avoidance order may be ordered for the natural life of the offender, or the victim as the case may be. Full flexibility remains with the court.
In the case of Aboriginal communities - and I have not forgotten Aboriginal communities in this process - a court may determine, based on the facts and submissions made to them, that a direction may be given in relation to avoiding a particular house in a community or, in worse circumstances, the offender may be, effectively, banned from the victim’s actual home community. At all times through this process the rights of the victim will be considered to be paramount.
There is a default period of 20 years in the bill before the House, but that is all it is; simply a default period should a court choose not to make a different order.
If members want to know more about which actual sections of the Criminal Code this legislation applies to, then I direct members to clause 97J of the legislation. I have outlined the principles and concepts of clause 97K and point out the order needs to be properly explained for the order to take effect. Clause 97M creates the offence of contravening the order, and contravention of the order will lead to a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units or $13 300, or imprisonment for six months. A reasonable excuse is a defence for breaching the order.
In circumstances where a victim may choose to use the order to harass the offender, which is contrary to the intention to this legislation, an application may be made to a court by an offender, when the offender can demonstrate that such harassment is occurring - for argument’s sake, if a victim uses the order to make a offender’s life unmanageable or difficult by virtue of the fact that the victim may choose to follow the offender. If that should occur, there is a capacity to vary the order under clause 97N and, perhaps, even revoke the order.
This is not a complex issue. Whist I have talked in my second reading speech largely about women being the victims and the offenders being men, it is written and drafted in a gender-neutral way. The issues of evidence have been dealt with and this can also apply to a male victim and will include the victims of child sexual offences. This will also empower the parents of children who have been victims of sexual assaults to act as the child’s agent. Should the offender, by happenstance, find themself in the proximity of the child, the parent can act as the agent and ask the offender to leave.
The Country Liberals will always maintain, particularly in relation to serious crimes such as rape, that the rights of the victim shall be paramount over the rights of the offender. We make no bones about that, and make no apology for that.
This is truly about empowering, particularly women, to become stronger, tougher, and bolder survivors of the sexual assaults of which they are so often victims. The message from this parliament to those women should be that their rights are more important than the rights of the men who raped them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and plead for their considerations not to be consumed by political considerations, but to truly understand the intent of what this legislation is attempting to achieve. If this legislative instrument does become enforceable, it will be unique, as far as I know, not only in the country but possibly in the world. Perhaps one day it may form a benchmark for something to be done in the future. I signal at this point that if the government brings forward some amendment they deem necessary, in an effort to advance this legislative instrument I will be all ears to government’s intent, as long as its intent is the improvement of the legislative instrument in trying to achieve the goals it sets out.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell has 27 minutes remaining.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have spoken to the member for Araluen because yesterday the minister gave notice to present amendments to the Children’s Commissioner legislation. I make it very short and congratulate the government for taking the initiative and realising that these are really important amendments. I congratulate the Council of Territory Cooperation as well because the recommendations also came from the CTC. It is good to see the government working in bipartisanship to ensure there are no loopholes in protecting our Territory children.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I first presented this bill to parliament on 27 October last year; that was the second reading. Since then, I have met with the Children’s Commissioner several times and had numerous conversations with him.
This amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Bill was really about extending the powers of the Children’s Commissioner to fall in line with the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report which was released by the government to the public on 18 October 2010, just over four months ago.
Much has happened between then and now but, we, as the opposition, were on the front foot in working on this legislation and getting it up within a matter of weeks after the report was released. This was not the first time we brought up this amendment. My predecessor, Jodeen Carney, presented a very similar bill in February 2010. We have been on the front foot with recognising the fact that the Children’s Commissioner was a little hamstrung in the powers he has; in not having his own motion powers to initiate investigations into matters or services provided to protected children. We recognise that, in line with Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report, the Children’s Commissioner required additional powers to be able to monitor the implementation of this report.
On Tuesday, 22 February 2011, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Children and Families, the new department, presented his version of what he thinks the Children’s Commissioner should do, in extending the powers and addressing the recommendation in the Growing them strong, together report. I am not going to go there in relation to responding to the amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Bill he presented earlier in the week.
What I would like to say is there is some arrogance in the immediate dismissal of this amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act. It was virtually immediately dismissed by the government on the basis that they had their own agenda, their own idea, of how to respond to Recommendation 136 of the report. The opportunity was missed, as the member for Macdonnell has suggested, to work in a bipartisan way to fulfil one of these recommendations the government has completely committed to implement. However, this is what has happened.
As a newcomer to parliament, I was a little taken aback that the government did not approach me or ask me for a briefing on the bill. That is probably not usual practice for a government, but I have been accused of not organising a briefing with the government in the past. So, I guess I can put that back on to you and say you did not ask me for a briefing on this bill, nor did you approach me to discuss any aspect of this bill. I suppose that is your prerogative but, in working together and perhaps improving the plight of children in the Territory, it would have been in order.
On Monday night, the government launched the new Department of Children and Families. It was a wonderful launch - which I was not invited to, I might add. I am getting used to that too; being left off the guest list for things that are highly relevant to my role as the shadow minister for Child Protection. Get used to it, Robyn, that is the way things apparently happen in the cut and trust of politics.
This document called Safe Children, Bright Futures, Strategic Framework 2011 to 2015 was released. I was able to obtain a copy of this strategic framework by demanding a copy, having not been provided one. Nevertheless, it is a very impressive document - nice font, great colours, nice graphics, great photography. Basically, it is a glossy form of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, very nicely packaged. I commend the government for spending a considerable amount of money on what we could have all photocopied from the original Growing them strong, together report. Once again, this is how things are done.
I was a little disappointed when I read through it today to find there is really nothing new in it. I have to be consoled by the fact that by rewriting the 147 recommendations in a more creative, colourful way, there is in that some commitment to implementing each and every recommendation in the time frames provided by the three board members of the inquiry.
The other development over the last few months is the formation of the Child Protection Reform Group which, again, came as a bit of a shock. Not being as savvy as my colleagues, I assume at least one of the Board of Inquiry members - Dr Howard Bath, Prof Muriel Bamblett, or Dr Rob Roseby - would have been included on this monitoring committee. That was not the case and I am very curious why the decision was made.
These three eminent professional people in the field of child protection and child health were excluded from this external monitoring and reporting committee. They dedicated a year of their life to putting that report together. They did some incredible consultation across the width and breadth of the Northern Territory during that time. It, quite frankly, astounded me that, of the eight members of the new child protection external monitoring and reporting committee, none of those three people were included. I would like to know why, if it is permissible to ask such a bold question of the government. Many people might be scratching their heads asking the same question. As the shadow for Child Protection, I believe it is a reasonable question to ask.
I do not have any questions about the integrity or the qualifications of the other members of the committee. I have a question about the frequency which the committee meets - every three months, I understand. The first meeting was well publicised. I have somewhere amongst all these papers a media release from the minister publicising the credentials of the new committee and they were having their inaugural meeting of the committee, and it was going to take some time to orientate the committee to the issues. Quite frankly, there was a lost opportunity there. You could have had three members of the committee well and truly orientated to the issues of child protection in the Northern Territory – in fact, absolute experts in child protection in the Northern Territory: Dr Bath, Ms Bamblett, and Dr Roseby.
Nevertheless, we have a group of eight committee members who will be externally monitoring and overseeing the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report. The fact that you have not given the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report to the Children’s Commissioner is also a curiosity to me - more than a curiosity. I say it is in breach of your commitment. You committed to implement each and every one of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. Indeed, that was a part of Recommendation 136; that the Children’s Commissioner be given the job of monitoring the government’s implementation of the report. So, that has not been done.
Clearly, you have decided against giving the Children's Commissioner that responsibility. I can only construe that there is something to hide. The government has made that decision because you do not want the Children's Commissioner to have that role. You do not want the Children's Commissioner to have that role because, as you have over the last 10 years, you, indeed, have something to hide.
The Children's Commissioner has made a few critical comments of government and how you have implemented the recommendations of the report, even over the last four months. I am reading between the lines thinking perhaps that was enough to put the government off: the government does not want to be criticised and the Children's Commissioner to have the power to be the watchdog because he probably knows a bit too much about what should happen and what is happening at the moment. The Children's Commissioner has not been honoured by the government giving him a role as a monitor of the implementation of this report - very curious. The government has, basically, contravened its commitment by not providing the Children's Commissioner with that critical role.
The own motion powers in the bill the opposition has put forward would have given the Children's Commissioner greater capacity in managing complaints identified by the community of the provision of service to children in the protection of the government. That was a critical role that was also identified in the Growing them strong, together report, which I understand has been taken up in the new amended legislation you put forward yesterday.
I make no apologies if the provisions of this bill I have put forward go further and give the commissioner a broader range of powers than those recommended in the report, which it did. That probably scared the government off too; we took it one step further than the government probably feels comfortable with. I also make no apologies for taking what action I can to improve the ability of the Children's Commissioner to monitor and implement government responses to inquests, reports, and judicial recommendations relating to the wellbeing of children. I make no apologies for giving the commissioner greater powers to compel witnesses to produce documents or give evidence across the whole range of his functions, rather than only for investigations related to protected children.
Finally, I make absolutely no apology for treating the report’s recommendations with the respect and urgency they deserve. I stand here today disappointed, but probably not surprised, by the government’s rejection of this bill. I realise, as government, you have to prove time and time again you have the power, and the final say on these matters. However, I thought, mistakenly, as a fairly nave politician that, under the circumstances, with the severity and damning nature of the Growing them strong, together report and the fact that it exposed the government for failing to protect children in the Northern Territory and to adhere to the legislation the government is responsible for legislating, this bill would have been given more serious consideration by the government.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mrs Lambley Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra Van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am going to surprise the opposition and say we are going to support this legislation with an amendment which has been negotiated with the member for Brennan. Member for Brennan, you are probably leading the batting order over there at the moment because you have had two or three pieces of legislation we have supported.
As I have said during these sittings of parliament, since I became Chief Minister, if any member of this House brings forward legislation that is sensible, stands the rigour of our internal Cabinet processes in regard to its suitability and impact on the budget, we will support it. I assure honourable members that when you do put forward legislation, it goes through a full Cabinet process of circulation to government agencies which comment on the bill in the same way they would comment on government legislation, so we can make an informed decision about whether the legislation is suitable, workable, and affordable, and decide whether we will support the legislation.
I commend the member for Brennan for bringing this legislation forward and supporting the amendments we proposed, and for his cooperative approach to the bill.
The bill is to amend sections 11 and 12 of the Inquiries Act to increase the penalty for offences of failure to attend or produce documents for parliamentary inquiries. We agree this bill has not been amended for many years, possibly decades, and it was out of step with other legislation that established inquiries or oversight of government. The bill is certainly consistent with the government’s policy of converting penalties to points rather than dollar figures and, now it is going to be amended, consistent with the failure to attend or produce documents for all types of parliamentary inquiries.
The Justice minister will introduce the Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Bill in the upcoming sittings. This will amend penalty provisions in 21 pieces of legislation including the Inquiries Act and this provision. However, we have no issue with this penalty being dealt with in isolation today.
Under the original bill, refusal to be sworn or give evidence before a board of inquiry would increase the fine from the current $100 to a maximum 200 penalty units. Under the amended bill - and I thank the member for circulating the amendments last sittings - the maximum is now 100 penalty units. The government agrees people should render every assistance to inquiries and there should be appropriate sanctions for those who do not comply with the law in this regard. This is fair legislation, and $100 is no deterrent for someone to fail to comply with a request from an inquiry under this legislation.
Two hundred penalty points would have provided a fine of a maximum of $26 600. That is a fair old leap from $100 to $26 600. The government felt that this was excessive and the 100 penalty points were more appropriate and consistent with other provisions. For example, the government considers the provisions of the Inquiries Act relating to these matters are akin to the Ombudsman Act and given the inquiry and investigation role under both pieces of legislation. Accordingly, our view is penalties for the offence of failure to attend or produce documents, and refusal to be sworn or give evidence before a board of inquiry, should be consistent or have parity with similar offence provisions under the Ombudsman Act.
That was the rationale for the putting this forward: to have a penalty regime that is consistent across legislation. Therefore, we believe the penalty provision of 100 points is appropriate. We put that to the member for Brennan who agreed and offered to amend his bill. He has circulated those amendments, and we support the amendments the member will bring forward, and we will support the bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for bringing this bill forward, and identifying the inadequacy in regard to the penalty provisions. We are happy to support an increase in those penalties consistent with what is provided for under the Ombudsman Act which was reviewed last year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I also commend the government on their approach to this commonsense legislation. I feel I have been tarred and feathered today by the Chief Minister and, now, offered shelter from the cold ...
Mr Henderson: It is all right, Pete, I am gracious where I can be gracious, as we all should be.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you. The Chief Minister has been very accurate in summing up the intent of this bill and the amendments to the bill tonight. I remind people how we got here. It was the minister for Environment, minister Hampton, who first alerted me to the inadequacies of this particular legislation when I thought it a possible route to take when defending our environment. However, as he quite rightly pointed out, the legislation I pointed to was inadequate. It is timely and, again, thank you to the government for looking at this and taking the approach they have.
It is good to see government can, from time to time, see that the opposition does not always throw up legislation, motions, etcetera, for pure political purposes; that, in fact, like you guys over there, we are here to do things right for Territorians. The demonstration of goodwill on both sides of the House today is something we can all be proud of. So, thank you, Chief Minister and the government.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Inquiries (Penalties) Amendment Bill 2010, (Serial 114) together with schedule of amendments No 51 circulated by the member for Brennan, Mr Chandler.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I move amendment 51.1.
Mr HENDERSON: It just changes it from 200 penalty units to 100 penalty units. We support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I move amendment 51.2.
Mr HENDERSON: Again, that just changes from 200 to 100 penalty units.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): 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 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in a similar circumstance, this bill which has been on the Notice Paper has actually been superseded by measures which have been included in the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Damage) Bill (Serial 141); therefore, it should be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave for the bill to be withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the member for Brennan for contributing to the debate. This motion was brought to the Chamber in October last year with the specific intent of trying to develop an industry around what is commonly referred to as a pest. There have been many studies undertaken on developing camel industries around Australia, particularly a recent study which has been conducted in Western Australia.
I do not want to go over old ground on the first speech within this debate, but we continually look towards how to develop industries in remote communities. In agencies or organisations such as Desert Knowledge and the former Cooperative Research Centre, people are looking at how we can maintain sustainability in the bush. It seems to me to be a perfect opportunity to grab hold of what is considered to be a pest - a pest problem, I might add, which is having $19m spent on it by the federal government in eradication of camels by just shooting them.
I understand the need to try to manage the species; I understand the environmental degradation that is caused. I do not understand the mentality of just shooting the beast which will lie on the ground and, I believe, contribute to further environmental damage. Other animals eat perishing meat. Dingoes eat the dead camels, just growing more pests through the Northern Territory.
In the opening debate, I went through the opportunity of an international boxed camel meat industry. I explained how a multi-species abattoir is currently operating in Wamboden just north of Alice Springs off the Tanami Road. I detailed the cost structure in communities being able to muster camels, put them on trucks and get them to the multi-species abattoir, the abattoir get them down to Adelaide, South Australia in the particular example I gave.
There are international markets, with people with significant resources who are prepared to invest in the industry. What they need is confidence in the Territory and federal governments to come to the party and invest in that industry. I have spoken at length with Samex. I have been in discussions with Lauren Brisbane of the Australian Camel Industry Association. There are opportunities and Australians out there who want to see the development of this industry.
I listened to what the minister said when he provided justification why he cannot support this motion. I do not think it is that simple. He spoke about live camel exports, and I understand live camel exports are significantly difficult, particularly getting them to market, to port and overseas, with the size of the boats, containers, trucks or trains you need to get them to the port and the management of them from there. However, the opportunity to move to a boxed camel meat industry is real and present. It would create jobs in the bush.
I was fortunate to have a briefing today from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and her staff. I received an overview of A Working Future, and the LIPs, the local implementation plans. What came out of that was that the local implementation plans around Yuendumu are very bureaucratic; I had read them before and we spoke a bit about them. They are highly bureaucratic and are a way of coordinating government and welfare service agencies around the table to try to provide support services. The questions I raised - and one of my colleagues, the member for Fong Lim – was: how do you transplant industry into those growth towns to create jobs? It is a question we all have on our lips and we all try to get something done. It is easy to score cheap political points about government, opposition, or others not doing anything, but this seemed such a no-brainer to me. We continue to see welfare dollars, or the dole money, which stops people from engaging in a real economy. Sit-down money stops people from engaging in a real economy.
Here we have a pest, the camels - around 1.4 million to 1.6 million on a cross-border geographical basis - and the federal government is putting $19m into eradicating them. It would be much better if that $19m - or otherwise tax incentives, re-manipulation of the employment service funding that is provided, whether it is CDEP, Job Network, Job Services Australia or other – was put towards developing infrastructure in some strategic locations, whether it is permanent and/or temporary - temporary being moveable - to be able to muster these beasts.
Docker River and the two bottom corners of the Northern Territory seem prime locations to be able to run mustered camels in. There must be something behind the scenes which is stopping this from going ahead. I am sure there will be many in the cattle industry who would be worried about this model, but this can complement the cattle industry. There are many pastoralists who would be happy to have camels mustered from their property, rather than having them shot. They can actually earn money. If you can be paid $150 to $200 a camel, rather than someone being paid $200 to shoot them, it would be much better and you would see Aboriginal people being able to get employment in locations where that normally cannot happen.
Camel meat is a good meat. The opportunities to get into export markets which the Northern Territory does not get into now are being completely overlooked. I know the government is not going to support this motion. It is something I will not let go of and it does not need to pass through parliament to become viable or effective.
I have corresponded with the federal government. They are not supportive. They have responded that they are not supportive, but the fight does not stop here. The fight will continue and I will try to develop an industry which will support the Territory across the board. One thing I have learnt in parliament is that, often, this is a game and the real business is done outside of parliament where we try to get things which you cannot do in here because of politics. The camel industry is something I will continue to pursue. While we look gift horses in the mouth like this we will be prevented from going ahead. It reminds me so much of the failure to support uranium development in the Northern Territory. This is another issue where we seem to be digging our heels in and going nowhere.
Madam Speaker, I will leave my comments there. I encourage those opposite, particularly the minister for Resources and the Minister for Indigenous Development to support this motion. It can help grow jobs, bring money into the Territory, and support the direction everyone says we are trying to move towards.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member for Nelson does not wish to make any further comments. Do we have any other speakers?
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the Legislative Assembly. The issue of land leasing and tenure for government assets is of fundamental importance to our development agenda of A Working Future. The debate is about whether we, as a government, take seriously the issue of normalising land use arrangements on Aboriginal land, the establishment of a market for land in our growth towns on Aboriginal land, and creating opportunities for owners of Aboriginal land to enjoy the same benefits of land ownership enjoyed by others.
My aim as, Minister for Indigenous Development and Minister for Regional Development, is to work with the Aboriginal land councils across the Northern Territory, landowners, and the business community to maximise the business opportunities and job creation. A key part of this is working with land councils to develop lease arrangements to underpin business investment on Aboriginal land.
Our approach to leasing of Aboriginal land for government assets is not a cave-in to the Australian government’s Executive Director of Township Leasing, or the land councils for that matter, as suggested by the member for Nelson in his speech supporting the motion. Ours is a practical and pragmatic approach to lease agreements for the government assets on Aboriginal land, and a step forward in helping to establish a system which will facilitate investment and economic growth in our growth towns.
Normalising arrangements involves accepting and recognising a fair payment may be required for the use of land for government assets. This is an important step. It is the right thing to do for the title holders of freehold land, and the right thing to do by taxpayers. Government, on behalf of taxpayers, should require tenure over assets on freehold land, and be prepared to make fair payment based on a community-standard formula for the use of that land. This is a principle that applies to other citizens and government use of other people’s land. It is a principle enshrined in our Constitution; that governments should pay fair and reasonable compensation for the use of other people’s property. This is the right way to help establish a property market in our growth towns located on Aboriginal land.
It is now the established policy of both the Australian and Northern Territory governments that neither government will fund public assets on Aboriginal land without some form of secure tenure. Since the commencement of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act more than 30 years ago, the land tenure arrangements for government infrastructure on Aboriginal land have been marked by informal arrangements between landowners and land occupiers. These historical arrangements do nothing in providing long-term certainty; they do not help engender the development of a property market and new investment; and they do not establish a model of good governance. Indeed, informal arrangements provide fertile ground for dodgy deals and inequity. It is now our policy that all Northern Territory government infrastructure located on Aboriginal land is underpinned by a form of lease, appropriate to the use of, and economic life of, that infrastructure.
Our approach is to work with the land councils, to build and establish a fair approach to the use of Aboriginal land for government purposes - a practical and pragmatic approach. We accept the premise of the member for Nelson that a starting point for public good assets should be a peppercorn rent. There is a strong argument that schools are considered in this way - an important public asset, value-adding to the community and contributing to the wellbeing of children and families. There is also an argument for airstrips, barge landings, and easements for essential services such as power and water, together with other public assets to be considered in this way.
Receptiveness to this approach by landowners who have a legal right to negotiate a fair rent for their land will be aided by community support for an overarching and principled approach to land leasing so landowners do not feel they are being disadvantaged or pushed into a cheap arrangement designed solely for the benefit of government. This support will be engendered by respectful negotiations - and it is the right approach - not dictated policy implying that title to Aboriginal land is a lesser form of property right.
I am heartened that the mainland councils have already taken this view in respect of 40-year leases negotiated for public housing. The land councils and local traditional owners have accepted the public good nature of this work and agreed on peppercorn rent under these lease arrangements.
Where a lease payment beyond a peppercorn rent is required, the Northern Territory government’s position is to make fair and transparent payment for the use of land for Northern Territory government infrastructure, provided the lease payment shall not exceed the unimproved capital value of the land as determined by an impartial and professional valuation expert such as the Australian Valuation Office.
It is also the case that the Northern Territory is prepared to enter into full commercial tenancy arrangements in relation to buildings on Aboriginal land that are owned, controlled, and maintained by a third party; for example, an Aboriginal organisation.
Here lies another key objective we would like to see as a consequence of the new arrangements; that is, that lease payments to traditional owners for the use of their land are reinvested in the economic future of the relevant growth town. As an example, we envisage a situation where government leases housing for government employees rather than renting land and building our own assets. We envisage a situation where government and non-government service agencies rent premises from local companies - potentially joint ventures that have made the business decision to invest in the property market within a town. This is the way it works elsewhere, and the future we see is exactly this for our growth towns. This is the kind of future the land councils want to work towards.
This is not about landowners gouging income from government; it is about recognising the legitimacy of Aboriginal freehold title, creating a property market in our growth towns, and engendering an investment environment. The ability to attract private investment is dependent on the provision of lease arrangements that provide security and certainty for investors. By attracting private investors, we provide improved employment opportunities that, in turn, support home ownership and development in economic enterprises by Indigenous people.
We are acutely aware of the need to have a plan to attract private investors. We have an Indigenous Economic Development Task Force working on that very theme of attracting private businesses to these areas across the Northern Territory. We are doing it through the local implementation plans, with each of these growth towns determining the way they wish to grow. This year, we want to see a series of futures forums in each of these growth towns that encourages private enterprise to come into the space to learn, to network, to understand each other, so there can be opportunities for economic development in these areas.
Government can help lead the way for private investors and demonstrate how property can be secured and appreciate in value on Aboriginal land. In his speech, the member for Nelson noted comments made in the Council of Territory Cooperation by the member for Port Darwin; that is, would the government consider the sale of government assets to local business enterprises and lease back and/or purchase services? The answer is yes, as long as the services being delivered continue to be delivered at appropriate levels. This would be a natural progression of the future we are talking about.
I am also mindful that creation of a property market and availability of jobs, and a property-related income, will also aid home ownership by resident traditional owners in our bush towns - another key long-term objective of our development agenda.
Our government is also acutely aware of the expiry of the five-year leases on prescribed communities in August 2012. The five-year township leases were a measure imposed by the Howard government as a part of the emergency response, a mechanism to address the legacy of previous governments’ inaction and secure government assets in the prescribed communities, including the growth towns. We want to move beyond this regime and develop a range of tenure options to ensure government assets remain secured under some form of tenure beyond this date.
In relation to costs to the Northern Territory of this approach, it is difficult to be absolute at this time for a number of reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, some leases are being negotiated on the basis of peppercorn arrangements and some on the basis on UCV, and this will vary from location to location.
Second, we are only now, as a part of the A Working Future policy, surveying lots in remote towns to calculate the land areas. Without the exact land area, it is difficult to calculate an exact unimproved land value. However, that is the new future before us.
Third, we are talking about an emerging market with methodologies for independent valuation of unimproved capital value evolving over time. It will be expected that agencies absorb lease costs into their capital works and operations budgets. It is important to note that, based on the UCV model, a lease payment would be a small component of the total cost of a new building - often less then 5%.
The member for Nelson has rightly questioned the impact of this Northern Territory policy initiative on shire councils which also have to negotiate land tenure for their assets on Aboriginal land. We think the traditional owners, land councils, the Executive Director of Township Leasing, and the shire councils need to negotiate and work out arrangements that take into account the use of infrastructure for community purposes and the capacity of the shires to make payments, if any. We will assist in this process as required. We are working with the Local Government Association on this land leasing approach. The work we are doing with the land councils in developing a sound and practical policy approach to leasing issues will support the work of the shires in securing their assets.
In concluding, I make reference to the views of our Coordinator-General of Remote Services, Bob Beadman, in regard to land tenure and leasing on Aboriginal land. Mr Beadman rightly notes that land tenure lies at the heart of our economic system. In his second report to government, our Coordinator-General expressed concern about restrictions and encumbrances on subleases of Aboriginal land hindering economic development and business investment in our growth towns. This is one of his central concerns about current arrangements in relation to the Australian government’s Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing. These are concerns that are being discussed and negotiated with the Executive Director, land councils, and the Australian government.
Mr Beadman has also raised the issue of establishing a Northern Territory leasing entity to negotiate and hold township leases in our growth towns and to be responsible for administration of subleasing. This is a matter that will continue to be considered by government, but it is obviously in the Territory’s interests to cut red tape and have a seamless intersection with our other planning and land leasing arrangements across the Northern Territory.
Negotiating secure tenure for government assets and paying, where appropriate, a fair value for the use of land is the right thing to do to engender a real economy in our growth towns, secure government assets, and pay, where appropriate, for the use of Aboriginal land according to community standards that apply elsewhere.
The Northern Territory government’s A Working Future policy is about improving the lives of remote Territorians through economic development. We know this is an enormous challenge, but we have to ensure the foundations we build to grow into the future are firm; a foundation based on equity and a process where all can live with a future that has a bright start in economic development on their land.
Last sittings, I delivered a ministerial statement on A Working Future. Listening to the debate, I was heartened by the responses from many members about A Working Future. Secure land tenure arrangements and investments in our towns are critical to achieving the objectives of A Working Future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion brought forward by the member for Nelson that would have the effect of limiting our approach to leasing. It prefers to continue working with Indigenous landowners, to provide secure land tenure on a case-by-case basis for government assets, private investment, and private home ownership building A Working Future.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on. That is a bit of a private joke. I am not going to talk for very long. It seems like a sensible approach to reducing the expenditure for government, in how we can manage money and put government facilities in communities - whether they are police stations, schools, or whatever.
I must say I firmly agree with the minister who has just spoken; if we are going to normalise communities, we have to move to a model of market-based approaches. While, fundamentally, the motivations behind both of us agreeing on this principle may be different, we need to move that normalised model. As derogatory as normalisation sounds, we need to move to that normalised model where we have the principles of real economies put in place. Schools and police stations, etcetera, should be paying the proper rent.
We had a good discussion on our side of the Chamber about this, and we are 100% behind trying to ensure that Aboriginal communities, particularly in the growth towns, become towns. If you do not support the fundamentals of how the economics of a town operates, we are not going to achieve that. That is important.
On the same basis, looking towards local government, facilities in communities must pay full tote odds in rates. We have not talked for a long time about shires in this place. It needs to be discussed a great deal more now; I know it has in the past, but now it is time to talk about it some more. The unsustainability of shires through their income bases and their rate base is of significant concern for the future of local government across the Northern Territory.
The basis for why I and the Country Liberals take the position of not supporting this motion is that if we want to get to that normalised community, or a proper, new town of the Northern Territory, everything has to be normal and treated equally. Schools, police stations and health centres should be paying rates. They should be paying for services. Everyone should be paying for services. We have to ensure we create an income stream for shires in the communities so they have the money to provide those services.
The current model under which shires operate is a discriminatory model where pastoralists seem to pay all the money, apart from the government top-up, and the equalisation across the services which are being received is not right. The model of local councils with road rates rubbish does not seem to operate in the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support most of what the minister said. We need to move to proper market mechanisms in communities. Peppercorn rentals may save some money in the shorter term, but we have to be fair dinkum and real. If this land is people’s land, as we know it is, rent has to be paid and we have to move to a model of real economics. I am sure the shadow Treasurer or one of my other colleagues might like to have a chat. Thank you, minister, for your comments and thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and the member for Braitling for their contributions. Nothing they have said has changed my mind. I need to make it clear that I understand where the minister is coming from.
However, there are two words there that stood out: one was ‘normalising’ towns and one was ‘leasing’. I fully accept that if government puts a facility on Aboriginal land, ownership of that land should be recognised. One way to recognise it is that you require a lease. A lease is like having a permit to put your facility on that land. When the minister and the member for Braitling talked about ‘normalisation’, the question from my point of view is: if you take that argument to its furthest extent, many of these facilities in these communities would not exist in a normal town.
We have a very small population of Aboriginal people in relation to the Australian population. We have a large number of very small communities. If you put many of those communities into normal Australia - and I am not using that in a derogatory term, I am meaning into parts of outback Queensland, New South Wales, country Victoria - these facilities would not exist. Although we can make these statements that it should be this way and it should be that way, we should not leave out of the equation that, if it should be this way and it should be that way, why should we put those facilities there?
Governments put facilities in places where they get value for money. They build a hospital where they can get the most people in to use that hospital. They put a school where they can get the most children to go to that school. They will try to have a school in a regional area and not many little schools all over the place. They do not have health clinics all over the place. They will have, maybe, a major health centre in a larger town in Victoria. So, if you were to put the argument that we are trying to normalise things, I say in some circumstances, government should pull out facilities.
I put the case of Amanbidji - nice little town. I gather people do not live there all year either. When the Wet Season comes you cannot get out because you have to go through 70 km of black soil plains before you get to the Victoria Highway. On that community of about 70 people, there is a women’s centre, a clinic, an office, sewage ponds, a nice airstrip, a powerhouse, bitumen roads, power lines and there are about, at a guess, 15 to 20 houses. Where in Australia would someone put all those facilities in a town that big? Very unlikely.
I am not trying to be anti-Aboriginal leasing, or say that Aboriginal people should not earn income from leasing - I am very much in support of leasing, especially for private development. However, I see that this is a two-way street. Take the aged-care facility at Bathurst Island for Tiwi people. I can tell you Humpty Doo does not have an aged-care facility. With 20 000 people in the rural area we do not even have a retirement village. However, the government has built one for a population of about 2000 people. Nice facility; I support it wholeheartedly; I probably know some of the people in that aged-care facility.
What you are saying, minister, is that the government should, therefore, pay a rent for a public facility which will look after the people of that island. It seems to me, as I said before: ‘Thank you very much, here is the bill’. That is the feeling I get. I need to make it clear I am not against leasing and I am not against Aboriginal people making money out of leasing. However, we need to be careful that we are not losing our touch with reality. Many of these facilities would not exist in the rest of Australia. They are put there because government believes facilities should go there for the benefit, health, and welfare of Aboriginal people - and I support that.
It seems to me that if I then became an economic rationalist, I would say: ‘If someone is going to charge me for rent for that particular building, as an economic rationalist I do not think it is worth putting it there; it does not make any sense. So, we will either pull out or we will say to the land council it is their facility, they can take it over and run it’. Which I do not think is ideal anyway; I do not think that is the role of the land council.
It is trying to find what I believe is some due recognition that, on one hand, we accept Aboriginal people own the land - no question, not even the slightest question. On the other hand, we have had government assets on Aboriginal land for a long time - a lot of that goes back to mission days - where there has not been a recognition of that. There has been a personal recognition of that, but there has not been a legal recognition. Time has caught up and there is a requirement to ensure facilities have a lease. As you would know, if I build a shed on your place, minister, that shed is yours unless I take out a lease. If I build it there, that is silly me because that is your shed. So, if the government puts infrastructure on Aboriginal land, technically it belongs to the people who own the land. The government, obviously, has to go through this process of leasing, complex as it is, and work through the issues.
People say we are producing a normal town. I might be wrong - and I am happy to be contradicted - but I say, in the majority of cases in Australia, especially in less urbanised parts of Australia, the government owns its own land and facilities. I spoke to David Ross of the Central Land Council about this and his argument was the police do not own Mitchell Street; they have their headquarters in a private building in Mitchell Street. I thought: ‘That is fair enough but it is really the exception rather than the rule’. If you look around Darwin and other places in the Territory, most police stations outside of Aboriginal land are on government-owned land; most schools are on government-owned land; most hospitals are on government-owned land. The reason is because they do not pay a rent or a lease. For all I know, one could argue the movement of the police from Berrimah - which was on government-owned land - to Mitchell Street might have had some political connotations; government trying to fill up a major facility in Darwin to increase the business of the city. Overall, the way I see it, generally speaking, government owns the land it has facilities on and does not pay lease to itself.
I am not saying this is an easy situation. I am not saying the whole issue of leasing is simple; it is certainly not simple. I would like to see township leasing, if it is possible, simply because it simplifies the issue a bit, considering we are starting to put in large subdivisions under SIHIP. Instead of trying to cut it up into little blocks and lease every block, if there was an overall agreement there would be a township there and it was all to be leased as a whole township, it is easier to plan it. It is probably easier to negotiate the leasing arrangements.
That is another issue. Bob Beadman has page after page on leasing. The Council of Territory Cooperation has looked at leasing for quite some time. I have tried to home in on this particular issue. Bob Beadman spoke about it at the Local Government Association meeting I attended in Alice Springs last year. His concerns were that it could be anything up to $10m to $20m. It would be good to hear from the government what sort of annual costs they think they will be paying for having these facilities on Aboriginal land. Will it be an annual cost, or will it be a one-off payment for a 40-year lease? All those issues need to be out there for discussion.
It is an important issue we are debating; it goes to the heart of where the growth towns are, and access to the growth towns. What is going to happen to roads? Presently, 99% of people in some of those more remote communities - I would not say 99%, but say 90% - are Aboriginal motorists. Yet, quite a few of those roads, especially in Arnhem Land, are technically not roads; they are graded stretches of land on private property which require a permit. They are not necessarily gazetted. They come under the Traffic Act. I found out recently that any portion of land in the Northern Territory the public use, you actually have to stick to the road rules. However, the road can be cut off by the owners of that land - and that does happen at times.
In fact, we have a bill coming up – and I am not trying to preempt that actual bill – and some of the discussion we had at the briefing was, if you are going to close a road, normally the Roads and Infrastructure and the councils closes roads. Who closes the top end of Central Arnhem Road if it is private? Is it the traditional owners? Is it Roads and Infrastructure? There is a whole range of issues that need to be sorted out. One of those issues will be whether there will be lease payments on roads. One of the sticking points for some of the local government work is they are having to pay for gravel to fix up a road that really is a private road, but it is the main road to a community.
There is a whole range of issues this leasing debate is raising. There has to be much more work on it. If we are talking about normalising, then a road should be a gazetted road, owned by the councils or owned by Transport and Infrastructure. That is what normalisation of roads is, and I would find that difficult to pay rent on because, without that road, the people of that community do not have any access. I know you said, minister, there might be peppercorn rental for airstrips and boat ramps, and that is important. I also believe it is important it is clear who the people are who should manage those facilities.
To find at Galiwinku that the barge landing was closed because traditional owners had a bit of a difference of opinion with some contractors might sound fair on the surface, but makes it a bit difficult for other people to deliver their goods to that particular barge landing. Then, to find out there might be some charges for people who will deliver freight to that particular barge landing, and other barge landings in Arnhem Land, you get the feeling everything is getting very complicated.
There could be lease arrangements for the barge landing. There could be some extra payments that traditional owners want. Then, the council, of course, would be required to maintain these facilities. So, should it charge for people unloading either cargo from a plane or from a barge landing? There are many issues that really need to be clarified. I would prefer that it is council’s responsibility, just like roads, to look after airstrips and barge landings, and perhaps charge a small amount to maintain those facilities. They become, I suppose, facilities leased by the council and they manage them. Again, they are important issues.
I was pleased to hear there is some discussion about council facilities. My understanding is Nguiu Council pays quite a large lease to the Office of Township Leasing, which is really off the Tiwi Land Council. I know there is not a good relationship between the Tiwi Land Council and the shire council, which is a pity, because I worked for not that particular shire council, but the council there for a long time. I would hate to see the average Tiwi having to pay extra rates to cover a lease for their own shire council, which is, basically, there for the benefit of the people who live on that community.
There are still, in my mind, many issues that need to be sorted out. I know this is not one of those debates where you can sum up because this is my motion, so I cannot necessarily get a comment. I understand where you are coming from, minister, when you said things will be negotiated. I suppose in some areas they will be peppercorn rental; in other areas they may not be. It would be interesting to know which areas are not going to have peppercorn rental on them.
Another area I should raise, of course, is if facilities like the powerhouse, for instance, are going to pay a rental. One could argue that Power and Water is a commercial body, but my understanding is the cost of providing electricity in remote areas is something like six times more than in the urban areas. I was given a figure the other day. Someone had sat down and worked out what the cost per kilowatt is from Darwin to, say, a remote community. The difference is quite alarming. The government provides power to many remote communities. Most of those remote communities do not pay for water, nor do they pay for sewerage. If someone came to me and said Power and Water now has to negotiate a lease to have their powerhouse and their sewage ponds there, I would find that difficult to accept because I do not think it is fair. The provision of electricity to some of those communities is extremely costly, especially when it is not actually paid for. Electricity is but, in the case of water and sewerage which requires electricity, none of that is paid for presently on communities.
It is trying to find, I believe, what I call a fair balance between the theoretical that anyone who has a lease on Aboriginal land should pay some money towards the traditional owners or the land councils, balanced by the reality that some of these facilities are subsidised heavily, as in the case of Power and Water, or simply would not be in that community if you took one of these communities into another part of Australia. They are there and they should be there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the last person to say we should not have those facilities in those communities. However, when we debate this issue, we need to look at the bigger picture, not so much at the little picture.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have carriage of this debate in the absence of the Attorney-General, so I hope I do it justice in the briefings I have had on this matter and the fact that I realise it was the former shadow Attorney-General, the former member for Araluen, who introduced this legislation. I am not sure whether she is listening tonight; she probably has better things to do than listen to parliamentary debates. She may well be, so we wish her all the best. I know she will probably disagree with the arguments I put forward.
Starting with the former shadow, Jodeen Carney’s, remarks on 11 August 2010 in relation to this bill, she stated the rationale of opposition:
The proposition put forward by the opposition, and the former shadow in particular, is there is a regime of sentencing, as I understand it, within what I call the Magistrates Court - others call it the CSJ - for various assaults which is less than what the maximum sentence in the Supreme Court is. I have a little table here. I have a prepared speech as well, but the table has helped me understand the proposition being put forward with this bill.
For aggravated assault in the Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence under the current regime is two years; under the Supreme Court, the maximum sentence is five years. For assaulting police, in the Magistrates Court the maximum sentence is two years; in the Supreme Court, five years. Assaulting police occasioning harm - I assume that is what this abbreviation means – the sentence is three years in the Magistrates Court and seven years in the Supreme Court.
The proposition put forward by the opposition is that for the first two categories I mentioned - aggravated assault and assaulting police - the maximum sentence in the Magistrates Court should go from two years to five years, which is in line with the maximum sentence in the Supreme Court. Interestingly, for assaulting police occasioning harm, the sentence is five years under the opposition’s proposal but is seven years in the Supreme Court. I do not know whether that is an error or there is a rationale behind that. Possibly the member for Port Darwin could explain that in his wrapping up. That is the basic premise as I understand it.
Turning back to what the then member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, said, she was putting forward the proposition that, as I understand it - and I might stand corrected - the Magistrates Court should have the same capacity of sentencing maximum sentences as the Supreme Court. Furthermore, she argued she believed this would free up the Supreme Court; that there were many people opting to have the matter heard within the Magistrates Court for what they hoped would be a lesser sentence. She put forward the proposition of why they should get a lesser sentence. The current system promotes a lesser sentence, basically allowing the magistrate to impose a sentence that was commensurate with what could be imposed in the Supreme Court. Thus, on the premise it would also free up the Supreme Court in matters being heard by them.
That premise is rejected by government. We do not believe that is the case. Turning back to the former member for Araluen’s speech, in relation to this she said:
She believed her view was the majority view within the legal profession. There is no unanimity of view here in the legal profession. Indeed, the advice and the view I have had does not support the proposition put forward by the member for Araluen. I have a prepared speech, but I wanted to try to demonstrate that I have done some research here. I have looked at what the former member for Araluen has said. I wanted to understand what was said.
In summing up the government’s position, we believe under the current system, if a matter is serious enough to warrant a heavier sentence, the magistrate will then refer the matter on to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the advice I have is the magistrate can do that almost to the end of the proceedings within the Magistrates Court.
Our belief is that there would be an incentive - almost a perverse incentive - on the behalf of the defendants to say: ‘I could get this in the Magistrates Court, but if I was to pull it in front of a jury, I might get less. The prosecution has to get 12 jury people to agree on a sentence. I have a very good QC’ - no name, no pack drill. There are a few around town who are very good with a jury. ‘I will really lash out and get so and so’. I am trying hard not to suggest who those so and so’s might be. ‘So and so will plead my case before a jury. He will grill those witnesses. We will find inconsistencies in the stories and, hopefully, even if I am found guilty, there will be a fair degree of doubt there, and there is a chance I will get a lesser sentence in the Supreme Court than the Magistrates Court’. That is, essentially, why government will be opposing this bill.
I will turn to the prepared speech I have on this particular issue on behalf of the Attorney-General:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support the bill. The bill proposes to extend the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the CSJ, for the offences of aggravated assault, assault police, and assault police causing harm.
The bill proposes to amend sections 188, 189A(1) and 189A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to remove the restriction on the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for those offences and, instead, allow magistrates to sentence to the full statutory penalty of five years for aggravated assault and assault police. It appears the intention of the bill is also to empower the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to impose a penalty of up to five years imprisonment for the offence of assaulting police causing harm.
A penalty up to the statutory limit of seven years could not be imposed, as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction has a jurisdictional limit of sentencing of five years imprisonment. It looks as though I have answered my own question there, member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: I enjoyed it when you were making it up as you went along.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, it seems as though it is settled in that particular paragraph.
The situation at present is that a magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction can impose a sentence of up to two years imprisonment for a section 188(2), Aggravated assault, and section 189A(1) Assault police, and up to three years of imprisonment for section 189A(2)(a), Assault police causing harm.
When sections 121A, 122A, and 131A of the Justice Act are read together, a regime is created in which some indictable matters, including those under discussion, can be heard in either the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Supreme Court. This is to enable the efficient use of resources where the indictable matters are of such a nature they do not need the extra resources and power of the Supreme Court to be employed. The purpose of having the jurisdictional limit of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in these matters is to provide an incentive for accused persons to have their matters heard in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction rather than the more expensive and time-consuming Supreme Court.
Obviously, there is a judgment call on the part of the defence team in whether that matter will be referred to the Supreme Court. So, it is not just about the expense and time; it is about a matter of judgment whether that matter can be dealt with within the ambit of the Magistrates Court, and is not of sufficient seriousness that needs to be referred on to the Supreme Court.
When introduced by the former member for Araluen, she stated the effect of bill was to free up the Supreme Court by ensuring magistrates have the ability to impose a greater length of imprisonment on offenders who appear before them. It would appear this is just simply not the case. Removing jurisdictional limit could remove the incentive, as I have alluded to before. This could possibly mean more aggravated assault and assault police matters moving to the Supreme Court, with consequent increase in the Supreme Court workload, and an increase in the cost and time taken for these matters to reach conclusion. This is because more time is needed and more resources are used when matters proceed to conclusion in the Supreme Court, rather than the CSJ. Jury trials are expensive and time-consuming.
All other Australian jurisdictions have a similar sentencing regime to this, with the incentive to have matters heard in the lower courts, related to the lower jurisdictional sentencing limit in the lower courts. All other jurisdictions see the cost and time savings in having a choice of court. When a magistrate sentences for aggravated assault, the magistrate knows the maximum statutory penalty is five years, and this maximum sentence of imprisonment is for the very worst examples of the offence. An offence that is not serious will receive a ...
Mr Elferink: Commensurate?
Dr BURNS: … a lesser sentence …
Mr Elferink: A not so big one.
Dr BURNS: Yes, okay. The magistrate knows he or she is able to sentence up to two years imprisonment. If the appropriate sentence should be more than two years, then the matter must be removed to the Supreme Court.
When the magistrate sentences for an assault police causing harm, the magistrate knows that the maximum statutory penalty is seven years, and this maximum sentence of imprisonment is reserved for the very worst example of the offence. An offence that is not as serious as the very worst will receive a lesser sentence - a proportionately lesser sentence is what I was going to say, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: That is all right. I know what you mean.
Dr BURNS: You know what I mean? I was trying to talk about a commensurate …
Mr Elferink: Whoo!
Dr BURNS: … lesser sentence. I got my lips around it; there you go. It is late on General Business Day.
The magistrate knows he or she is able to sentence up to three years imprisonment for that offence but, if the appropriate sentence should be more than three years, then the matter must be removed to the Supreme Court. Thus, if that magistrate is of the opinion that the permissible maximum sentence in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction may be too low, then that magistrate will send the matter to the Supreme Court where a higher sentence is available. This is the main point that needs to be heeded and one of the main reasons why we do not support this bill. Magistrates will refer matters to the Supreme Court if a harsher sentence is needed, so this bill, we believe, is entirely unnecessary.
This referral to the Supreme Court can be done at any stage of proceedings but, generally, the practice is that, in appropriate cases, the magistrate will, in cases where there is a plea of guilty, ascertain what the alleged prosecution facts are and then decide whether the matter should be determined in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.
Where there is a plea of not guilty, the magistrate can, at any stage, convert a summary hearing into a preliminary examination if it appears that the matter is too serious or difficult to be dealt with summarily.
This bill, if passed, will merely result in a risk that, with the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court being basically the same, one of the incentives to have the matter dealt with before a magistrate would be gone, and defendants might prefer to ‘take their chances’ before a jury, with increased costs for no benefit. It is for these reasons that government cannot support the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was with some amusement that I listened to the minister struggle his way through this. I can well understand he has had to struggle with this, because I suspect this was thrown in his lap very recently. I commend the minister on making the effort to get his head around the issue before coming into this Chamber.
However, he has left us with a Gordian Knot in our benchmark for now requiring legislation dealing with matters justice passing through this House. It appears if you do not have the unanimity of view from the legal profession, this government will not proceed with a bill before this House. The legal profession is the only profession I am aware of where unanimity of view is not only impossible but, where you have three lawyers in a room, you will have four diametrically opposed opinions on any issue. So, as a benchmark it is unrealistic and ambitious, to say the least.
I listened also to the minister’s reflections on the nature of the types of villains which find their way into the Supreme Court armed with silks and barristers who are eloquent of tongue and quick of mind when, in actual fact, the vast majority of the cases to which we refer - the aggravated assaults – refer to people who are invariably represented by, sadly - and this is no reflection on law school graduates - but a law school graduate often working for the first one or two years of their career for a legal aid commissioner who has 17 files on the go and who looks like he slept in his shirt the night before. There are no rafts of silks protecting the vast majority of people who are arrested and face trial for matters of aggravated assault and assaults of police officers contemplated by this legislative instrument, or this bill, before the House.
I am also curious about the other argument that prosecutorial convenience is the fundamental rationale for getting these matters dealt with in the lower courts. Indeed, the minister talked about prosecutorial convenience; the value, if you like, of running Supreme Court trials and those sorts of things in an effort to get these particular villains dealt with more rapidly by the lower courts. In fact, he said it is an incentive. That is the complaint of the former shadow Attorney-General and, indeed, my complaint. When I was encouraged to adopt this bill, like all adoptive fathers, I embraced this as my own child, whilst it was given its natural birth by my predecessor …
Mr Henderson: What on earth is he talking about?
Mr ELFERINK: I am speaking metaphorically ...
Ms Scrymgour: Maybe you should have said that at the start.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, perhaps I should have. I will pick up on the interjection and accept the critique - metaphorically speaking.
The point is that this is a government which will tell Territorians it is going to be tough on crime. During Question Time today, we heard the government talk about its concerns about the sentencing regime; how public expectation has not been met, not only in relation to the particular matter of Mr Sargent, but more broadly in relation to sentencing practices.
I find it curious that, on the very same sitting day, a vehicle by which lower courts will be able to impose stiffer penalties for the very crimes we find so repugnant, and that Mr Sargent was a victim of - mind you, I suspect the offender was charged with more serious offences in this instance - that we now have an argument from government which is the very opposite of the argument they proposed during Question Time today: that it is easier and more convenient to offer a lower sentence to people in the lower courts to encourage them to accept the sentencing practices of the lower courts. But ‘Hark’, says the minister, ‘if a magistrate feels it warrants a more serious sentencing contemplation it can be flicked off at the higher courts’.
There is no need to go to the higher court. If a magistrate comes to the conclusion that a more serious penalty is required, then a magistrate is well enough versed in the law surrounding sentencing practices to come to a result which would be reflective of what would occur in the Supreme Court in any instance. Consequently, the arguments of the government do not hold water and are inconsistent with their ‘tough on crime’ stance, which they broadcast to Territorians during their earlier debates in this House.
The fact is in the vast majority of the cases which end up in the lower courts and are accepted, you have those instances where there is a little conversation that occurs between the magistrate and the defence council. The magistrate asks: ‘Is your client prepared to have this matter heard in the lower court?’ The lawyer instantly stands up and says ‘absolutely’, because they know there will be a cap on the sentence in the process. If a magistrate is asking if the client is prepared to have the matter heard in the lower court, he already knows he is going to be capped in the sentence he can dish out. There is no comfort in Territorians knowing their lower courts are not going to dish out the penalties contemplated by this House for aggravated assaults in particular.
Also, the trial process as described would often not manifest itself in the Supreme Court. The acting Attorney-General said the issue of guilt is determined in lower courts, and the higher courts then determines sentence if the sentence warrants it. The truth is, in most cases of aggravated assault before the court, the issue of guilt is not an issue which is argued in practical terms. Yes, occasionally it goes to a hearing in the lower courts as to whether the person is guilty but, in the vast majority of instances, the evidence is so overwhelming in the first instance - including things like admissions from the offender as in the vast majority of cases - the offender is already in a position where they are pleading guilty. Without having looked at the statistics, I can tell you from personal experience the vast majority of aggravated assaults are guilty pleas. So, it is just a reward to an offender to stay in the lower courts. Those are exactly the terms in which the acting Attorney-General described it: it is a reward. You are rewarded for staying in the lower courts and not making our justice system any more complicated.
Well, this is about protecting Territorians and enabling the lower courts to introduce the penalties which, we all agree in this House, need to be stiffer and stronger, and need to send a resonating and strong message out to villains and potential victims – namely, the citizens of this Territory - that a lower court is capable of putting you in gaol for more than two years, in the case of an aggravated assault, and for as much as five years.
I am concerned that the government in Question Time says one thing and, in the late hours of the evening during General Business Day, comes in and says something that is diametrically opposed to their earlier position.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to take up any more time on this issue; the government has made its position clear. I express my disappointment, the disappointment of the former shadow Attorney-General, and the disappointment of my colleagues in the government’s bloody-mindedness on this issue.
I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, in principle, we absolutely agree with what the opposition is trying to do in ensuring that mandatory smoke alarms are fitted to residential buildings built post-1997, and commend the member for bringing this bill before the House as a signal that this is a very serious issue and it certainly does need to come into play.
However, in the construct of this bill and where we are at, we cannot support the bill in its current form. We will be looking to provide for mandatory alarms post-1997 before the middle of the year. I will recognise the opposition in bringing that forward at the time. I will go through the reasons why we cannot support the bill as it is constructed.
I do not want to dwell on it because it is all too close to home and has been very traumatic. I urge members in any consideration of debate on this today to avoid making specific reference to recent events because people are still grieving, and do not need guilt piled upon grief in discussing this particular bill tonight. It is pretty close to home to me, and we need to step up to the plate, but not in this particular manner.
We are moving to ensure pre-1997 houses in the Territory are fitted with smoke alarms. As part of this initiative, we conducted extensive public consultation. It is not just a case of mandating this; there are many issues to consider. I can also say the opposition’s approach will not provide smoke alarms for all pre-1997 buildings in the Territory - that is our main problem with this bill - and our legislation will.
The opposition’s bill will only cover those buildings in declared building areas. Whilst there are major centres like Darwin, Palmerston, and Alice Springs in declared building areas, significant population centres like Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt are not. Most minor communities in the Territory are also outside declared building areas. That is one of the main reasons why we cannot support this legislation.
I am advised that means there is a significant number of residential buildings in the Territory which are outside declared building areas. That means a substantial number of dwellings across the Territory would fall outside the ambit of the opposition’s proposal. Even so, the owners of these pre-1997 residential buildings would still be liable for a $798 fine under the opposition’s plan.
We will also turn to the classifications of residences that would and would not be affected by the opposition’s bill. The opposition’s bill requires Class 1A and 2 residential buildings constructed before 1997 to be fitted with smoke alarms but, for some reason, the bill does not require Class 1B residential buildings to be fitted with smoke alarms. Class 1B buildings are structures including boarding houses, guest houses, or hostels – and that is a significant omission.
There are also no requirements in the opposition bill for caravans which are not rented or permanently sited at caravan parks to be fitted with alarms. This means caravans leased for the short term or sited away from van parks - for example, on a residential block - will not need smoke alarms. Under existing legislation, rented and permanently sited vans at van parks must have smoke alarms fitted.
The government intends to ensure that all vans, such as all pre-1997 dwellings, will join the majority of other caravans and residential dwellings and be fitted with smoke alarms. Government wants to cover all pre-1997 residential buildings in the Northern Territory, regardless of where they are located. That means providing protection for people living in structures such as boarding houses and guest houses.
Of course, it is vitally important we also consider the type of smoke alarms that might be used to protect Territorians. There is significant debate occurring on this at the moment. The government is seriously considering the use of photo-electric alarms with built-in lithium long-life batteries; the opposition is not. The government is considering that, as a minimum standard, pre-1997 dwellings must be fitted with alarms powered by 10-year lithium batteries. The benefits of alarms fitted with lithium batteries with a 10-year life are obvious. They do not present the risk of cheap batteries failing; it is set and forget. There is less maintenance and the battery is built-in and, therefore, cannot be removed to power other devices, therefore the smoke alarm is less likely to be tampered with. Smoke alarms with 10-year lithium batteries offer the prospect of enhanced safety.
I know that also needs to be traded off in the increased cost of those batteries. The opposition is proposing the nine volt cheaper battery alarms. I can understand why they may well do so in encouraging compliance, but that also needs to be considered alongside effectiveness and what we are trying to do here. The fact is, the price of smoke alarms fitted with a 10-year lithium battery has reduced dramatically in recent years and is a more robust and effective alarm.
We intend that domestic dwellings in the Northern Territory must, in the future, have a smoke alarm fitted at the point of sale. Once this is mandated, the reality is insurers will become focused on the need for dwellings to be fitted with smoke alarms. I do not think there is any doubt that once insurance companies become involved the level of compliance is certain to improve dramatically.
The opposition bill contains no explanation about how they intend monitoring whether domestic dwellings have smoke alarms fitted, but the bill makes it clear that the homeowners who do not have smoke alarms will be liable to a $798 fine. This is another issue we have with this particular bill. As a matter of course, I am extremely reluctant to authorise random inspections of citizens’ homes. A person’s home is their castle, and I cannot think of any other scenario, unless a homeowner agrees, that an authorised agent of government can enter into a citizen’s home to carry out an inspection for anything where the homeowner is liable to a fine for non-compliance. Police need a warrant issued by a court to enter someone’s property and, as a matter of course, I find it very difficult to support legislation that authorises random inspections of citizens’ homes. I can understand, in a simple way, why that is in the bill but, as a practical enforcement measure, I do not see how it would work. If I did not have smoke alarms fitted to my home, I would not authorise the inspector to come into my home and whack me with a fine. I do not see how this aids compliance with the obvious policy intent the opposition has for this particular bill.
We have consulted significantly with the real estate industry, the legal fraternity, and with Fire and Emergency Services on this legislation. As I said, we will have this issue resolved by the middle of this year. The time has come for the Northern Territory to step up to the plate, to ensure we do everything we can to protect life and property from house fires, no matter how they occur.
I applaud the opposition for bringing the intent of the bill to this House but, as I said earlier in debate, we subject all legislation that comes before us to a rigorous Cabinet scrutiny process. Through those processes there are significant areas of this bill that miss the point. I am not saying that it in any critical fashion at all. It certainly does not go as far as we intend to go in protecting all citizens in residential dwellings wherever they might live in the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for bringing this legislation before the House today. As I have been able to explain, in the spirit of good faith, we are unable to support it as it currently stands. We will be introducing legislation to resolve this issue and have that passed by the middle of the year. At that time, I will certainly make reference to the opposition’s support and encouragement of the government to enact legislation to effect what the opposition is trying to effect today. However, for the reasons outlined we cannot support the bill.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, what I want to point out - and the Chief Minister danced around it a little - is there has been a recent, unfortunate, tragic highlighting of the need to do something more in relation to smoke alarms. The Chief Minister danced around it, and rightly so.
What we are saying is it is time to take some action and put some steps in place to mandate for this. It is a first step allowing for the cheaper, more readily available fire alarms to be compulsorily put into houses. It is a cheap first step, and it is an important first step. Our fire services have talked of it. We probably cannot afford to wait until the middle of the year as the Chief Minister has indicated. The rate at which this government talks about achieving fast or rapid responses, immediately rolling something out, tends to normally mean about two years. That is not good enough.
If the Chief Minister was serious, he would have brought into this House his own legislation. Some of the issues the Chief Minister raised are correct in regard to determining or accessing a person’s private residence as to whether they are compliant or not. But guess what, Chief Minister? You will have the same legislative problem when it comes to your bill - whenever we see it. So, come out, support the intent, and support this bill. Let us take a first step together in protecting Territorians’ lives and work through this together. Do not bury your head in the sand any more and say: ‘We are going to bring a bill out in six months time’. Unfortunately, you have a very pathetic track record of bringing further bills out in that six months time. It normally means we are not even going to see it in 12 months time. That is not good enough; it is time to take some action. This may be a small step, it may have some flaws, but I tell you, you have produced a lot of bills on your side that have had stacks of flaws, but you still brought them into this House. Let us take a step together for the safety of Territorians.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw the government’s attention to the report to the Legislative Assembly, dated 11 August 2009 and signed by the member for Karama, Delia Lawrie. I quote from the letter attached to it, in paragraph 3:
That report from the Deputy Coroner is dated 16 December 2008. It is now February 2011. There was only one recommendation from the Deputy Coroner:
Paragraph 4 of the accompanying letter from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General said:
It went on to say:
Which is Attachment B to the letter.
The last paragraph said:
That was August 2009 and, in excess of 18 months later, we still do not see anything. The consequences of delays in this are only too obvious to all of us in this House.
We had situations where the government introduced pool fencing and said: ‘This is a great idea; it is going to save lives’. Yes, pool fencing is, to a degree, a good thing in many circumstances; it has, no doubt, saved lives. There are requirements for some properties to have pool fences and some properties not to have pool fences. There are degrees of where we put in pool fencing. I am suggesting to the government there could be degrees where we could make smoke alarms compulsory in all houses.
I note the member for Wanguri, in response to this, spoke about Class 1A and 2 houses, but we did not talk about Class 1B. I am sure, if the member for Wanguri was amenable to bringing in the odd amendment to this very important private member’s bill on this very important issue - I am not saying it is the case, but it appears, when the Chief Minister said the government will introduce legislation, perhaps in June, it might have been in response to this private member’s bill, given that it is about six months after. I would think, in instances such as this, where you have a good recommendation from the Deputy Coroner, that the government might have acted on it a little quicker than it did.
In reply, the Chief Minister said there has been extensive public consultation. I certainly hope so. In my inquiries, I have not found that to be the case. I am sure the Chief Minister would be able to explain that better if he had had a little more time to do so. He also said we are looking at $798 fines for people who do not fit smoke alarms. That is true; it is certainly a good incentive to put smoke alarms in premises. He went on to say he does not know of anything or anyone who has the ability to walk into premises and check, and he did not want to impose that upon the community. I will quote from the Fire and Emergency Act, section 25(1):
We are not really worried about people’s back yards. However, it is section 25(1)(a) we refer to. It is very clear a person or an authorised person, at any time, can enter to determine a law for the prevention of fire. The compulsory fitting of a smoke alarm actually becomes an issue here and comes under this particular subsection. There are powers for people to do this already. It is with that in mind we continually hear from the government that there are things which are in place that prevent people from doing things when, in fact, there are the rules and the laws there to give the required people the access they need to go in and check this.
If we say we are going to make it compulsory, I recommend - and I think I did in my previous comments on this bill - that you would ask that people put in hard-wired smoke alarms. To do that, there is a fairly large degree of expense to go back to the actual cost of fitting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I could interrupt you. In accordance with Standing Order 41A(b), it is 9 pm and you have some 22 or 23 minutes remaining. Is it your intention, because we would need to …
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will complete my comments at a later time. There are a few more issues I would really like to discuss and I would rather not just rush it.
Madam SPEAKER: Certainly. You will have that matter again in the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this month is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, an initiative of Ovarian Cancer Australia. Today is Teal Ribbon Day.
One in 77 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in their lifetime. While the risk of ovarian cancer increases with age, the fact is the majority of Australian women do not know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. In a tribute to women diagnosed with this disease, Teal Ribbon Day is intended to create a national awareness campaign to educate women on the symptoms of ovarian cancer. I encourage all Northern Territory women and their families to actively consider their own health prevention measures and seek medical advice if any symptoms are detected. I support this initiative by Ovarian Cancer Australia and very much thank the members from both sides of the House for wearing a teal ribbon today.
I continue in relation to some issues raised and comments made by the member for Araluen with regard to child protection and the Children’s Commissioner. The member for Araluen stated publicly today in the media that the Children’s Commissioner is not independent because he is under the CEO of the department of Health. This is far from the truth.
The Care and Protection of Children Act provides for the Office of Children’s Commissioner, and that position commenced in 2008. At the time, the Minister for Child Protection, Hon Marion Scrymgour, made a statement with regard to the office of the Children’s Commissioner:
The Children’s Commissioner reports to the Legislative Assembly through the Minister for Child Protection, and prepares an annual report relating to his statutory function. The Children’s Commissioner does not come under the CEO of the department of Health; the CEO cannot direct the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner is an independent person who examines all of the complaints made to him with regard to provision for child protection.
I was disappointed in the member for Araluen when she misled the public by putting this statement through the media. I am also disappointed the media, the ABC, did not seek an explanation to find out about the position of the Children's Commissioner, and published the misleading information provided by the member for Araluen.
In addition to that, I heard with great interest the member for Araluen make a statement yesterday and today about a situation in Alice Springs. Like the members opposite, I know very well that there are problems in Alice Springs. In fact, a few years ago there were serious problems in Casuarina. The difference between me and the member for Araluen is, while there were problems in Casuarina, instead of going out and bagging Casuarina, I chose to work with police, with Children’s Services, with my colleagues on this side of the House, in order to resolve the issues at Casuarina. We all remember the Casuarina gang. Now, there is no Casuarina gang. I worked very closely with the police and all the services for children, and we managed to resolve the situation.
I am very alarmed that the member for Araluen said that she knew young girls and young children were prostituting themselves in Alice Springs. If you are aware of child abuse, or a young child prostituting themselves, or someone exploiting a child, it is a mandatory obligation to report this to the police or to my department. To date, my department has not received any official notification, either from the member for Araluen or other people, about the situation. The police will investigate these allegations. The reality is we - not as politicians, but as human beings - if we realise a child is procuring themselves, or someone is procuring a child, we should report it immediately to the police. It is a moral obligation of all of us.
I know the members opposite are very anxious about Alice Springs, and I understand that; I was in the same position. However, we have to be very careful how we address this issue of young people in Alice Springs late at night, and the allegation of them committing crimes. I have already read some comments in the media about people who are disillusioned with the campaign; they do not hesitate to call it racist. We have to be very careful how we divide the line. The last thing we need now in Alice Springs, or any other place in the Territory, is to convert the Territory from a very tolerant place to divide society across racial lines when blacks and whites have been friends for 50, 60, 100 years.
Not only are there bitter complaints about it but we now have this campaign they threaten to put on national television. Just think what you are going to do about your own town; how your town is going to be portrayed by the media. They cannot wait for an opportunity to portray this rural and remote town as a centre of crime to justify some issues that have been portrayed very badly down south. I do not think the Saturday article on Alice Springs was fair for Alice Springs. It was a one-sided article which portrayed all the bad things that happen in Alice Springs. My understanding is - and I heard comments from people – the person who wrote the article, Nicholas Rothwell, did not bother to speak to a variety of people in Alice Springs to get different opinions. Instead, he quoted all the bad things that happen in Alice Springs.
I am prepared to work with members from Alice Springs. There are child protection issues, and we have to address the problem together. Let us put politics aside. Let us find out the future of Alice Springs because, after all, Alice Springs is still in the Territory. People there deserve to have a peaceful life. If we have to address the issue of children, we have to address it. We have to be very careful how we deal with Alice Springs because it is not only that you are bagging your own town, but how do you think I am going to employ nurses and doctors in a place you admit is not a good place to bring up a family, or not a safe place to go out at night?
In the past 10 years that I have been a member of this parliament, I have been to Alice Springs many times. I have walked many times from the centre of Alice Springs to the Crowne Plaza or to Lasseters Casino or Alice on Todd late at night. I had people in Alice Springs being surprised that I walked at night by myself. I did not feel threatened. I did not have any problem with approaches to me or anyone committing an offence against me. I felt very comfortable. There are other places in Australia I would not walk at night like Northbridge in Perth, but I felt very safe in Alice Springs.
I understand there are problems, but we have to be very conscious of how we address these problems. Do not think that Darwin is immune. We have some places around Darwin which can sometimes be very interesting. Mitchell Street late at night or early in the morning can be a very interesting place. Most of the problems there are not caused by Indigenous people. They are caused by mainstream white people who have had too much to drink, or have taken some funny things before they go there to drink.
Let us work together to resolve the issue of Alice Springs.
I call upon every member of the House: if you realise a child is abused, a child is prostituted, or a child is in danger of harm, you have an obligation - not only moral, but legal - to report that to the police and to my department.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have a couple of things I would like to talk about. The first is to provide my sincere thanks to one of the ministers. In this place, we often get at each other’s throats. I was pretty much hung out to dry this morning by the Chief Minister, but welcomed his support for legislation this evening, which I thought was terrific and shows that both sides can work together from time to time.
In this case, I refer to Dr Burns, the minister for Public and Affordable Housing. I wrote to him because of a horrific situation in regard to a young man who, admittedly, had a colourful history. The sad thing was that he was given custody of his two young children by the courts due to a marriage breakdown. His partner, at the time, had gone interstate. He was left with these two young children to care for, one with Down Syndrome. The horrible thing was that this young family was living in a shipping container which was sitting in someone’s back yard in Palmerston. Quite frankly, not a fantastic place in which to raise anyone, let alone children, in the build-up, with no air-conditioning, no nothing - living in a shipping container.
Unfortunately, Territory Housing told them they were on the waiting list, but it could take 18 months or more to find a home. I thought that the circumstances were rather tragic and I wrote to the minister. To his credit, before too long - it was a very quick time period - they had organised a non-government organisation, Somerville Community Services, to step in and provide emergency accommodation for this young family until Territory Housing can provide adequate housing. It was good to see the minister can take action, particularly when horrific circumstances are raised and brought to his attention.
The second thing I wanted to speak to you about is that I have had a number of complaints about the lights on the road in the new Johnston subdivision. I am talking more specifically about Lambrick Avenue. I will read out one of the e-mails - and I have had quite a few complaints about it. The context of the complaints is the fact that government has pushed everyone to be environmentally friendly and that we should turn our lights off, yet we have all these new lights out there burning 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I even took it up with Power and Water and was told they were doing testing on the lights and, until the testing and the development was complete, the lights had to stay on. I am not sure how that works. If you have an electrical fault in your home and an electrician comes around, they do not have to leave things running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to find fault.
In this particular case, the e-mail says:
It finishes off with:
When the stimulus package was being debated in this House during 2009, the Territory government made a commitment that stimulus money committed for Building the Education Revolution would be used to build cyclone shelters where possible. A question I have for minister Burns is: how many new cyclone shelters resulted from the BER program; where are they; and how many extra people will they accommodate?
I have had any number of complaints about the Ochre Card system which we now have operating in the Northern Territory - not so much about the intent of the Ochre Card but the processes involved. There would not be a person in this room who would suggest we should not be doing all we can to protect children in our communities. I have raised before regarding the H endorsement of bus drivers where they need an Ochre Card application - $50 to the police - and also the H endorsement. It seems to be a double up; they are both police checks to enable them to do their job.
Similarly, I have had complaints from people who are concerned that time is running out. I believe 1 March is when people are supposed to have the Ochre Cards. I have knowledge that at the Katherine High School there is only one teacher so far who has the Ochre Card. The advice is they are running about three months behind schedule. I would like to know what government is doing to cover this time period if people are supposed to have these Ochre Cards by 1 March and the process is running three months behind schedule. Is there any frame in place at the moment to deal with that? Is there going to be some kind of amendment, or some extension in the time period given?
The other point on the Ochre Card is there seems to be many concerns with the need for people to have these cards; sometimes a second card, and even a third card. One story I was told - and correct me if I am wrong, but it is the information I have been given - is that if a parent of a child who goes to school decides to go on an interstate trip with the school, as most schools do every year, not only do the parents need the Ochre Card in the Northern Territory, they also need to have the equivalent in each of the states they visit. So, if they do a tour from Darwin to Canberra to Melbourne and back to Darwin, from my information it appears they would need the equivalent to the Ochre Card in the ACT and Victoria, and the one here in the Northern Territory. That is $50 a time. It is quite remarkable to think how complicated this system can become.
No one is against what the Ochre Card is trying to achieve, that is, to protect children. But, surely to goodness, we can streamline the processes involved. Why do people need an Ochre Card and another police check for a job when they are exactly the same thing? I would really like some clarification on where we are going to go with that in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of other things but time is upon me. I will pass on to the next person.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about a holiday. It seems as if it was an eternity ago that I was on a holiday, but it was a very good holiday. My wife and I decided we would be selfish and take the holiday together - so none of the kids were invited. We went to London. Heading to London gave me some opportunities to explore. I thought one of those opportunities would definitely relate to Westminster - the parliament and the origins of the Westminster system.
I thank Madam Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard MLA, who started to advise me on how to go about seeing and learning about Westminster. I thank Mr Ian McNeill, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and Jane Gunner, Executive Secretary to the Clerk, who made the connections for me with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom. It was a wonderful connection.
They set the communication up for me, and I followed up and was put in touch with a wonderful young British lady, Rachael Cox, the Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom, who organised the tour of Westminster for me and my wife. We were received with a very warm welcome. It was an incredible opportunity to participate in a tour of Westminster that took you into all the areas of the building with a sensational guide who provided the history and the culture of the place. We enjoyed it immensely.
The other thing that came about from Madam Speaker’s advice was to make contact with a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That turned out to be a very informative visit. I met Mr Adrian Saunders MP, the member from Devon. He is a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and the Vice Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom, Branch Executive Committee. Mr Saunders made me feel very welcome and set up a meeting in the members’ lobby. I was very interested to discuss a number of issues in relation to arts and museums. We talked at length about the British policy for public art and also what we are moving into very much so in the Northern Territory; that is, looking at philanthropy to support government funding to develop our arts and museums sector.
In essence, I took the Building Our Museum and Art Galleries consultation with me on the road. I made an oral presentation for the member and we discussed at length ways the Territory could learn lessons form the British, looking at good policy and developing policy. Mr Saunders was very informative and a very experienced parliamentarian.
From that meeting, he suggested that Question Time might be the next step in the tour. I was very fortunate to attend Question Time at Westminster. It was an interesting day we turned up to have our tour and attend Question Time because the debate was around education. It was interesting to watch the new government at Question Time. I learnt about the British system and how it operates very differently from ours.
I will just jump to another interesting part of the trip. It was 10 years since I worked in London at the Southwark Inclusive Learning Support Service, which was a learning centre for children excluded from the mainstream; I worked there for a school year. They were, basically, emotional and behavioural high support needs. I visited the centre, and Mr Krishna Purbhoo, the head of the centre, the Southwark Inclusive Learning Support Service in London Bridge in the UK, made us feel very welcome. We had an incredible meeting discussing what had changed in the British system in dealing with kids with high support emotional and behavioural needs in 10 years. It was interesting politics to discuss how the concerns at the time we were there were relating to the change in policy to a conservative government and the move away from an emphasis on community-based schooling.
It was good to look at tin tacks, programs, behaviour management, and systems that had changed since I worked there. It was also very informative to look at the macro view of how policy was changing, and the concerns of the more disadvantaged boroughs that were quite worried about the way the new conservative government was going with their cuts to funding - their fears about the direction of policy being off, with the disadvantage, so to speak, geared more to the mainstream. That was an incredible day as well, spent in the London Bridge area.
Getting back to Question Time at Westminster, it became very apparent it was a much different style of questioning from the opposition. It was a very much different approach from government in responding. To sum it up, it seemed there was a logical, well-mannered and commonsense agreement that the questioning from the opposition would facilitate the delivering of a report-style response from government. I suppose, after all, it was Great Britain. It seemed very gentlemanly. The women as well used the same style of operation. For just over an hour I sat in Question Time in the House of Commons. I thought of how it was so different to the Northern Territory.
Today, I certainly felt how negative our Question Time has become in the House, and how disappointing it is that government is continually facing this conspiracy-style questioning from the opposition. If you deal with a conspiracy every day in Question Time, then so be it. However, if there is bellowing, roaring, screaming, shouting, and abuse going with that style of questioning, then I really have to question what benefit Territorians are getting out of Question Time.
Madam Speaker does a sterling job in trying to keep the place under control, and regularly reminds members there are Territorians listening to the broadcast who are very interested in what their elected community members are doing in this House.
Today was a good example if we look at child protection and important legislative issues. If we talk about Muckaty and the imposition of Australia’s first nuclear waste facility, in the middle of the bellowing, roaring, and screaming, it has taken me back to London once again on day one with a group of high-support, emotional and behavioural needs students, trying to get some order, which took quite a number of weeks to establish, where we could exist together but, most importantly, where we could learn from each other together. The House today reminded me how we may have lost the essence of the Westminster system. I was definitely comparing to the Westminster Question Time I sat in on, and how the reporting style of information and the targeted and meaningful questions related to a reporting to constituents in a real and sincere way.
Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting experience. It was a fantastic holiday; there were lots of arts and museums involved. I definitely felt that not only did I have a holiday, but there were also many great opportunities for research, which I did. Maybe, just maybe, we might start to consider the nature of our Question Time in the Northern Territory, and challenge ourselves as being fully responsible to our constituents for not only our behaviour but our responsibility in reporting to them.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, western democracies must surely be concerned at the new age consumerism sweeping across the Eastern world. Across the Northern Territory, many sit in awe, witnessing the demands for change against regimes in the pursuit of economic freedom, confused about the salvation of democratic social and economic rights for all.
In Alice Springs, we have our own movement: a resurrection, if you like, that is gathering pace in protest of the Territory government, seeking action against crime and antisocial behaviour. It is a cry for help. Our crime wave, our normal life - which includes bashings, machete attacks, murders, stabbings, along with home invasions, sexual assaults and attempted rape - is bringing citizens and business people to the fore, seeking economic relief and freedom from crime to go about their everyday business.
This Alice Springs movement is currently witnessing another movement, one by visitors from outside of town. Since 2007 and earlier, many Indigenous Territorians have moved from bush to town, seeking to erode themselves of the cultural museum design of Indigenous policy, where the urban left seeks preservation of culture by disallowing policy which encourages people not to enter the real economy - a flawed model that destroys culture and envelopes a life of misery.
While we are not in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya, and Prime Minister Gillard, Indigenous Affairs minister Macklin, and Northern Territory Chief Minister Henderson, are no Mubarak, Ben Ali or Gaddafi, we are still fortunate the Alice Springs street protests have not eventuated, the riots are not current, and the donning of hoods made of sheets are not around.
The tale of two worlds - that is, Alice Springs and right across the Northern Territory - is currently coming to a head. Businesses, Aboriginal leaders, and individuals have reached a precipice in a bleeding point where many Indigenous Central Australians have mobilised into Alice Springs, lost in a generation. It is only a matter of time before the new electronic age virals through the halls of the democracy of the Northern Territory. If they join and fight together for change, for freedom, as one, we will be in a good place.
Last night’s meeting in Alice Springs, held by the group known as Action for Alice, was one such thing. It was not a white versus black meeting; it was a meeting of people who are concerned for our town. It was very positive to see the Chairman of the Central Land Council, Lindsay Bookie, in attendance at the meeting. It was also very positive to see the President of the MacDonnell Shire, Sid Anderson, present in the audience. That was a clear signal that this is not a race-based action group; this is an action group looking for change.
I listened earlier tonight to the member for Casuarina say: ‘Let us not make this about race’. I have heard the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia - the very poor performing Minister for Central Australia - talk about racial divide in this debate. That is racism at its heart; that is sowing the seed of racism. For Karl Hampton, the minister, to talk about race promotes racism. It promotes racism and racist attitudes. People want action.
If the member for Stuart was actually doing his job, he would have been starting to nip this issue in the bud a very long time ago. For it was on 29 April 2009, when I, Adam Giles, member for Braitling, moved that the Assembly establish a sessional committee on Central Australian development, designed to try to improve our economy and to bring forward some change. It was on 24 November 2009 that the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, presented a ministerial statement to this Chamber about the importance of Central Australia, deliberately designed around parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs.
If the Minister for Central Australia - who tells everyone he lives in Alice Springs - had his eye on the ball and was doing his job, he would have known these issues have been boiling away for some time. I think it was in 2008 when I made a speech in this Chamber, and spoke about Alice Springs reaching a boiling point, and people laughed. The member for Macdonnell backed me up at that time. It has been brewing since then.
I am very proud to see that the Indigenous leaders, businesses and concerned citizens of Alice Springs are uniting. It is not a race-based argument, as the Minister for Central Australia puts it; this is an Alice Springs-based argument. So, in the reference to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, it is important to see the correlation. We are not seeing one element of our community unite; we are seeing everyone unite in a fight for change for our town. Some of that fight is for economic freedom; some of it is for social and cultural recognition and freedom. Whatever the fight may be, we have to continue that fight.
Rest assured we need cooperation in this Chamber and from the government to work towards solving some of the problems. Yes, we must take some sting out of the tail of the antagonism of the politics which surrounds us, but we do need action. People in Alice Springs are not stupid. People in Tennant Creek and Katherine are not stupid. When they come up with ideas about how to move forward, we have to listen to those ideas and put them into some sort of prism where we recognise what people are saying and consider the actions those people want. Not everything can be done, but some things that can be done and some of these ideas must be put into action. I raise this as a sensible argument in this debate.
I fear – and this is not scaremongering - that we are potentially at a tipping point, at a precipice, of something which could be so much worse. We are also at the precipice of being able to turn things around and move forward to regain our vibrancy and our positive approach to life in Central Australia, and move forward to something much bigger and better than Central Australia has always been. If we do move to a place of race-based riots, such as in Los Angeles or similar, we will be in a very sad place.
I call on the Northern Territory government to work with me and my colleagues, the good members for Araluen and Greatorex, and come around the table and work together to try to solve these issues. We all have our politics, and politics will continue but, if we can take the sting out of some of our arguments, it will be beneficial for the people of Alice Springs. I thank you for your time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about two soldiers who were killed during the last three weeks. The 1st Combat Engineer Regiment, based at Robertson Barracks in my electorate, has lost two soldiers in the last three weeks. They were 22-year-old Corporal Richard Atkinson, who was killed on 2 February, and Sapper Jamie Larcombe, killed on 19 February. I pay tribute to these brave young men.
Corporal Atkinson was born in Hobart, Tasmania, and joined the Army in 2007. In the same year, he successfully completed his recruit and combat engineer basic training, prior to being posted to the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment based in Darwin. He was promoted to corporal just prior to his section’s deployment to Afghanistan. The Defence department has said he was a dedicated soldier with long career aspirations. Corporal Atkinson was killed in action by an insurgent improvised explosive device while he was the Search Commander leading his combat engineer section.
Corporal Atkinson leaves behind his parents, brother and fiance, who he was planning to start a family with this year. Family and friends have said he was a fun-loving family man close to his relatives, and he shared a strong mateship with those he left behind in Afghanistan and Australia.
Sapper Jamie Larcombe was born on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, and joined the Army soon after his 18th birthday, which was his lifelong ambition. He was on his first tour of Afghanistan. Sapper Larcombe and an Afghan interpreter died during what appeared to be a coordinated insurgent attack employing machine gun and small arms fire. The Defence Chief said Sapper Larcombe was a quiet achiever, a dependable team player, and could be relied on to get the job done.
Sapper Larcombe left behind his parents, three sisters, and a girlfriend. His death has hit the close-knit community of Kangaroo Island, where everyone knows everyone. His dedication to his family and his fun-loving sense of humour has been a common thread through the comments from family and friends.
Corporal Atkinson’s and Sapper Larcombe’s deaths highlight the dangers faced by our soldiers in areas of conflict overseas. I believe we should honour these soldiers each time we have Anzac Day, because these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. There are people who believe we should pull out of Afghanistan, but I believe their memories are short.
I remind people of Bali. The people who drive the insurgencies in Afghanistan are the same sort of people who will bomb and kill Australians in Bali. If we are to protect our freedom then, unfortunately, we will lose some young Australians in that process. We should always remember them, because it is our privilege to stand here today in a free and peaceful country, and it is these soldiers who have committed the ultimate sacrifice to allow us to do that.
My thoughts go out to the family, friends and mates still in Afghanistan. May they rest in peace.
I will comment on a couple of other things in more recent times. I thank the workers in Power and Water over the period of what I call the big storm. There were many consumers without power in the rural area. There were crews, obviously stretched to the limit, trying to put power back on in Darwin and Palmerston, as well as other parts of the rural area. In Howard Springs, the power was off for probably about eight to 10 hours, but there were some parts that were off longer. I refer to Mahaffey Road where, unfortunately, a tree had come down and taken out a high voltage line and a low voltage line, and damaged four of the poles.
Although it was difficult to get the work going in the beginning for various reasons, when the crews came in - and most of the crew was from Katherine, and I thank all those crew members who came up from Katherine to help, with some from our local 19 Mile depot - they got stuck into it. I think it was on the Thursday or the Friday - it might have been the Friday - they were working from about 8 am to 6 pm, non-stop, in pouring rain at times, welding new crossbars, putting up new cables, and repairing lines to individual houses. They worked all day and late into the evening to ensure power was eventually restored to people who had power off for nearly four days. I am pretty sure everyone in that street - because I visited every house – was very grateful that power was on. There were a few little generators which had seen better times that were trying to keep the fridges operating.
I thank them very much for their work; it was a terrific job. Also, the minister mentioned that some of the staff were giving out lunches. When the rain was on, I noticed a car pull up with all these little packages of orange juice, sandwiches, and fruit. I thought that was pretty good; it meant the men could stay on the job, have a break, and get back into providing power. I thank those Power and Water workers, because they did a great job.
Parts of the rural area were flooded. I know there is a lot of talk about it being an extraordinary amount of rain, and there is no doubt it was. However, there are some issues that we still have to look at. It was a good chance to see what parts of the rural area were flooded. If there is one thing that annoys me, is when land is subdivided and that subdivision is not accurate. People buy a block of land and, before they know it, their house goes under water. There are some old areas in the rural area that were subdivided long before planning controls came into place. Unfortunately, there are a couple of places in Howard Springs where, when you get a really big flood, they are going to get wet. This year, the pipes and drains under Whitewood Road could not handle the water, and two houses went under water.
If anyone has any knowledge of the vegetation of wetlands, they would see straightaway that these blocks of land should have never been sold. People have paperbarks in their front lawn. It gives you the impression this might be wet, but people built there and, unfortunately, now they have suffered because water got into the houses. Of course, what comes then is the blame game as to who is going to fix it. That is one of those issues that will be ongoing.
There is also land in the Beddington Road area that I believe should not have been released for subdivision because it did not have the required 1 ha of dry ground, even though there was plenty of water. I do not think someone has done the work properly in establishing what was the wet area. It is not a difficult thing to do these days; vegetation normally tells you where the wet areas are. Unfortunately, the approval for that subdivision was inadequate.
I was not able to get in for the debate on the childcare issue this evening. I would have liked to have said something. I notice this media release from the CLP about ‘Labor gags Ombudsman’. I read through it and rang up Commissioner Bath. Commissioner Bath happened to be going past and dropped in. He had not heard anything about this. Without putting words into his mouth, basically he said this was not correct; that the contents of this particular media release were not true. He believed he had the understanding from the Ombudsman that she was okay with what was to occur. That was, I think, sometime last year. He was surprised this had come out in the way the media release has stated. He also said some of the particular points about his role were not correct either.
I do not mind people having their points of view but, in this case - and knowing Commissioner Howard Bath as a good, decent man who has the protection of children as one of his priorities in life - I would have thought it would be worth the CLP spokesperson, Robyn Lambley, giving him a ring tomorrow just to check up whether this statement is accurate. Commissioner Bath is a good bloke. I do not think he is going to go on the warpath about it, but it is a bit sad this came out when I do not think it is accurate.
I also had a briefing in relation to the bill that is going up before us and, again, this is not my understanding of the situation. Once again, I say this is inaccurate. Commissioner Bath does an excellent job, and I also support the Ombudsman. We do not want to make noises about important issues unless it is accurate, otherwise it creates mischief when it does not need to.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate and acknowledge all the hard work that has gone on over the last week or so with the events of the flooding and the storm associated with Cyclone Carlos.
In the direct Darwin area, the Power and Water crews responded to a huge number of outages, and they did an absolutely tremendous job. Congratulations go to all the staff; not just the linies who were out there in the weather trying to maintain power to houses by rectifying faults, but to the call centre staff, and the support staff for those call centre staff. They did a tremendous job. They were pulling 16-hour shifts. There were volunteers from other sections of the organisation coming into the call centre. We had staff in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs in those call centres receiving calls and working after hours. It went to a 24-hour service over that period of days through until Friday night. On Saturday, they did about 18 hours, and Sunday was back to normal hours. They did an absolutely incredible amount of work. Some of them were working, especially through that first day, from 5 am. As I recounted in the House this week, some of them who were dedicated to providing that service were bringing their children in so they could both look after their children and provide that call service to the people of the Northern Territory.
I congratulate Andrew Macrides for his leadership in this disaster, and also his key staff, Bertram Birk in the networks area and Darryl Day as well, and Steve McKenzie in the water area. To all the staff, congratulations on all the tremendous work done. It all went off without any sort of injuries at all. Well done.
On the Friday of last week, the Adelaide River rose and I happened to be there. I saw where the low pressure system was heading at that time and realised it was going to hit the catchment of the Adelaide River. The Adelaide River township community has, unfortunately in some ways, been through a flooding before, so the Coomalie Shire Council was well into its planning for monitoring, trying to prevent inundation of some properties and other assets, and keeping people informed. John Hughes, the CEO, was there. There was sand and sandbags provided for residents who wanted to use them. There were staff moving around, keeping an eye on the water supply. The townspeople were moving cars if they felt it necessary. Macca, the OIC there, was keeping a good eye on things. Congratulations to everyone. Luckily, it did not get into too many houses. It pulled up at 12.8 m at 8 pm that night. Well done to all the staff and the people who pulled together. At Tommy and Patty Fawcett’s house, there were many people helping them sandbag parts of the house and parts of the block as well.
The cyclone, or low, continued on down towards the Daly, and that became the next big area of concern. We have seen over recent times the flooding there. I congratulate all for the effort there. It was a very unusual system. Usually, the Daly floods from the Katherine River. This time around, it flooded from the Daly River, the Douglas, and the Fish, and those other streams, so it was quite an unusual system, and hard to predict. I guess everyone - the Bureau of Meteorology, the police, a whole range of people - who had witnessed other floods were trying to predict it, and it was becoming very difficult to predict.
There were extensive local meetings where the discussion about when to evacuate took place. People chose to stay. They were given the choice to go if they wanted to. People who had the experience in 1998 where they were taken out to 5 Mile and it was quite uncomfortable, I guess had the belief they could actually ride it out; that the flood waters would drop. Obviously, it kept on going. The decision was made on the Sunday to evacuate, and it was one of the most successful evacuations they have ever had there. At 7 am, the Tactical Response Group was there with their boats, and the police boats had been stationed there earlier over the weekend. Everyone was out by 3 pm, across the water, and the last bus left the Wooliana School at 8 pm that night. It was a massive effort, and congratulations to all the people concerned.
I thank Steve Bott, the Officer-in-Charge at Daly River, for the magnificent job he did. Andy McTaggart was coordinating so much there, working with Power and Water in relation to the sewerage station, and also when the electricity supply should be shut down. Mark Casey, who works with the police there, did a great job with the evacuation. Sadly, he hit something with his boat and he has destroyed his leg on his outboard motor, so that is being fixed at the moment. Barry Fletcher is the Essential Services Officer there - great work with Power and Water and with the shire, and Janet Fletcher with the clinic. All the clinic staff, including Mark Mullins, did a great job. There were no injuries in the movement of people across the river.
Chris Hill, the Shire Services Manager, is still there. He was working to coordinate things. Bev, his wife, works for Nauiyu Nambiyu Inc and they have a number of assets and functions they provide for the community. She is still there trying to coordinate that. In the evacuation, Cookes Tours buses were brought down and Robbie Douglas from Batchelor and his staff were called into action on short notice and did a tremendous job.
Unfortunately, one of the dips near the Tipperary boundary of the Daly River Road blew out - the first time it has ever done that - and they had to try to traverse that. Well done to Robbie and all his staff. I also congratulate all the Transport and Works staff and their contractors. That blowout became quite significant and they had trucks and were hauling rock out of some borrow pits into the night. They had lights down there and were working trying to get a solid base for the buses to get through. They did an absolutely fabulous job.
All the Power and Water staff had been in regular contact - Darryl Day was in regular contact - and the personnel were going backwards and forwards monitoring the situation. They actually had to switch the generators over, and brought a smaller one down because there was not enough load on it. They have been back there over the last couple of days, progressively restoring power.
Also to Telstra - communications is a vital link and the satellite tower in the community was going out. The power was cut to the community because of the possibility of electrocution as boats were going very close to the overhead power lines. They turned that off and, with the battery life of the transmitter being limited, Andy and Telstra got those going again.
Congratulations to Jenny Whyte of Dundee. She is the volunteer with the first aid post there and she did a fabulous job. I also acknowledge the work done by Sue Whatley of the Bushfires Council keeping in contact with that community. They are in the recovery stage now, and I acknowledge that John De Koning has been appointed the coordinator. I have known John for many years and he will do an absolutely fabulous job. The Victoria Daly Shire has appointed Frank Mills to coordinate the centre at Batchelor.
I acknowledge the work done by the Red Cross, Centrelink, Children and Families and the police and the Health department there. They are all working very well and everyone is getting the services they need. I congratulate everyone on a magnificent effort over the last week.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I provide some good news stories from my electorate in the northern suburbs. I was out and about last Saturday afternoon, 19 February. I spoke to a number of people who were cleaning up cyclone damage. I was trying to find out how they endured what was, in Darwin, probably minor damage when you compare it to previous catastrophes and natural disasters which have occurred in this part of the world and others. All the same, there was a great deal of damage around the place with many trees down.
Whilst I was out two people who recognised me stopped and made comments about the great job the prisoners, who were out with their prison officer supervisors, were doing. I thought that was great because usually people are quick to criticise all sorts of people for all sorts of things, but very slow to make an effort to convey praise to people in the community. It was with great pleasure that I approached the prisoners and prison officers and conveyed the sentiments to them. I do not know who they were - I did not choose to find out who they were - they were just working on the side of the road. In my capacity as a member of the public, I approached them and said that great things had been said. They were extremely grateful and they brought to my attention that they do not normally get much positive feedback from the community.
When I eventually got back to my office, under the door was a note signed by a lady who lives in Malak by the name of Heather Beale:
That lady was very appreciative of the work done by those people. I commend the Correctional Services staff for doing such a great job taking these people out, giving them skills and training them in relation to horticultural work so they can, perhaps, start a new life upon their release.
I move on now to the Bombing of Darwin commemoration at the Darwin Entertainment Centre on Saturday, 19 February. It was with great pride that I sat in the audience and watched four students from a school in my electorate, Sanderson Middle School, take up some folded paper cranes that they and other students had made. These young people were: Jessica Murdoch, Zakiyah Al Jonaedi, Mopune Beaton and Roechelle Attwood. These young students from Sanderson Middle School were accompanied by Kylie Smith, the teacher of Japanese language and culture at the school, and Yuki Ito, a Japanese teacher at Sanderson. The young ladies were accompanied by the Consul-General of Japan, Dr Masahiro Kohara, and his assistant.
I would like to read into the record the article that will appear in the Sanderson Middle School newsletter. I put it on the public record because it encapsulates exactly what occurred there and the symbolic nature of what these young people did with the Consul-General. I quote from the article that is going to go in to their newsletter:
The other item that goes in conjunction with this in the newsletter is titled ‘Japanese at Sanderson’. It is a great program at Sanderson Middle School with a great deal of interest from students there. Each year, they organise to take these students to Japan to understand the language and culture they have been learning. I will quote a little about that:
That gives a little explanation of what is going on in some of the innovative programs Sanderson Middle School runs. They are a fantastic group of people. You would not find another school in the Northern Territory with more enthusiasm than that of the staff, the leadership team, and the students at Sanderson Middle School. Again, given we have heard figures in this House recently in relation to Japan being our biggest trading partner, it is essential people of the Northern Territory who are looking for an opportunity to create business, to find jobs, or to move into a thriving workplace, need the skills and opportunities Sanderson Middle School can supply to them. I encourage all schools and the government to continue the foreign language programs in our schools and support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these young people did a fabulous job representing their school. They can be very proud of themselves for their efforts and the way they presented themselves at the service. They conducted themselves very well, did a fabulous job, and comment was made by a number of people of just how well they did and the type of sentiments they displayed in the ceremony. So, I commend those young people from Sanderson Middle School and the leadership team at Sanderson for encouraging these young people to do it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I deal with a couple of issues tonight. The first issue I raise is a matter of a fellow I had a conversation with some time ago. Finally, I am in parliament to be able to deal with the issue. It has also come to the attention of other organisations. It is the matter of a fellow who has fallen into an unfortunate hole in the law; a gentleman by the name of Gary Alp. Mr Alp chose to keep his life savings in a safe in his own home and, unfortunately, as is the trend with crimes in the Northern Territory, he was the victim of a house break-in in which about $20 000 of his life savings was taken from a safe in his home. I am advised his insurance company will not help him because the cash was stolen.
The offender in relation to the matter, in the next few days or the day after, purchased a car for $20 000. It is my understanding the suspect in the matter was a person of generally limited means. As a consequence of that, police were called and searched the house of the fellow who purchased the car, and the car was seized as well. Items belonging to Mr Alp were found in his possession in the home. It is pretty obvious the $20000 that was taken from Mr Alp’s safe was actually the $20 000 used to purchase the vehicle. However, it appears the court was unable to be satisfied and the car buyer was not convicted; it was not provable that the money was not his. As the gentleman concerned could not explain where he obtained the cash, the matter was then dealt with by the court, which ordered the car be relinquished to the Department of Justice and seized as property under the Forfeiture of Crimes Act, and is being held by the property forfeiture unit.
Mr Alp has gone to the Justice Department and asked for the car back so he can sell it and recover his cash. He has been told that because he cannot prove the money was the proceeds of the crime of which he was the victim, he cannot demonstrate a close enough link with the vehicle itself. Consequently, the only option for Mr Alp is to pursue legal action. As I understand it, at the moment he is applying for legal aid to get assistance.
My understanding of this situation, and as it has been explained to me, it is not rocket science to make the links. Whilst I appreciate the courts struggled with it, Mr Alp has been the victim of the happenstance of the legal system. I urge the Attorney-General to at least inquire into the matter, pick up the phone and contact Mr Alp - or have one of the staff pick up the phone and contact Mr Alp - to see what can be done to assist Mr Alp.
Of course, I would not recommend the Attorney-General, in any way, sidesteps or attempts to sidestep the order of a court. However, the Attorney-General’s attention to this matter would be welcomed. If the ultimate situation is that Mr Alp cannot be helped because of the circumstances of this case, at least the government can demonstrate an interest in his matter. This is a matter of making a phone call and getting someone to check into it, to see if there is anything that can be done to help Mr Alp.
I certainly hope Mr Alp does not have to go through the process of making legal applications to recover property which, in every likelihood, is his own. We will see what the government’s response is in relation to this matter. I urge the government to involve itself.
Whilst talking about matters justice, I am surprised to repeatedly hear from people that police criminal history checks for the purposes of employment in the Northern Territory are a source of great irritation. People who are currently applying for police criminal history checks so they can go about their businesses - real estate agents, security guards, taxi drivers, just to name a few - have been told they will not be able to earn money in their chosen vocations by virtue of the fact that their police criminal history checks will take a long time to process. Sometimes, these criminal history checks come in less time, but it is clear that, in many instances, the 10-week period is being applied, which is, basically, two-and-a-half months without income because of the process of processing these applications. I understand the roadblock is largely caused by the government’s introduction of the Ochre Card, which also requires a criminal history check and has created an enormous backlog in the issuing of criminal history checks.
I have received inquiries from a taxi driver in town in relation to why it is taking so long. Also, the other question the taxi driver asked me, I was not able to answer. I have not checked the regulations at this stage, but I am hoping the minister can advise me: what is the minimum age for a person who is the subject of protection under the Ochre Card? These taxi drivers regularly transport people and, apparently, they will now need this Ochre Card to transport young people under the age of 18. If a taxi driver is unable to earn their income by virtue of the fact that they are waiting for an Ochre Card to transport people who are teenagers and the like, it is a pretty onerous outcome.
The other issue I raise in relation to this matter is that there are several professions which require a criminal history check to enter the profession. When that is done, they then require further criminal history checks for renewals. Then, they will require a further criminal history check for the issuing of the Ochre Card. Surely, the system can be streamlined so one criminal history check will suffice? I urge the Northern Territory government to consider that.
Tonight, I also raise the issue, again, of traffic in the area of Gardens Hill Crescent. The traffic flow problems, particularly at the end near Gardens Road, continue. Whilst I realise it is a council street, I have raised that issue with both the Lord Mayor and the Northern Territory government with a view to having some traffic abatement put into that road.
Some traffic islands have been created; unfortunately, they have been placed in the wrong spots. I have received advice from a former engineer who used to do traffic calming for the Brisbane City Council, and I have passed his details on to the Lord Mayor. Hopefully, the mayor will get back to that individual - I gave him those details some time ago - so traffic calming in those areas can be improved. I have travelled with this engineer, who pointed out some pretty simple things which could be done to improve traffic flow there to have a traffic calming effect. They would not be expensive; they would not require a great deal of effort to put in place. I urge the Northern Territory government and the mayor to do something about it.
I am particularly concerned because, as you come down the hill towards what is Barramundi Lodge, you will find the fence between Barramundi Lodge and Mr England’s place has been repaired on several occasions because cars have left the road and ploughed into the fence. I am concerned that, at some point in the not so distant future, a person will be injured or, worse, killed as a result of the failure to effectively manage traffic, particularly at that end of Gardens Hill Crescent.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Ms Adelle Gould and Mr Rick Collister. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangements - Members for Daly and Braitling and
Members for Karama and Greatorex
Pairing Arrangements - Members for Daly and Braitling and
Members for Karama and Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have three documents relating to pairs, the first for today between 10 am and midday for the members for Daly and Braitling signed by the two Whips. The second is from 3 pm today to close of business and is for the members for Karama and Greatorex. The third is for the entire sitting day tomorrow for the members for Karama and Greatorex. They are signed by the Whips.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 150)
(Serial 150)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the law to create an offence of breach of bail. In January 2011, as acting Chief Minister, I met with police in Alice Springs. The police expressed to me their concerns about the increase in juvenile offending in Alice Springs and their frustrations with the limitations of the Bail Act when trying to enforce bail conditions.
The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia where a breach of bail is not an offence. Defendants in all other jurisdictions face criminal sanctions for breach of bail. In all jurisdictions, it is an offence to fail to appear in court in accordance with a bail undertaking. In Queensland, for adults, and in Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania for both adults and juveniles, it is also an offence to breach a condition of bail.
On 27 January 2011 in Darwin, the Chief Minister announced, as part of the new Justice and police initiatives to make Alice Springs safer, this government would introduce an offence of breach of bail in the February 2011 sittings of the Legislative Assembly. On the same day, with the Minister for Central Australia and the Police Commissioner, I made the same announcement in Alice Springs. The bill I am introducing today is the embodiment of the commitment made in those announcements.
By providing in this bill that it will be an offence to breach bail, whether by failure to appear in court or by breach of condition, this government is sending a clear message to defendants on bail: bail is a privilege not a right. Abuse that privilege and there will be consequences. You may end up with a conviction on your criminal record and face imprisonment or a fine.
The government is not so nave as to think this legislation is a ‘cure all’ which will put an end to repeated breaches of bail. Courts will still be able to grant bail; however, introducing criminal sanctions for breach of bail is an important tool in combating offending and making our streets safer.
I turn now to the details of the bill.
Under proposed section 37B of the Bail Act, it will be an offence to breach bail either by failure to appear in court in accordance with a bail undertaking, or failing to comply with a condition of bail. The maximum penalty for the offence will be two years imprisonment or 200 penalty units. That means it is a summary offence, the sort that would generally be dealt with by a magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court. However, following consultation with the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, the bill, in proposed sections 37C and 37D, confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to deal with cases where the defendant is on bail set by either the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal. A similar regime exists in Western Australia and New South Wales.
The reason for conferring this jurisdiction on the Supreme Court is, currently, under the Bail Act, the court to which a defendant is bound to appear deals with breaches of bail. As the offence of breach of bail will involve proof of the actual breach, it makes sense that the court which would be called upon to find the breach proven also deals with the proceedings for the offence. This will avoid double handling and facilitate the imposition of appropriate penalties, including the avoidance of double punishment.
The bill further provides that, although the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment or 200 penalty units, a court cannot impose a penalty greater than the maximum penalty for which bail was granted. This limitation is included as a matter of fairness. For example, a person may be on bail for a charge of disorderly conduct under the Summary Offences Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is six months imprisonment or a $2000 fine. If the person was convicted of breaching bail, a court would not be able to impose a sentence higher than six months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.
The bill further provides that defendants will not be criminally responsible for a breach of bail if they can prove to the court they had a reasonable excuse for the breach. It will be up to the court to determine whether the excuse is reasonable.
Finally, the bill provides that the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code will apply to an offence under proposed section 37B. This continues the government’s policy to provide that offences across the NT statute book comply with these criminal responsibility provisions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (SENTENCING APPEALS) BILL
(Serial 151)
(Serial 151)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the law with respect to an aspect of prosecution appeals against sentence; namely, the principle of ‘sentencing double jeopardy’. The principle of sentencing double jeopardy provides that when an appeal court decides whether to allow a prosecution appeal against sentence and to exercise its discretion to re-sentence an offender, it is required to take into account the offender’s exposure to a type of double jeopardy; namely, the offender has to undergo sentencing on a second occasion for the same offending.
The principle of sentencing double jeopardy applies when the appeal court is deciding whether to allow the appeal and, if the appeal is allowed, when the court re-sentences the offender. What this means is, even if an appeal court finds a sentence is manifestly inadequate, it can refuse to intervene to correct the sentence and, even if it does intervene, it can impose a far more lenient sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
The effect of the principle of sentencing double jeopardy has recently come into sharp focus in a matter involving the robbery of Mr Adam Sargent by two offenders in February 2010. There has been considerable community outcry and comment around the sentences imposed on the offenders in the Supreme Court. Each was sentenced to four-and-a-half-years imprisonment with a 12-month non-parole period. The Director of Public Prosecutions advised publicly he would not be appealing the sentences. The DPP cited, as one of the reasons for his decision, that:
- … because of the special constraints that apply to prosecution appeals, an appeal against sentence would not succeed.
The ‘special constraints’ the DPP was referring to is the principle of sentencing double jeopardy. As a matter of principle, if an appeal court considers a sentence was manifestly inadequate, then an offender should not be able to escape just punishment solely because of the double jeopardy he or she faces. The double jeopardy of being sentenced again is not as severe a prospect as a double jeopardy an acquitted person would face if ordered to stand trial again, as the offender has already been found guilty. The trauma and inconvenience of being sentenced twice needs to be weighed up against the overriding interest of the community in seeing offenders appropriately punished. It is evident the principle of sentencing double jeopardy can and does lead to injustices in some cases.
The proposed amendment implements a recommendation, Recommendation 4, of the Double Jeopardy Law Reform COAG Working Group Report of 2007 to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, that:
- All jurisdictions should implement reform to provide that when a court is considering a prosecution appeal against sentence, no principle of sentencing double jeopardy should be taken into consideration by the court when determining whether to exercise its discretion to impose a different sentence, or in determining what sentence to impose.
The reform brings the Northern Territory in line with Western Australia, Victoria, and South Australia, where the principle of sentencing double jeopardy has been abolished. The amendment will ensure that when appeal courts find a sentence is manifestly inadequate, they will be able to impose the appropriate sentence on appeal. I stress the amendment does not affect the underlying principles in relation to prosecution appeals; namely, that prosecution appeals should be rare; an appeal court will only intervene when it identifies a sentencing error; and the court has a discretion to refuse to intervene even if an error is established. For example, the error might be trivial and may still impose a discounted sentence if it does re-sentence, for example, on the ground of mercy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
DARWIN PORT CORPORATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 153)
(Serial 153)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the bill is titled the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 153) ...
Madam SPEAKER: I think that should be 2011.
Ms LAWRIE: It is 2011; there has been a printing error on the cover of the bill, Madam Speaker. It is the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, and I will ensure that the printing error is corrected.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act to:
establish a single pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin;
clearly specify stevedoring and pilotage licence applications criteria in statute;
remove unnecessary barriers to entry in existing stevedoring licensing criteria; and
introduce an independent appeals mechanism for stevedoring and pilotage licensing decisions.
In February 2006, the Council of Australian Governments signed the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, CIRA. The agreement aims to provide the efficient use of nationally significant infrastructure including ports and rail. To achieve this, the CIRA requires that all jurisdictions undertake a review of the regulatory framework for all significant ports to facilitate competition in the provision of port and related infrastructure services.
A working group of officials from the Northern Territory Treasury, Darwin Port Corporation and Departments of the Chief Minister, Business and Employment, and the former Planning and Infrastructure undertook the review of the regulatory framework for the Port of Darwin, which consulted with all relevant industry and public stakeholders.
The draft review was sent to 47 major stakeholders and a notice was placed in the NT News inviting all interested stakeholders to make submissions. Six organisations made submissions including: the Australian Customs Service; the Australian Defence Forces; Compass Resources NL, a member of the NT Resources Council; International Business Council/Chamber of Commerce NT; Maritime Union of Australia; and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association. There were no objections to the draft report’s recommendations.
The review was finalised in October 2008 and recommended implementing several improvements to the Port of Darwin’s regulatory framework. These changes would enhance competition in both port and related infrastructure services. While the review found no evidence to suggest that DPC has abused any market power it may have, it recommended that a non-exclusive pilotage licensing framework be formalised. However, given the nature of the port infrastructure and the specific circumstances of the industry in the Territory, it is considered more economically optimal to create competition for the market rather than competition within the market.
The Port of Darwin is increasingly busy and handles some movements of dangerous and high-risk freight. Combined with the navigational and other challenges posed by the port’s waters, safety is an important consideration in determining suitable pilotage services provision. A non-exclusive regime - which means there is more than one pilotage services provider - may compromise the safety of vessels, people, and cargo at the port.
Internationally accepted best practice in the European Union, Canada, and the United States of America usually involves a regulated single service provider. This also recognises the need to promote economies of scale in the delivery of pilotage services. As such, the bill provides for a single pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin, which will be appointed by the Minister for Transport for a period determined by the minister. However, DPC will have the exclusive right to provide pilotage services at the port for 10 years in the first instance.
Currently, the Marine Act provides the DPC is the pilotage authority at the port. To address the potential conflicts of interest where DPC acts as both pilotage services provider and regulator, the bill establishes the Harbourmaster as the pilotage authority of Darwin Port. The Harbourmaster would be appointed by the minister and may be an employee of the DPC. In carrying out his or her statutory functions, the Harbourmaster will be independent of any directions from DPC, DPC’s chief executive officer, or any other person. Nevertheless, the Harbourmaster must act impartially and in the public interest.
The current functions of the Harbourmaster will also be expanded to include making technical and safety standards as set out in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Marine Orders, and granting pilotage licences and exemption certificates, a role currently carried out by DPC.
The bill also proposes to remove certain stevedoring licence criteria from the Darwin Port Corporation Act. The review found the financial position and operational efficiency criteria currently required under the act will be better assessed by investors or lenders who would undertake all the necessary due diligence assessments of a stevedoring venture. As such, these criteria have been removed. Conversely, DPC would be best placed to determine the technical and safety aspect of stevedore licence applications. Therefore, the licensing process will focus on these criteria.
Establishing an appeals mechanism for stevedoring licensing decisions will further enhance transparency in the licensing process, and build public trust and confidence in administrative procedures. A robust appeals mechanism will also be introduced to allow persons to appeal against any licensing decision through the Marine Appeals Tribunal. This can include a decision to refuse, cancel, or suspend a licence, as well as a decision to vary or impose a condition on a licence.
Under the current provisions in the Marine Act, a pilot whose licence has been cancelled or suspended can appeal against the decision through the Marine Appeals Tribunal. The current provisions do not provide for an appeal against a decision to refuse a licence application or renewal. The bill proposes to extend the current appeals mechanism for pilotage licences to include licence applications and renewals.
These amendments aim to align the pilotage services provision at the Port of Darwin with internationally accepted best practice, where the preferred approach is for a regulated single services pilotage regime. The amendments will also enhance transparency in the pilot and stevedore licensing process which will, in turn, help to promote increased competition in stevedoring and pilotage services. The amendments will, ultimately, result in increased productivity and reduced costs of services at the Port of Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 148)
(Serial 148)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts and regulations which fall within the Justice and related portfolios. The bill amends the Bail Act, Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, Firearms Act, Weapons Control Act, and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act.
The Bail Act is amended so that the Master of the Supreme Court has the power to exercise the functions of a judge to grant bail where permitted to do so by the Supreme Court Rules. This amendment was requested by His Honour Justice Mildren due to a restructuring of the functions of the Master which will enable the Master to preside over arraignment day. A necessary consequence of this is that the Master must have the power to exercise the functions of a judge to grant bail.
The Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act is amended so accountants, as well as legal practitioners, may issue certificates of exemption under section 26 of the act. Under Section 26 of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, the term for which a retail shop lease is entered into is not to be less than five years. The purpose of this section is to prevent tenants from being pressured to enter a short-term lease, or from entering a lease without being fully aware of the financial implications. The section 26 requirement does not apply if a legal practitioner who is not acting for the landlord certifies in writing that he or she has, at the request of the prospective tenant, explained to the prospective tenant both the effect of the provisions and that the giving of the certification will result in the provision not applying to the lease.
The Property and Commercial Law Task Force, which was an advisory body set up by a former Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, acting in consultation with stakeholders, recommended the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act be amended so accountants, as well as lawyers, may provide certificates waiving the five-year lease requirement under section 26.
Some other jurisdictions allow other professionals such as licensed conveyors to provide this certification. Given that the Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction, there is a need to extend the ability to certify to other professionals. As the advice required is predominantly about financial implications, accountants are able to competently provide the advice and certification under section 26. However, this power is not being extended to conveyancers as they do not always possess the necessary legal or financial knowledge.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Firearms Act and the Weapons Control Act. The majority of these amendments are minor statute law revisions. The more substantial amendments are aimed at removing outdated references to orders ‘to keep the peace’ which previously existed under section 99 of the Justices Act. In 2008, these orders were replaced by ‘personal violence restraining orders’ as the section 99 orders were no longer effective to address all the circumstances in which a person might want to restrain another person with whom they are not in a family-type relationship. The orders also suffered from technical and operational problems. It has now become clear that not all the appropriate consequential amendments were made to the Northern Territory statute book when the personal violence restraining orders came into operation.
The Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act is also being amended to provide the Commonwealth, through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), with regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety under the new Australian Consumer Law which came into operation on 1 January 2011.
Pursuant to an agreement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth, the ACCC is to take over regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety. Previously, these functions were the responsibility of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. With the responsibility for the setting of product safety bans and standards moving to the Commonwealth under the new Australian Consumer Law, it was agreed to also transfer the regulatory and enforcement functions to the Commonwealth. In order for the ACCC to take over regulatory and enforcement functions regarding product safety, these functions must be expressly conferred upon the Commonwealth by Northern Territory legislation. Under the Australian Consumer Law, the regulatory and enforcement functions are the role of the regulator.
Pursuant to section 29 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, ‘regulator’ means the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. In order that the ACCC may take over the product safety role, it is necessary that the definition of ‘regulator’ in section 29 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act be amended to include the ACCC. Without this amendment, any exercise of power by the ACCC in respect of product safety will be inconsistent with section 140E of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of the Commonwealth, which allows for the conferral of functions and powers by a state or territory only if they are expressly conferred by the state or territory application law.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 154)
(Serial 154)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time, and I point out a typographical error on the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 to reflect internationally-recognised legal standards in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005. The bill seeks to increase certainty for international and domestic transactions conducted by an electronic medium, and to encourage the growth of electronic commerce.
The bill strengthens the existing regime by:
recognising the use of automated message systems in contract formation;
clarifying the rules in relation to invitations to treat;
creating rules to determine the location of the parties in an electronic environment;
amending electronic signature provisions; and
amending default rules for time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic communications.
Currently, the Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 facilitates the use of electronic transactions based on the principles contained in the 1996 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law and Electronic Commerce. The Commonwealth and all other states and territories also have electronic transactions legislation based on that 1996 Model Law.
In 2005, the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications and International Contracts was adopted by the United Nations. It updates many of the concepts in the 1996 Model Law. The convention applies to international contracts. It confirms the validity of electronic transactions and clarifies the traditional rules of contract formation to accommodate electronic commerce. Its purpose is to facilitate international trade by removing possible legal obstacles or uncertainty in the use of electronic communications.
A consultation paper discussing the proposed amendments to Australian electronic transactions legislation was released for public comment in 2008. Following the receipt of supportive comments, ministers agreed at the May 2010 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to update their electronic transactions legislation and adopt new model legislation to implement the convention. It is proposed that Australia will accede to the 2005 convention when model legislation is enacted in each jurisdiction.
Although the convention only relates to international contracts, ministers also agreed the model legislation should apply to both international and domestic contracts to ensure commonality of rules for contracts using electronic communications. The new model legislation offers practical solutions for problems arising from the use of electronic communications in the formation or performance of contracts between parties located in different countries to enhance legal certainty and commercial predictability. The model legislation does not otherwise purport to vary or create contract law.
The 2005 convention reflects the view that party autonomy is vital in contractual negotiations; therefore, nothing in this bill affects the principal that contracting parties should be free to agree on matters affecting the formation and performance of a contract between them.
I now outline the key elements of the bill.
Automated Message System: the purchase of goods through a website is often automated and, therefore, handled by a computer program rather than the vendor themselves. The bill recognises this growing practice and confirms the absence of human intervention on one or both sides of the transaction will not preclude contract formation.
The bill confirms that contracts formed by means of an automated message system will be legally effective and enforceable. The bill also makes minor amendments to provide a certain level of protection for consumers if a website does not provide an opportunity for correction. It enables a person who makes an input error, which has been dealt with by an automated message system, to withdraw a portion of the electronic communication in certain circumstances. However, the right to withdraw a portion of an electronic communication will not confer a right to rescind or otherwise terminate a contract.
Invitation to Treat: the bill clarifies that a proposal to enter into a contract made by electronic means to the world at large is to be treated as an invitation to make an offer, unless there is a clear indication by the trader of an intention to be bound. Thus, an offer of goods and services made through the Internet will not, prima facie, constitute a binding offer.
Location of Parties: the bill also creates rules to determine the location of the parties. As a result of businesses adopting technological advances, business practices may involve transactions taking place in a variety of ways and places. The bill clarifies that the location of the parties is to be determined by the place of business rather than the location of equipment and technologies supporting an information system, which may be in a different location or jurisdiction to the business.
Electronic Signature Provisions: the current legislation provides that an electronic signature must be capable of identifying the signatory and indicating the signatory’s approval of the information contained in the electronic communication. However, there are instances in which the law requires a signature, but that signature does not have the function of indicating the signing party’s approval of the information contained in the electronic communication; for example, notarisation or attestation by a Commissioner for Oaths. The bill remedies this problem by recognising that the notion of a ‘signature’ does not necessarily imply a party’s approval of the entire content of the communication to which the signature is attached.
Time and Place of Dispatch and Receipt of Electronic Communications: the bill also amends the current default rules for time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications. For example, the amendments provide that the time of dispatch of an electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication leaves an information system, and the time of receipt of an electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address.
Overall, adopting the amendments contained in the model bill will serve to:
modernise the Territory’s laws on e-commerce so that they reflect internationally-recognised legal standards and enhance cross-border online commerce;
confirm the Territory’s commitment to facilitating electronic communications in international trade transactions as reflected in free trade agreements.
The bill will ensure the Territory’s electronic transactions legislation reflects current international standards.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) BILL
(Serial 136)
(Serial 136)
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals support recycling and the concept of container deposit legislation. However, I will not just provide an open acceptance of this particular model as proposed by the minister and this government - as this government appears to just expect from the opposition - for a whole lot of reasons I will detail.
First, in opposition in a Westminster system of government, we have a responsibility to scrutinise government proposals, to investigate legislation, point out faults, review options and, where it is felt necessary or prudent, provide alternatives and, in some cases, amendments to legislation. We do not just run a tick-and-flick operation for government; we take our job seriously, as Territorians expect that is what we should do in opposition. What the government expected us to do is akin to buying a car without bothering to look under the bonnet. In all fairness, who in this room would buy a car without looking under the bonnet or kicking the tyres?
I need to stress again that the Country Liberals went into the 2008 election with a promise to introduce a CDL program. That does not necessarily mean we would have chosen this particular model proposed by government. I must admit, when I first learnt this legislation was to be brought forward, I thought to myself: ‘This will be a no-brainer. Well done to the minister for bringing this forward. How can I help?’, as from the Country Liberals’ and my point of view, we all supported the concept behind container deposit legislation, or at least in the outcomes promised for our environment after the implementation.
I am so glad I started to take the time, as I should have, to investigate the process further. The journey thus far has been like a game of tennis: the heads swinging left and right, trying to keep up with the ball, keep up with the game being played out by government, industry and, of course, our environmentalists. All have had their own barrows to push, their own agendas, and I took on the role of trying to find some level of truth in all of it, and common sense.
One of the most basic concerns I have with this legislation is it is underpinned by regulations which we have not seen. The mechanics have not been ironed out, costings have not been provided, but this government seems to expect this side of the House to simply sign off and offer its absolute support without the need for any scrutiny whatsoever.
Minister, I have some real questions for you that, hopefully, you can answer - no rhetoric, no politics, no spin, just simple and straightforward answers to my questions. You might ask why I cannot trust this minister, this government; why I have to play the devil’s advocate on legislation which, on the surface, as many as 80% of the community support. I will tell you why. I am in opposition. I have a responsibility to flesh out, to hold the government accountable to the community and, even in this case where perhaps 80% of the community agrees, I still have a job to do. The fact is they expect us to do that job. Our job is to explore further, if possible.
Have we all had the wool pulled over our eyes by clever marketing on both sides? Or are we all still reminiscing about the old days where, unfortunately, we can all be found guilty, from time to time, of romancing about or glorifying the good old days? If today’s debate could simply be about the old ways of doing things, count me in because I truly believe in the notion of recycling. I, too, have fond memories of returning our soft drink bottles to the corner store and enjoying the spoils of our efforts. In all seriousness, it is not just that simple and, although like others I have been caught up in the moment truly hoping this will work, the hard truth is, it does not stack up, or perhaps not all that well, for a number of reasons, not to mention that business is done differently today than what it was 30 or 40 years ago.
I truly hope the minister can answer all these questions today. I will not hold my breath, as I sincerely do not think this minister understands the program. He certainly has not bothered to take the time to speak with industry. He has been lumped with introducing this legislation whether he likes it or not, due to a previous commitment and a deal with the member for Nelson.
We would all like to see the concept of recycling work in the Northern Territory; that should be taken as a given. The fact that as much as 80% of recycled products end up in landfill is a major concern, and one I do not see CDL addressing. To date, the government has not convinced me that it is also aware of all the true costs involved in the process of bringing cans, bottles, and other beverage containers from rural and remote areas and sending them interstate for recycling. Will returned containers just end up in landfills due to the cost of transporting interstate? That is one question needing an answer. Please mark my words, minister, we will be here in 12 months time debating amendments to this legislation, perhaps even debating why the program has not worked, why we need to budget additional funds to make it work, or exempting certain areas of the Northern Territory as it is just not economically viable.
On that point, the government has come out strongly saying that it works in South Australia so there is no reason why it should not here in the Northern Territory. Another question I have is: why did government not admit the program does not work in all areas in South Australia; the more remote areas to be more specific? What makes you think it will work here, given the remoteness of the wider Northern Territory in addition to the lack of a recycling market? In Adelaide where they have a recycling industry, even then it does not work in all areas. It is pretty disingenuous to use the South Australia model and infer it works well all over South Australia. Perhaps we will see.
What buy-in does this minister really have for this legislation? At least the Chief Minister met with industry representatives - more on that meeting later; it is very important as you will see. I am very interested to know how much research the minister did on this legislation, who he met with and where he visited to see how this legislation might work in the Northern Territory. I have had more than a dozen meetings with different industry representatives: the Environment Centre, the Boomerang Alliance, a departmental briefing, telephone conversations, read much, and spoke to many people in the community. As most know, I travelled to New Zealand at my cost, Chief Minister. To put that on the record, I paid for my tickets to Wellington and for the Chief Minister to infer differently recently was akin to slander.
Chief Minister, I am concerned enough about our environment to use my own funds to learn as much as I can about this legislation, alternatives, and how other jurisdictions manage their recycling programs. I am also concerned we might be signing up to a very expensive program which may not achieve what is hoped for.
My trip to New Zealand included a meeting with the New Zealand Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and other MPs including the member for Christchurch, Nicky Wagner, the Chair of the Blue-Green Caucus and New Zealand government spokesman for the environment. I also met with Department of the Environment staff and industry representatives to see firsthand how the industry’s product stewardship program works in New Zealand.
What did the minister do to study this legislation other than listen to his own department? What community consultation occurred? It is very difficult to extract from the department’s website how many community consultations took place regarding this legislation. Am I convinced the industry has all the answers? No. Even Hon Nick Smith will agree with that. Conversely, does this proposed legislation provide all the answers? The answer is no. I have concluded the government’s legislation provides half the wheel and the industry’s model provides the other half.
If government legislation is only concerned about dealing with litter in our community, it will work. It will be expensive but it will work. Be honest about it: if the intent of this legislation is about litter control, be up-front, tell the community how much it is going to cost and, if the community is prepared to pay the entire cost of a waste removal program, then introduce the legislation. However, if you are really serious about recycling and helping our environment you need industry involvement - you must take industry with you.
Unfortunately, what you will hear from government members today in support of this legislation will be more about politics than the truth, than facts, than understanding the concept of recycling. You will hear government members trying to score political points, perhaps denouncing my environmental credentials in the process. All they will do is open themselves up for what they are: environment opportunists with no understanding of the recycling process, the industry, business and the economy, and existing Commonwealth legislation.
If government was serious it would keep the politics out of this and listen to the alternatives described today, and open its eyes to the real opportunity which exists not just for the Territory, but for the entire country - open its eyes to the reality in front of it; the opportunity to achieve the outcomes it envisages at no cost to government with the potential that could take recycling in this country to the next level. It could have a real chance to be the champion of recycling and demonstrate to the rest of Australia how it can be done.
My investigation into this legislation has uncovered many concerns, not to mention how much it will cost the community, and the disingenuous messages from both sides of the argument. It has also uncovered a constitutional issue I can only hope government has resolved, or has in train the administrative processes to ensure the proposed legislation does not contravene the freedom of interstate trade and commerce, as protected by section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. And while you are seeking advice on that you might also want to ensure the legislation does not contravene the mutual recognition principles under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 ...
Mr Henderson: Who has written this for you, Peter?
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, before I am accused of confusing the minister, I will admit my investigation thus far, and my understanding of the advice I have received …
Mr Henderson: Your investigation!
Mr CHANDLER: … indicates the proposed legislation – I thought you would make that comment ...
Mr Henderson: You are just a puppet, Peter. They are hanging you out to dry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: … I received indicates the proposed legislation would not contravene freedom of interstate trade and commerce, because all traders dealing with beverages in containers are required to comply with the container deposit scheme. However, my understanding is it would, in fact, contravene the mutual recognition principles under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as the proposed provisions include Territory-specific requirements as to the packaging and labelling of goods.
For the record, the mutual recognition principles relating to goods is that goods produced in one state - and that includes the ACT and the Northern Territory - may lawfully be sold in that state, and in a second state, without the necessity for compliance with further requirements. One of the further requirements is that the goods satisfy standards of the second state relating to the way the goods are packaged or labelled.
It needs to be acknowledged that the South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975 is one of the acts relating to the goods that is permanently exempted in Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. As indicated, the South Australian act was in place before the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. There are, of course, administrative processes to correct this anomaly; that is, to either seek an amendment by the Commonwealth to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act, or to seek a temporary exemption. Of course, the second course of action can only be sustained for 12 months. My question to the minister and this government is: what course of action have you taken to ensure your proposed legislation does not clash with Commonwealth legislation?
Madam Speaker, it should be noted that the above process …
Dr Burns: Where did you get this legal advice?
Mr CHANDLER: If you listen, you will find out.
It should be noted, while the above process may sound simple, I need to explain the Northern Territory government could seek an amendment by the Commonwealth government to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 by adding the new Northern Territory legislation to the list of exempt laws. I also understand that the government was made aware of these issues previously, but am advised they were comfortable with their legal position on this legislation.
Reading through the procedural framework, I note that Schedule 2 may be amended by the Governor-General making a regulation to that effect. However, the Governor-General may only make such a regulation after each Governor of each state and the executive head of each territory has published a notice in the Gazette of the jurisdictions setting out the terms of the proposed regulation, and requesting that to be made.
I need to ask the minister: where are we at? Which of your interstate colleagues have you spoken to, including heads of state? Who do you have agreement with and are willing to sign off and publish in their respective government Gazettes so the Governor-General can make the appropriate amendment? Or have you taken the route of requesting a temporary exemption? The minister can request this under section 15, but the exemption can only operate for a maximum of 12 months. After that, the only alternative is to seek permanent amendment.
I truly hope the minister can provide some insight into these important issues in summing up, or we may as well stop right here. We cannot go any further unless the minister can assure this House he is managing this; he has it all in order and has anticipated this challenge to his legislation. I am sure he has. I raise the issue to demonstrate some of the challenges this government must have faced to date given, I am certain, they have worked tirelessly to cover all the issues before introducing this legislation - or at least I hope so.
We often reminisce about the old days, just as I can recall the days of loading up the wheelbarrow after Christmas with all the empty soft drink bottles, heading off down to Turnley’s milk bar in Moulamein where they made the absolute best milkshakes in this country. The shop was air-conditioned, truly something special in the 1970s, and more so after walking in 40C-plus heat in the Mallee. My cousins and I would hand over the bottles and enjoy the spoils of our hard work. Perhaps it was another drink, a lolly, or a Choo-Choo Bar.
Madam Speaker, these stories provide a level of romance, as do many memories, and they invoke a sense of the good old days. Of course, there was one clear difference back then: the deposit scheme was voluntary, industry-driven, and was not through legislation. Why? Well, things were different then. Industry, the cordial factories, needed their bottles back to wash, sterilise, and refill. If they did not get them back, they were required to order new, expensive bottles. It was in the industry’s interest to have the very best recycle scheme they could, driven by industry.
Today, of course, it is rare to see refilled bottles, particularly in the beverage industry. Industry has evolved, as have materials they use. Aluminium is just one new product introduced since the 1970s and, with it, there is certainly a cost saving in recycling the material compared to using new material and energy to produce. Glass is actually cheaper to melt down and use again compared to new material to produce new jars and bottles.
One of the major hurdles of this legislation is the tyranny of distance and the high cost of transport. One of my criticisms of the government’s advertising program has always been their suggesting or inferring consumers will not be worse off; that consumers will actually pocket 10 for every container they collect and return to a depot, indicating that just because consumers pay no more in South Australia there is no reason they should in the Northern Territory. This is simply wrong and you know it. All things are affected by the cost of freight in the NT. I would like you to explain to people living in Nhulunbuy that things purchased in Nhulunbuy should not cost any more than things purchased in South Australia. Say the same thing to people living in Port Keats, or any other remote location in the Northern Territory; that they should not be paying any more for their goods and services than people do in South Australia. You know it is not true! Why? It is because of the tyranny of distance. You know that the cost of freight is a major component and to tell people they will not pay any more for beverages is dishonest. People may be prepared to pay, but be honest, tell them. Or do you not know? Have you not done the homework? Perhaps you should have.
I will just point out a map for everyone in the Chamber they might be familiar with, called Australia. There is a difference between South Australia and the Northern Territory. As you see on this little map – I feel like Mr Squiggle here, I am upside down ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: You will see South Australia, and, in particular Adelaide, pretty much in the centre - everything flows into Adelaide. In the Northern Territory, we have to get things in from remote areas to our main centres before being trucked to southern markets, because we do not have a recycle program in the Northern Territory. The fact is, we have a bit of a double dip; not only do we have to transport beverage containers back in from rural and remote areas, they then have to be doubly trucked down to southern markets. The difference with Adelaide is the market is already there. So, there is a difference in cost, and to say different is just disingenuous.
Another question I ask is: how much of the expected set-up budget has been eroded due to the extraordinary advertising you have had to do to counter the industry-led ads? I am sure that has cut into the budget big time. It is amazing what comes your way in regard to information when you either ask the right questions or investigate just enough. I would like to share with you and provide some insight to a meeting between the industry and the Chief Minister. This information came directly from someone in that meeting. I must say, at least the Chief Minister took the time to meet with industry representatives - well done, Chief Minister - unlike the minister for the Environment who did not move. Word has it on the street the department tried to keep the minister away from industry as they might convince him otherwise.
It would appear, at that meeting, the Chief Minister said he really did not want to shove this legislation down industry’s throat. He even thanked the industry representatives for bringing forward an alternative, the first he had seen, but unfortunately, there was nothing he could do. In fact, the question was asked at that meeting: ‘Have you spoken to the member for Nelson?’
It gets more interesting, because these industry representatives did meet with the member for Nelson and, when told of the meeting with the Chief Minister, the member for Nelson told industry representatives it had nothing to do with him as it was government’s legislation. I was also told that the member for Nelson did take some interest in the industry’s model, and even went as far as suggesting perhaps he had held onto the CDL model too long, and there was an alternative worth exploring.
It should be noted that I was not present at either of these meetings …
Mr Henderson: Who said that?
Mr CHANDLER: I am just relaying what I have been told occurred.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I find it very interesting that we have a Chief Minister who advises industry that he does not want to shove this down industry’s throat, but his hands were tied due to an agreement with the member for Nelson. I have to tell you, CDL does form part of that agreement; it is there for all to see, shoring up the member for Nelson’s support for keeping this miserable government in place ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: One starts to draw conclusions. Perhaps we should all start to investigate this a little further.
The NT government says that its Cash for Containers system will mirror the system in place in South Australia. It is important we understand a little more about the South Australian model. From what I understand of the South Australian model, it involves 77 collection depots in metropolitan and regional areas where members of the community take eligible containers to redeem the legislative 10 deposit. There are also two major super collectors, owned and managed by the beverage industry, where collected containers which come from the depots are sorted, baled, and sent for recycling – glass goes to Adelaide, and other materials either interstate or overseas.
The collection depots are operated by private service providers and are paid a handling fee of 4 per container to cover the cost of their services; that is, the labour capital, land and transport. The super collectors – that is, the beverage industry and so forth - pay the handling fee to the collection depots, plus the 10 deposit. In South Australia, beverage manufacturers are required to add 10 to the wholesale price of all eligible beverages sold in South Australia; this 10 is then remitted to the super collectors.
Perhaps the minister can provide answers to the following questions I have - which I am certain Territorians should be aware of - to understand the complexities around CDL. I know these are the type of questions I would want my department to answer prior to drafting legislation. These questions are for you, minister: where is the NT government’s modelling on the number of collection depots which will be required for its Cash for Containers scheme? Where will these collection depots be located? How far will the average household have to travel to redeem their deposit? What will it cost to run these collection depots? What rate per container will collection depots be paid in handling fees?
It is very important to note that in 2006 the NT government, through the then Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, commissioned the Centre for Appropriate Technologies to look at the handling fees associated with establishing a container deposit system in three remote communities in the NT. The study found the handling fees – that is, the cost of collecting, storing, and transporting collected containers - of between 16 and 31 per container would be required. I do not quite understand how you have so openly misled Territorians in your advertising which suggests there should be no additional costs to consumers, when your own advice suggested an additional cost between 16 and 31.
Territorians deserve to know the truth. What is the true cost, taking into consideration the cost of our remote communities? Would that cost in remote communities be shared with the rest of the Territory?
Ms Scrymgour: Talk about spin.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura! Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an important debate and the members opposite will have their opportunity to reply in the appropriate manner. I ask the member be allowed to make his comments without interruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, Leader of the Opposition, I have been calling order. Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Member for Brennan, you have the call.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The truth is these huge costs will be shared across the Northern Territory. As I indicated earlier, despite the South Australian system having been in place for more than 35 years, there are still some remote communities which do not participate in South Australia’s container deposit system.
My questions continue: how many super collectors will be established in the Northern Territory? Has the NT government consulted with beverage manufacturers or the Australian Food Grocery Council on how the super collectors may work in the Northern Territory? Where will these super collectors be located? Where will collected materials be sent?
It needs highlighting that the Northern Territory has insufficient population for a glass bottle-making plant, aluminium plant or plastic re-manufacturer, so collected materials will need to be sent to Adelaide or Brisbane for recycling, or to landfill if transport costs are too high. Tell me how the environment is helped overall if collected materials end up in landfill? Who will pay for the collection depot handling costs, and the costs of transporting beverage containers to Adelaide or Brisbane for recycling? If 10 is added to the wholesale price of beverage containers and the beverage industry is required to pay collectors a handling fee, why does the NT government maintain its Cash for Containers scheme will not increase the price of beverages in the Northern Territory?
There will, no doubt, be an impact on the beverage industry which will be passed on to consumers, adding to the heavy burden of ordinary Territorians already facing the most expensive living conditions in Australia. If the government was honest and up-front and told Territorians the true cost, they may be prepared to pay. After they know the true cost, conduct a survey and see what the figures show. If people are prepared to pay – fantastic! We want this to work.
As outlined, the Country Liberals are supportive of the concept of CDL; however, any model needs to be economically viable. Nothing I have seen has convinced me this government fully appreciates the cost involved. If it does end up costing more, the blame will be attributed directly to the industry, with this government not accepting any blame whatsoever. When have they accepted fault for anything?
Minister, has the NT government undertaken any analysis of the impact its Cash for Containers system could have on the industry and retailers - not anecdotal, real analysis? What other alternatives to Cash for Containers did the NT government investigate and where are the results?
I indicated earlier that at a meeting with industry the Chief Minister indicated it was the first time he had seen an alternative. What alternatives were investigated? What alternatives did Cabinet consider before going ahead with CDL, or was it to do with an agreement? Did the Northern Territory government have any consultations with industry or the AFGC about other alternatives prior to or in the drafting of the legislation? I cannot understand why the government has decided to jump the gun when, nationally, container deposit legislation and other issues will be analysed, considered, and debated later this year through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, of which the honourable member for Stuart is a member.
I cannot emphasise this point enough: my understanding is the Environment Protection and Heritage Council has established a rigorous, transparent, and consultative national process to develop a regulatory impact statement into national beverage container deposit legislation, and a limited number of other options which may have a positive cost benefit and tangible impact on recovery rates and litter reduction. My question is: why has the minister, and this government, jumped the gun and gone against an agreement he was party to, and moved to introduce this legislation outside that agreement, with no public cost analysis of how it is going to work in our more rural and remote areas - unless it has more to do with an agreement with the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson?
Let us look at some of the issues around roadside recycling and the impact on direct operating costs for ratepayers. Currently, Darwin and Palmerston councils offer a first-class recycling program where 240 L bins are picked up fortnightly, backed up by a good media education program. As with all waste removal programs it does have its problems, including the fact we have some pigs living amongst us who use the bins for general waste, including dirty nappies, etcetera. This has the effect of contaminating much of what is collected and, ultimately, it ends up in the landfill. These services are expensive for councils to maintain, with general rate revenue often used to offset the costs. It should be acknowledged some of the recycled material collected does provide a return to the business and offsets the cost passed on to councils and, ultimately, residents.
One downside to the CDL program is the potential loss in revenue to the collectors, as people will keep their containers rather than throw them in the recycle bins. It is hard to estimate the true cost of lost revenue due to the fact - and this is true - they may pick up some revenue from people who are not interested in getting their deposit back. But that would be hard to accept. The flow-on may be more costly service for councils and, ultimately, residents.
It also needs to be acknowledged that much of the recycle material collected in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Darwin and Palmerston areas, unfortunately ends up in landfill. Why? Well, it has a lot to do with market forces and a lack of a local recycling industry. By example - and please do not quote me on these figures, they do change and this is simply to illustrate the problem - if it cost $70 a tonne to get waste paper or cardboard to the Australian Paper mill interstate and the return is less than $70, there is no economical justification to take the material south and, unfortunately, it ends up at the tip face. So, as you might understand, I still have reservations about CDL as proposed, as I would hate to think all that material collected, with all the costs to collect it, only ends up as expensive landfill.
Most people in here have, or would have, heard at least a little about the product stewardship program that industry would like to see introduced Australia-wide. I will be the first to admit industry has had 35-plus years to do this, and have provided their fair share of challenges to any government looking at introducing legislation impacting their business. But the fact is, it has only been in the last few years where real programs have been developed and quite successfully introduced in jurisdictions such as New Zealand.
As indicated earlier, the Minister for Environment in New Zealand, Dr Nick Smith, is the first to admit their legislation and the product stewardship program is not without fault. The one thing it does have is a focus on recycling, not just the collecting. The minister has indicated if industry drops the ball, he has no hesitation in reviewing CDL. In fact, industry has provided advice to suggest they welcome the minister rattling the chains from time to time, as they recognise they have some within their ranks who would prefer to do nothing. Their collective view is they can no longer do nothing, and they are only too aware of the risks associated with individual states going down the road of separate CDL programs.
For economic reasons a national stewardship program makes sense for them and, from my briefings, they have provided this government an extraordinary offer. Before I explain that offer, it needs to be acknowledged the stewardship program has been in operation in New Zealand since 2006 in accordance with New Zealand’s Waste Minimisation Act 2008. As you can see, the program was introduced before the act. It was industry driven but now operates in accordance with that act.
By way of example of its success to date, since its introduction in 2006, 92 825 tonnes of glass was recycled, 49% of total production. In 2007, that increased to 109 860 tonnes and 53% of total production. In 2008, this increased to 138 115 tonnes or 62%. By 2009, 147 201 tonnes or 64% and, in 2010, 166 576 tonnes of glass was recovered or 66% of total production. This year, they anticipate reaching more than 70% recycled material from total produced. Not a bad effort from an industry-driven program, and close to what this government expects from the CDL program.
Industry is quite up-front about their lack of previous leadership with driving recycling and waste minimisation in Australia. They are also acutely aware this is no longer acceptable by the general public and they are interested in a national product stewardship program.
My advice is industry has offered government a unique opportunity in operating a pilot product stewardship program in the Northern Territory. One might think this is yet another delay tactic from a very coordinated group of businesses. As the member for Nelson has pointed out, time and time again, they have had 35 years to get it right. Think about this for just a moment: government has the upper hand here - it has CDL. It has the sword of Damocles. It also has the ability to introduce this at any time. They could set some pretty strict time lines on industry and allow them to run their pilot program. At the end of that time frame, as set by government, you will be able to see if it has been successful. If it has not been successful, or they have failed to deliver, introduce CDL.
In my humble opinion, if industry is looking for this program to set a glowing example for the rest of the nation, they are going to throw plenty of resources at it. They will not want it to fail; they have too much to lose. We, on the other hand, have everything to gain. The reality is - and I implore everyone out there who is truly interested in our environment to consider this for just one moment - the prospect of a successful product stewardship program in the Northern Territory, then rolled out nationally. Think of the advances this would take recycling in this country, not just from the Northern Territory, but all over Australia.
Just like a double-edged sword, consider the Northern Territory’s CDL failing and what damage this could do to the cause nationwide. It has the potential to take recycling back a decade, leaving no chance another government would look at it. In fact, it may play into industry’s hands, giving them all the ammunition to delay any national scheme, whether that scheme be stewardship or CDL-based. For me, the opportunities outweigh the potential loss to recycling and to the nation in regard to our environment, and at what cost? A year or two?
Madam Speaker, we all want this to work. We want any program that supports, drives, and ensures we have a cost-effective recycling program in Australia. But, from what I have seen, CDL only offers half of the wheel and, perhaps, a stewardship program provides the other half. What I do know is that if any program is going to succeed, it is going to take both sides to work together and, more importantly, we must all recognise that the end product - its value, its usefulness - is important in any of these debates.
The journey for me, thus far, has provided a lot of interesting information, the occasional curve ball, misleading and just plain dishonest information - perhaps from all sides of the argument. This minefield of information, even from people I thought had the environment at heart, has made it a challenge. Some of the figures different groups sent me were misleading. Some figures were presented in either figures or graphs and often referred to very impressive results. You might appreciate my disappointment when, in some cases, figures of recycling were put forward and, when investigated further were, in fact, collected material, not recycled materials. That is disingenuous at best. I even found myself questioning the Boomerang Alliance’s claims of 300 jobs in the Northern Territory after discovering the same group suggested 600 jobs in Victoria, should CDL be introduced in Victoria - a jurisdiction perhaps 20 times that of the Northern Territory. What methodology was used to get to that figure? Yesterday, I asked the very question, and I am still not convinced the answer stacks up.
Anyway, let us accept 300 jobs in the Northern Territory. If we take this as true, and applying that to the average full-time annual earnings in the Northern Territory of $61 771 - that was sourced from the ABS figures – that equates to $18 531 300 in salaries every year. Minister, I need to ask the question: who is going to pay that $18.5m annually? You continue to maintain Territorians will pay a deposit and get it back, and there will be no further cost to Territorians. Accepting the Boomerang Alliance’s figures as fact - and you openly admit this legislation will provide jobs - we have to conclude that $18.5m is significant and would need to be funded somehow and by someone. The question is: how can you continue to maintain this will not cost Territorians?
I applaud government for trying to do what they must think is the right thing to do. I only wish I could understand why the need to rush, why the focus on cardboard, glass, aluminium, etcetera, which is pretty inert compared to some of the more toxic chemicals we release into our environment each day. Why is this legislation seen as more important than say, asbestos, lead, refrigerant gasses, as well as many toxic substances? Even with simple things like our so-called environmentally-friendly fluorescent tubes, we do not seem to care because they just get tossed into our waste stream each day. When is government going to appreciate there are far more toxins released every day into our waste streams, into our waterways and water tables than the material in most beverage containers?
After detailing some of the concerns in regard to the model CDL as proposed, unless the minister can provide detailed costings and demonstrate, above all, that he understands the process intimately, and is managing the Commonwealth legislation issues, it makes it very difficult to provide unconditional support for this legislation. The truth is, we all want this to work; we all want to do what we can to protect our environment. Is it the best model for the Northern Territory? Is it just being introduced because of an agreement? Will it cost far more than has been anticipated? All good questions I hope the minister can answer comprehensively.
Recalling everything I have read, researched, and learned about recycling and, in particular, options which lay before us, at the very least I expect government to take the time to enter into open negotiations with industry, and see how they can work together and, perhaps, even consider the offer of a pilot program in the NT. It has the potential to take recycling into the next decade.
I suggest, depending on the minister’s response, that we take this legislation into the committee stage.
I now move on to the second part of the legislation, which is about plastic bags.
- Scientific knowledge about the scarcity of natural resources and man’s impact on the environment impels us to take greater responsibility for the environmental characteristics of our operations ...
That statement is taken from a major New Zealand retailer’s sustainability charter and underpins its commitment to the environment; in particular, its approach to plastic bags and their supply by that group. Further, I like the following statement taken from the website:
- Like switching off an unnecessary light, declining a plastic bag at the time of purchase can be an important personal signal that we care about needless waste.
Most of my debate on banning plastic bags will focus on why government chose this model over other well-established and successful programs operating around the world. Similar to CDL, I first thought this was a no-brainer. Yes, let us all ban plastic bags. It sounds good but, until you understand the human condition, the habits, and the modern waste stream, you may be surprised at the position you end up in.
I share the community’s concerns regarding our environment and the need to do whatever we can to protect our most valuable asset. Banning plastic bags would appear quite reasonable on the surface and I, like many others, understand the damage plastic bags can cause to our wildlife, our sea life, and how they add to our already congested landfills. I, like many other boat users in the Northern Territory, have often turned around after seeing plastic bags in the harbour, but I must say most bags I have retrieved over the years have been crushed ice bags, not the simple grocery bag - and these bags are not listed in the banned list.
Until you take the time to explore the waste stream and people’s habits, and look into alternative programs, you truly cannot just have a simple view to this legislation. We want to reduce waste, no doubt about it – absolutely. Perhaps the government has it right: this legislation will change people’s habits and reduce plastic bags entering the waste stream. I sincerely hope it does.
However, I have conducted a thorough investigation of how plastic bags are used and, moreover, investigated methods and legislation introduced in other jurisdictions around the world. Interestingly, my investigation led me to Ireland - not physically, so do not panic. I reviewed how they manage plastic bags in Ireland. By way of background, Ireland was often referred to as the plastic bag capital of the world where, due to the windy conditions, most fence lines across the countryside were strewn with hundreds of thousands of plastic bags. It was unsightly and showed no signs of decreasing ...
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Surveys were undertaken to gauge how locals used plastic bags they obtained from local supermarkets. The statistics were interesting: between 12 and 14 bags used in every shop. On average, when people went to the supermarket they used between 12 and 14 bags. Six or seven of those bags were used for other purposes and six or seven went to the landfill, often ending up all over the countryside.
What they also found is that no one really took an interest in the number of bags because they had no buy into the transaction. They were disinterested; they just watched people fill the bags up with products and off they would go. One method they considered was to ban plastic bags, but people turned to other less environmentally-friendly alternatives. In areas I investigated where they had banned plastic bags, retailers did not mind because they were selling more of the plastic bags which were more damaging for our environment - the ones you would find in the supermarket aisles. As I said, the retailers did not mind this; they were selling more plastic bags.
However, the problem is that landfills did not change. In fact, heavier plastics were now on the increase as people turned to these heavier plastics to do the things they used the old plastic bags for. In Ireland, the option taken was to introduce a levy on plastic bags. Shopping centres were required to introduce an environmentally friendly, biodegradable plastic bag and charged a 20 levy, which was then used for environmental initiatives such as supporting local environmental groups, planting trees, etcetera.
The amazing thing was when a follow-up survey was undertaken it showed a dramatic reduction in the use of plastic bags. Consumers had literally bought into the argument. They now took an interest in how many bags were being used. The levy had altered habits - not an easy thing to do. People now took an interest as it was costing them not to. The follow-up survey demonstrated the average number of bags used each time a person shopped had reduced to between six and seven, with the same number having a second or third life. It had a dramatic effect on the environment with a huge reduction on wayward plastic bags being strewn across the country, and fence lines were no longer lined with plastic bags. The additional benefit to the environment was the levy was providing a good income for environmental initiatives - a win/win situation.
Minister, why did you go down this path instead of the Irish program? Can you provide a guarantee your proposal will deliver similar results to Ireland?
My electorate office is outside Target, which last year introduced a fee on plastic bags. I cannot believe the difference this has made in people’s habits ...
Mr Wood: Bunnings did that many years ago.
Mr CHANDLER: Bunnings have done it, too. People now choose to carry their items out rather than in a bag. I see people coming out of Target with their purchases in shopping trolleys, not bags or, if a few things are purchased, in their hands. No bags because they do not want to pay 20. Fair enough. However, that is sometimes 10 or 12 bags not going to our landfills. It proved to me by the introduction of a very small levy you could change people’s habits. People who choose to buy the bags - in some cases, people have to - that money was used on environmental initiatives. Fantastic!
I have a chart I will show. This was taken from a New Zealand study showing what people used plastic bags for. You can see 80% of people used their bags as kitchen tidy bag liners. It continues: general garbage bag, general carry bag, household storage, dog dropping bag, school sports clothes, school lunches, nappy bags, and to hold papers for recycling. Only 1% used plastic bags for groceries alone ...
Ms Purick: What about cane toads?
Mr CHANDLER: They could be used for cane toads as well. This is a random survey of residential use of supermarket plastic bags.
Another wonderful idea is a local young lady, Deb, who has set up an industry making bags. I know minister Hampton uses a similar recycled bag. This is another initiative. People are realising we need to provide alternatives to bags. I recommend people give Deb a call and become involved. This offers a young person a very good business opportunity and does a wonderful thing for our environment. It is good for business, good for our environment, and another way people can support our environment.
In regard to plastic bags, again, like CDL, support the concept of what you are delivering and what you are trying to achieve for our environment. We all want to see less plastic go into waste streams. I would like the government to spend more time focusing on toxic wastes which go into our landfills and waterways. If we can find programs to reduce that - fantastic.
Madam Speaker, I hope this legislation is successful. I hope you have covered all the legislative issues that have been raised today. That is about it from me.
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before I call you, I draw members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Sacred Heart Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Michelle Wright and Ms Rachael McDowall. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to stand here today as the Chief Minister in our government, with our minister for the Environment who is bringing in a scheme that will be great for the Territory, the environment, and our community - something that is long overdue in the Northern Territory and around Australia.
I am absolutely stunned and amazed at the backflip and backdown the Country Liberal Party have put forward to this parliament and the Northern Territory today. The member for Brennan’s personal credibility is in tatters. His credibility is shattered. The Country Liberal Party is doing the bidding of big business - some of them multinational businesses - flying in the face of public opinion and all of the research and evidence of this scheme operating in South Australia for decades now. It is a last-minute backdown and backflip by the CLP.
If the member for Brennan believes for one moment that anyone thinks he wrote that speech and did all the research to conclude those arguments, he is nothing but a lackey of the beverage industry which provided him with a speech - all the questions to put forward to the minister in the committee stage debate. To pretend, member for Brennan, you have done all that research yourself and that speech is all your own work, is absolutely a shame on you.
This is the biggest betrayal and treachery of the trust of our public since the CLP allowed the Hotel Darwin to be bulldozed in the middle of the night …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … without lifting a finger to stop it.
The facts are, two weeks ago the member for Brennan, the shadow minister who has done all of this research - he has just been to New Zealand, he has been in to all of the books, he has travelled everywhere, he has done all of this research on this particular bill - had a briefing in the minister’s office on the legislation. He turned up to that briefing without a copy of the bill, without even so much as a pen and a piece of paper. There were no questions in that particular briefing on all the questions and issues he put on the table as things he had researched - unless he has done all this research in the last two weeks since that meeting. He spent about 10 minutes of the briefing justifying to public servants that he paid his own way to visit New Zealand to see the schemes they run over there. I take him on his word that he paid his own way - that is fine. He may have paid, but I ask him to clarify whether the beverage industry reimbursed him for any parts of those travels. I will go as far as that, but I take him on his word.
Two weeks ago: no issues. He went in, had a briefing and, at the last minute, a total cave-in from the CLP from a position they have held for quite some time now.
I will also go to the allegations that were made. I will follow up; I will go back to my diary and the people I met from a particular sector of the industry. People in business know I am very accessible; I meet with all sorts of people. However, the member for Brennan has come in here and said that I said to those particular people who came to see me – he was not game enough to say who it was who had advised him of this; verballing me in this House – that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: … we were not going to shove CDL down industry’s throats, and there was nothing I could do about it because my hands were tied with the agreement with the member for Nelson. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is an outrageous lie and a slur. I will personally ask the people who were in that meeting whether they told the member for Brennan this is what I said at that meeting. I had staff attend and minutes were taken at that meeting.
I point to the fact that, in regard to my government’s announcement of CDL, we actually announced that we were going to introduce CDL on 11 March 2009. That was some six months prior to the agreement with the member for Nelson.
At the time, the members for Fannie Bay and the member for Nelson - we asked the member for Nelson if he would join with us in working together to introduce the CDL scheme, recognising he had been passionate about this issue for many years and had far more knowledge of the subject of CDL than anyone on this side of the Chamber. To try to run some mucky line that I was dragged kicking and screaming into this position because of the agreement with the member for Nelson - well, all I ask you is go back to media releases of 11 March when we announced it.
I will be back in here if those industry people turn around and say they said no such thing to the member for Brennan. His credibility is in further tatters and shreds than at the moment in this backflip.
I will go to a series of quotes in regard to the CLP’s support for Cash for Containers going back some time. The member for Brennan – the learned member for Brennan who has done so much research into constitutional law and trans-Tasman international and interstate …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … legal agreements, has done so much research into these issues. I go to his quotes from the Parliamentary Record of 30 April 2009:
- The Country Liberals’ own policy supports CDL; the policy is to reduce the amount of landfill and encourage active recycling of glass, plastic and aluminium beverage containers by providing a financial incentive offset by increased price.
He went on:
- … we support moving forward with container deposit legislation.
Nothing could be clearer …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: All of the issues that he argued about landfill or financial incentive are absolute rubbish. If it was good enough in 2009, why is it not good enough today? The reason it is not good enough today is because the Country Liberal Party has dollar signs in its eyes. Those dollar signs are no more illustrated than by their own president, Sue Fraser-Adams, saying clearly in leaked e-mails to this side of the House, that they need $1.5m …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You were careful to point out to me yesterday not to digress from debate. I suggest the same advice be given to the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The truth hurts, Madam Speaker; that their business backers have walked away from them. Their business backers in the Territory decided they are so bereft, so inept, so incompetent, so poorly led, they have walked away from them. They need $1.5m to fight the next Territory election. Along comes the big multinational bovver boys from the food and beverage industry who, basically, look at an opportunity, given the closeness of the parliament, and have spun a line to the CLP which they have swallowed hook, line and sinker - regurgitated by the member for Brennan in his contribution to the House - to fight tooth and nail against this scheme.
I am absolutely convinced - because, unless something dramatic is going to happen today, this legislation will pass with the support of the member for Nelson who has been such a strident advocate of this scheme for so many years - the CLP will go to the next election saying they are going to ditch this scheme and introduce another scheme which will have the tick of approval from the Beverage Industry Association and - hey presto! - in the returns for that election we will see a nice, big, fat cheque from the industry to the Country Liberal Party. This is what it is all about. I have been around this game for long enough to know how it works, and this is exactly what has happened here.
How do you reconcile this backflip which has occurred in the last couple of weeks since the beverage industry has run a disgraceful campaign in the Northern Territory? I will go through a series of quotes from those opposite, which is a warning to Territorians in the lead-up to the next election: you cannot believe anything these people on the other side of the House say. They will backflip on any issue, on any policy, as soon as it suits them.
The Opposition Leader said in this House on 26 November 2003:
- Let us go back to the basic issue. The community wants CDL, and they want a government to apply the will and make it work …
What is different today?
- The position of the CLP on CDL is that we will find a way to sort out this issue.
The member for Fong Lim is a sceptic about most things environmental. The member for Fong Lim and other people in the House have, obviously, had their way and forced the Leader of the Opposition and the Alice Springs members to fold and backflip on Angela Pamela. We know who is running the show on that side of the House. In the member for Fong Lim’s September 2004 newsletter, he said:
- I am all for it, to help clean up, to recycle, to put some money in the pockets of responsible people.
What a backflip! The member for Port Darwin said in this House on 26 November 2003:
- The CLP supports CDL …
…
I would love to find a model that works for everyone and we will certainly be looking at it.
…
We are going to be working to come up with a much better model …
Member for Port Darwin, you said that on 26 November 2003, that is 2643 days ago. Where is your model?
They are totally bereft. They have no policy ideas. They are not committed to the environment. They are lackeys of big business and interstate big business.
The member for Brennan cuddles up to the Environment Centre, cloaks himself in green and says: ‘Trust us, we are the future face of the environment in the Northern Territory’. They are nothing but a Trojan horse and the CLP - call them the Country Liberals, call them anything you like - if they are returned to government, will go back to being the arrogant, high-handed, deceitful government they were in the past. This is a great betrayal of everything they have stood for on CDL since they lost the government benches.
The member for Greatorex said in a media release on 7 April 2009:
- The Northern Territory government’s announcement that it aims to introduce container deposit legislation across the Territory is a fairer and more practical litter reduction measure.
That just goes back to 7 April - the member for Greatorex thought it was okay. How could I forget the member for Brennan, who said in this House on 30 April:
- The Country Liberals’ own policy supports CDL.
As I recall, this has been such a long-standing Country Liberals policy that, prior to the 2001 election when Labor won government, there was actually a motion from their Central Council - their version of our administration committee - requiring the Country Liberal Party to go to the 2001 election supporting CDL. At the time, Denis Burke and the team decided they were not going to listen to their own branch and their own party. It was prior to that election they also had a motion for the party to introduce FOI, which they also squibbed, which they are now such strong proponents for - such strong proponents for open government, but they would not do it when they were in government.
This is an absolutely breathtaking backdown and betrayal. For the member for Brennan to come in here and say the reason they have backed down, backflipped, and betrayed the community on this is because he has done some research into constitutional law defies all credibility. He has done nothing more than read a speech which was probably written by the beverage industry council: ‘Here are the questions you need to ask the minister in the committee stage amendments, and ask them by rote’.
In relation to much of the detail, he and the opposition well know this bill I hope we are passing today establishes the legislative framework which gives certainty to industry in the design of the scheme and how the costs of the scheme will be accommodated. It is not about having every answer.
Today, I call on the beverage industry to back down from their lies and misinformation because this is not about the Northern Territory. The industry in the Territory can absorb these costs, as they do in South Australia. We are talking about multinational companies. We are talking about companies like Coca-Cola, which spreads the globe - the biggest brand in the world. They are saying they cannot absorb 10 in the Northern Territory. Come off it! Of course they can; it would not be noticed on their balance sheets.
This is all about big business; multinationals running scared. Now that the Northern Territory has joined South Australia the race will be on. Other jurisdictions will see this is the right thing to do. We are in it as well. This scheme will spread across Australia and, once it is across Australia, yes, there will be a cost on industry. However, a cost on industry versus a massive impact in improving environmental outcomes, reducing litter and supporting community groups across Australia.
I said at a media conference recently - I am quite angry about this - these big multinational companies have triple bottom line responsibility, not only to profits for their shareholders, but to the environment and the community in which they operate - not just to their profits and their shareholders. If industry decides to price gouge in the Northern Territory and say: ‘We are going to jack it up the Northern Territory government because we know if the CLP get into government, they will fold. They will give us what we want in return for the cheque. So, we are going to jack up prices’. We will sool the ACCC onto them, because there is no reason prices should be more impacted in the Northern Territory than they have been in South Australia.
Look at big brand stores - whether it is Coles, Dan Murphy, or Liquorland - advertisements in the Melbourne or Adelaide media for products - exactly the same price. If they can absorb the costs in South Australia, surely to goodness they can absorb costs in the Northern Territory. To say the multinationals, the big beverage industries, cannot absorb this cost is a betrayal of their responsibility to community and the environment.
I am aghast! After everything that has been on the public record, five minutes to midnight, after a bit of pressure from big business, dollar signs in their eyes, needing to raise money for the next Territory election, the Country Liberal Party has folded. The member for Brennan has been put out like some fall guy to run an argument he could not be bothered to run in a briefing two weeks ago, where many of those questions could have been answered. This is outrageous! The lily-livered Country Liberal Party has been calling for this since they lost the government benches in 2001. Their policy position for 10 years has been to support Cash for Containers and, implicitly, the South Australia model.
The member for Fong Lim said on ABC 8DDD on 5 October 2004:
- … the fact is it works very well in South Australia …
The member for Goyder, on 19 August 2009 said:
- This move towards setting up legislation in the Territory offers us an opportunity to get it right. South Australia has had their legislation since the mid-1970s.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It does not matter what they say going into the next Territory election, you can bet London to a brick it is all up for grabs, post the election, if they were to win the government benches. We would have a rerun of John Howard’s core and non-core promises – that is what we would have: ‘Oh, well, that was our policy but, now, business has come to us and they are running scared of it; we have been forced to reconsider’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura! Member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: I believe it is a very torrid day when, for 10 years – 10 years! - the opposition, all over the public record - I have many more quotes here; I do not have time to use them all – said the South Australian scheme is a good scheme and it should be introduced in the Northern Territory. All of a sudden, once they get the slightest pressure from multinational businesses and, once they get a sniff of political donations, given their Territory-based backers are flying away from them in droves: ‘We will put up the member for Brennan, the new guy. He can be the sacrificial lamb. We do not care if he loses all credibility on this’. You really have been put up as a fall guy, member for Brennan. ‘We are going to backflip on what was, for us, a core promise, a core belief, something we really believed in’.
If it is that this is not a good scheme, where have the great policy brains of the CLP been since 2003 - 2646 long days ago – when they said they would come up with a scheme for Cash for Containers? They are nothing but a fraud, a shallow, hollow, political shell bereft of any integrity or commitment at all. They deserve to be condemned for betraying the Territory environment, Territorians, and local government.
I will read what the Katherine Town Council Mayor, Anne Shepherd, said. The industry heavies were, obviously, trying to lobby everyone. They wanted to oppose the Territory government’s legislation. The only people they have to oppose the legislation are the opposition and the Chamber of Commerce - and I will get to the Chamber of Commerce in a moment. The Mayor of Katherine wrote to Kate Carnell, former Liberal Chief Minister of the ACT, and said:
- I urge you to abandon your unhelpful rhetoric and join with us in devising a cost-effective, environmentally responsible scheme. Please become part of the solution, rather than the problem.
The Environment Protection Authority is an institution much beloved of the member for Brennan - much beloved; he loves the EPA. In fact, we partnered with the member for Brennan in a conciliatory way to further strengthen the powers of the EPA, an independent voice and arbiter for the environment in the Northern Territory. This is an institution we certainly believe in. I am beginning to wonder whether they believe in it, or will it be something else they tear down if they come to government? The EPA’s Dr Andrew Tupper said, on 23 February 2011:
- The Northern Territory government is to be commended for its resolve and fortitude in introducing the new litter reduction and recycling scheme - Cash for Containers.
The scheme will mean less landfill and more recycling. It will mean less unsightly littering, cleaner waterways and parklands, and less impact on our ecosystems.
It’s now time for industry to step up to the plate and put citizenship a firm first on its agenda. Every Territorian knows the price of beer and soft drink varies enormously depending on where you live and where you shop. Cash for Containers is about much more than this. Any responsible measures to help Territorians reduce, reuse and recycle should be applauded and supported.
Cash for Containers is about pride in our community, healthy and clean waterways and parklands, a commitment to sustainable living and a better future for us and our kids.
That is from the EPA, the body the Country Liberal Party supposedly supports. I will also use a quote from Alice Springs. I pay tribute to Mayor, Damien Ryan, and the Alice Springs Town Council, because they have been out there ahead of government:
- The cash for container program piloted by Alice Springs council has reached a milestone with its 10 millionth container being processed.
Ten million containers in Alice Springs. Damien Ryan said:
- I find it interesting with the debate in the community about it doesn’t work. It’s bloody working here; there’s 10 million reasons to see why it’s working.
The member for Brennan talked about setting up a trial scheme: ‘Let us set up a trial scheme. Let us delay this until after the election. The CLP has a change to get back in, and we will get our nice, fat political donation from big business and industry’. Well, the trial scheme has been working in Alice Springs. I do not normally swear in here, but I am quoting from the Mayor:
- It’s bloody working here; there’s 10 million reasons to see why it’s working.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, perhaps if you could withdraw that, even though …
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
The CLP collectively should hang their heads in shame today. I am sure there is not unanimity on that side of the House, as they are divided on virtually everything at the moment. I am sure, in their party room, common sense would have prevailed with some of them saying: ‘This is going a bit far. We have been promising to do this for 10 years. The community expects us to do it. For us to walk away from a core commitment at this stage is really a step too far’. Someone else has run the lines in there: ‘Well, no, no, we have to look to the future and look to our political donations’.
The Leader of the Opposition really has no clothes on, on this particular issue; he is like the emperor with no clothes. He goes out to the community and says: ‘I am an honourable person. I am a trustworthy man; trust me. I will deliver in the best interests of Territorians’. As soon as he gets a bit of heat on him, he folds. To fold in the light of a disingenuous fear campaign run by big southern and multinational businesses - to go to water; just what sort of leadership is that? Then he hangs out the poor member for Brennan to dry on this particular issue. The language that is being used around this we will hear in some of the more colourful speeches from the opposition in this debate.
On the plastic bags issue, the member for Brennan lauded the fact some retail businesses have a levy on plastic bags and people chose not to pay a levy. However, it is a levy in regard to plastic bags. Then, they talk in the language of big multinational businesses and say Cash for Containers is a tax. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot support a levy on plastic bags and then not support Cash for Containers and call it a tax. It just goes to show how confused, muddled, divided and desperate they are to walk away from a fundamental commitment from the Leader of the Opposition - the members for Port Darwin, Brennan, Fong Lim, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and virtually every other Tom Cobley and all over there. To fall away at the last minute is absolutely deplorable.
I support the minister and thank him for all the work he, his agency, and his department have done on this. I commend the leadership which has been shown in the public debate on this by the member for Nelson, who has been a consistent supporter of this particular issue …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and much more well informed on this issue than me.
It is good to see the member for Fong Lim in here. As I quoted before, the member for Fong Lim has been an absolute rap for this particular …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: It is good to see the member for Fong Lim here. It will be interesting to see how he weasels his way out of this one. In his September newsletter in 2004 he said:
- I am all for it, to help clean up, to help recycle, put some money in the pockets of responsible people.
What has happened, Dave? Jeepers creepers, I thought you would have a bit more leadership and stand up for Territorians instead of doing the bidding of big business. I reckon the member for Fong Lim has a pretty good nose for the political wind. I reckon he would be one of the people inside the party room saying: ‘It is the wrong thing to do to back away from this. We are too far out on a limb to back away at this point in time’. The member for Fong Lim does not normally do backflips. Whether he gets it right or wrong in his opinion, you usually know where the member for Fong Lim stands - once he has made his position clear he does not waiver from it, no matter how much heat is applied to him.
I do not think the member for Fong Lim has backed away from this. It is all the doing of the other aspirant for the leadership, the member for Port Darwin, who is pretty worried about those donations - as is Sue Fraser-Adams - coming into the next Territory election.
The CLP deserves to be condemned for walking away from this legislation. This is the right thing to do …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering if I should seek leave to table my speech so the Chief Minister can read it and understand what I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, resume your seat!
Mr HENDERSON: We can read the speech in Hansard, so eloquently read by the member for Brennan, which was so comprehensively written for him by multinational big businesses. If anyone thinks the member for Brennan has some sort of great legal knowledge of multilateral trade agreement, cross-Tasman law, knowledge of the Australian Constitution, then they think that snow is going to fall on Ayers Rock at Christmas.
Madam Speaker, the CLP deserves to be condemned. This is good legislation. This is a great framework for the Northern Territory because it is good for our environment and our community. I urge big business to absorb these costs and do the right thing by the Territory, the environment, and the community. I am sure their shareholders would support it.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the final report and recommendations by the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dated 6 December 2010, an information paper titled What Might the Terms and Conditions of Northern Territory Statehood Be, dated January 2011; and the federal government’s response to the Long Road to Statehood which was tabled in the House of Representatives in October 2009.
MOTION
Print Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Print Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Final Report and Recommendations
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and papers, and that I have leave to continue to my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) BILL
(Serial 136)
(Serial 136)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, to be very honest with you, the contribution made by the Chief Minister, and the attempts by the Labor government to extract whatever political advantage they can from this important matter is appalling. I have to say the member for Brennan has engaged this issue responsibly. He has asked questions, conducted serious research, and followed through on lines of argument that have been put to him. He has made his conclusion. I respect the work the member for Brennan has done. Members involved in the debate should have given some respect to the presentation he made to this parliament; at least the courtesy of a response to the questions which were put in a well-researched and well-presented presentation to this parliament to the advancement of a debate.
What we had from the Chief Minister, sadly, was a series of assertions which do not make an argument. There were a number of legitimate questions that require a mature, thoughtful, considered response. That is a debate; that is an argument. This was a very thin, disappointing, confused political rant with the only objective to take political advantage of this issue.
I know in matters like this there is always a certain amount of politics but, at the end of the day, as legislators you have to ensure what you present is actually going to work so people have confidence in the institutions, in the machinery we provide for them to be able to realise their aspirations.
First, it is absolutely clear that people want a response to these sorts of issues. They have wanted it for a long time; the Country Liberals have for a period of time. The greatest part of research the Chief Minister appears to have done is going back and looking at our media releases. That is really a demonstration of a juvenile approach to a serious issue.
Yes, we have responded because we know the community wants something done in this space. Therefore, you need to take care when you take the steps to meet their expectations. There are expectations. We do not want to put anything in place that is going to appear to be okay, but may have internal flaws and cause a lack of confidence in government to be able to meet the needs of people. We have to build confidence.
I am hoping the case is that government - in all their excitement and their distraction about this being a political issue rather than an environmental and public policy issue - did not actually hear what the member for Brennan said. That is the only conclusion I could reasonably draw; that they did not hear what he said.
He said at the beginning there is support for container deposit legislation, but there is a need for serious questions to be presented and responded to. That is what this is about. Politics should be much more than going out and asserting things and playing a game just to try to win the affections of the crowd today. We have to live with it tomorrow. There were a number of very real questions that required a proper response, and we had a juvenile Politics 101 you would have had from freshmen at university trying to make a name for themselves on the campus, or in high school. This is real stuff. There are a number of questions and they were put - and put very well - by the member for Brennan who, once again, I applaud for the work he has done.
I only hope reasonable members over there will read the speech because we are going to be living with something we must ensure is going to deliver on those expectations.
When the member for Johnston contributes to this debate, I would like him to explain what occurred at the time when the Labor government was …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes. We are not trying to spin this. We just want to know what actually happened there ...
Dr Burns: It is on the agenda. I will talk about that.
Mr MILLS: I am sure it is, but I will put this out and then it can be responded to. I have one question: what actually happened? The Country Liberals had a position. The Labor Party had the same position in opposition, came to government, started to move in that direction, and then something frightened the horses and they were there no more. That requires an explanation. Were they just frightened, or was there some weight of argument that caused them to hesitate? We need to have an insight into what occurred at that time, in order to have confidence that you have adjusted, that you have overcome some difficulty you had in the past.
I have another question. It is very disappointing the Chief Minister went nowhere near this. It really was very disappointing. It is a genuine question and I am sure it was touched on a number of times in many people’s minds. Is it such a good scheme? If you do any survey and ask anyone the question, anyone and everyone wants it. Yes, you can cite figures. Do you want one of those schemes where you take your rubbish and you get 10 for it? That would be great, because I remember that when I was a kid. We have that notion out there so we do not trespass on that notion with the machinery of how it works and how things are different today than they were then. We just say: ‘Do you like that idea? We will put a big ad in the paper and ask people if they like that idea?’ Yes, of course. Who likes motherhood? We all do. Who likes that lovely feeling you get remembering what it was like in the good old days, when mum and dad told you what it was like, and you could get bottles and take them back? Well, you have that out there, so you will ask people that question. Of course, you are going to get overwhelming support for that. Wow!
Given that, how is it that South Australia has been the only jurisdiction state or territory, which has gone into this space in all those years? I would like to have a genuine …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, all right, you can have your …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: No, you will have your chance. It is a question that needs a response. I am puzzled by what really is the underlying cause of having popularity being challenged, again and again, over all those years, that no other state or territory has ventured into that space.
The Northern Territory Labor government, after 10 long years of Labor, now finds itself backflipping on a position it had once before and wants to give it another shot. This is an outfit, to be frank, in which not many people have confidence in their capacity to actually deliver on programs. They cannot maintain order in the streets, they cannot build houses for people who need accommodation, even though they have been given millions and millions of dollars. Now they can do something - venture into a space where no other jurisdiction has ventured, without even the Chief Minister being able to give an explanation or answer any basic question – and it is a cause for real concern. We want confidence the government has the capacity to deliver on the people’s expectations and not just exploit something because it is popular and use it for political purposes. Perhaps they think they are in the twilight of their political careers and this is something they are going to go out with, and someone else is going to have to be managing it.
Well, I have conservative instincts. Though I would like to give my kids anything they want, I have to ensure what I give them is going to be good for them. We have an obligation to ask the questions, and I would expect the proponents to be able to provide some substantive response.
What has changed in the mind and attitude of government? Where have they now found the political will for this? Where has it, in fact, come from? Many would assert this change of mind, change of heart - whether it is politically inspired or is acquired by virtue of paying some respect to the arrangement in minority government to maintain some value to that arrangement - keeps them in power. All of these things really have to be scrutinised and the Chief Minister failed on every front.
These things are genuine concerns, if we are going to have any confidence this is a real government. I cannot see it with the responses so far, which have been absolutely amazing - trying to run this line because they have not bothered to listen to what the member for Brennan had to say. We even spoke to people during the recess, saying: ‘Isn’t it terrible? ‘What is terrible? That you are opposing it?’ Well, they did not listen to what the man said. They were so desperate to try to extract political advantage from this it makes me suspicious of whether they really had the capacity.
What research has been conducted? Is it true what the member for Brennan said the Chief Minister said: ‘Well, look, I do not know. We do not want to ram anything down your throat, but we are going to have to do this because of the member for Nelson’, and the member for Nelson said: ‘We do not know; it is the government’. These things need to be, not just refuted, but explained.
Then we had the Deputy Chief Minister trying to weave in some other little narrative that it is all about us wanting some money. We want to do the right thing. We believe we need a model, a program, but we have not had any details of this program. Nonetheless, through this debate, I hope we are going to have something far better than the childish response of the Chief Minister and have some arguments, meaningful response and explanation, rather than just the sheer bloody politics of it, so we can be persuaded you are at least taking this seriously.
I look forward to hearing from the member for Nelson. Please persuade us. We need to be persuaded. I have many reasons to find it difficult to come to the view that I can actually support your plan because it appears, on the face of it, judging by the Chief Minister’s contribution, the only research being conducted is polling of the community to see whether they like this so they can give it to them.
I believe we need better than that. Are we going to have some serious response to that which has been outlined by the member for Brennan? At least pay him the courtesy of a response and do not distort what he has stated; that we are willing to enter into this, we are willing to allow you to explain yourselves so we can allow that which has been a long-standing position to progress. It is as simple as that. Let us cut the silly business about this and get on to a real debate so we can get to the point where, through committee stages, we can test this and see whether you are genuine about this.
In fact, I was in a reasonably strong position in my own mind after hearing the member for Brennan. I was thinking, yes, we are right, these are very good questions. Then, when the Chief Minister stood, I thought the he would respond to the questions. You started it, member for Brennan, by saying we have support but we have reservations. I thought fine, those reservations will be put in their right place as the debate continues. I will tell you, those reservations just enlarged after the Chief Minister’s contribution, and made me reconsider.
Member for Johnston, please help us. Persuade us; give us some better insights rather than the sheer politics of this. We are very genuine about this. It has been a long-standing position of the Country Liberals. We want some details - as the member for Brennan said, have a look under the bonnet. Just let us in on it more than the advertisements you have been running in the paper. Tell us a bit more about it: what went on in the past, and how there is a change of position but, most importantly, how it is actually going to work. I would love to give anyone anything they want, but I would like to ensure what I give them is going to be something that delivers on their expectations. Explain how it is going to work. I would like the Treasurer to explain the economics of this. Explain that, because they were good questions that needed answering.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope we can now get the debate back on the right footing it started with, with the member for Brennan - derailed by the Chief Minister who was running wild with this and frightening us all. We now need to get it back on an even keel and let us begin the task of persuading so we can have a genuine response and meet the expectations of people - which the Country Liberals want to do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I can take up some of the advice from the Leader of the Opposition because the member for Brennan’s contribution, except for the odd remark here or there, was well put together. He has put together arguments which, in some cases, are from the beverage industry. That does not make those arguments any more legitimate than if I decided to read the paper, take someone else’s opinion out of it, and use those to ask the government similar questions.
I would like to put the debate back on track. The opposition is the opposition. The opposition’s job is to scrutinise government legislation and this is no different than any other legislation. I would rather take it out of the political spectrum because it is important environmental legislation which will benefit the whole Territory. I could pull apart different speeches by many people in this House over the time I have been here - that will not achieve anything. The issue before us is the legislation, which is the concept of a container deposit scheme and plastic bags.
At the outset I believe the mistake - and I am told this is by the drafting people – is these two bills have been put together. It would have been good to debate each one separately. The member for Brennan discussed plastic bags, which is another area I would like to discuss more fully. With the time I have, considering the importance of the container deposit scheme, we are not going to have enough time.
This is an historical day. Today, the NT will become the second part of Australia to put in place a Cash for Containers scheme, South Australia being the first 35 years ago. I am going to work backwards because of time, and thank those people who have worked tirelessly over many years to see this day happen in the Northern Territory.
I specifically thank Lorna Woods, who ran the Keep Australia Beautiful Council for many years. I have some documentation she wrote in 2002. When you read what she was writing about, you could put it in 2011 – the same issues from the beverage industry; same answers; just a different date. She was a tireless campaigner for bringing in container deposit legislation. She worked with Territory Tidy Towns and knew how important it was to introduce a scheme like this, especially for the remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The beverage industry will talk about kerbside recycling. Anyone who has been to Adelaide and spoken to the councils and the recycling people, kerbside recycling has contributed to increasing recycling rates, not decreasing. There is much hoo-hah about that in the debate and people forget that about 99% of the Northern Territory does not have kerbs anyway.
I read an interesting note from this letter Lorna Woods sent me in 2002 which applies today. One of the things missing in this debate is how much extra it will cost for me to be part of this container deposit scheme. I have no doubt, if the industry does not absorb the price as they do in South Australia, it will cost a certain amount of money – whether it is 4 or 5 extra. We hope the industry will come on board because the Northern Territory is such a small part of the whole sale of beverage containers in Australia; they would not even notice, would not even blink, at the cost. To me, that cost is their contribution to making our community cleaner. They do not do much at the present time.
In the old days when you got your 5 or 10, or shilling, for your bottle, the industry paid you to take their bottle back. Then came the throw away container. In South Australia, you do not take that container directly back to the manufacturer - they do it in a roundabout way. They are not really interested in that. Those products go back to a recycler; they do not go back to the company which used them in the first place for their industry. The forgotten thing is there are cost savings - we have to look at the bigger picture. There are cost savings in landfill.
I come to this argument with a passion developed by many years in local government on Bathurst Island, Daly River, and in Litchfield, seeing the enormous waste of cans and bottles in those communities which were buried and, in many cases, buried at a high cost.
I used to go down to the Humpty Doo landfill site. I could not believe the amount of plastic materials that were buried. That is an expense to the ratepayer; it is not paid for by the industry. They talk about - what are their words? They talk about product – I will get the right name for it - product stewardship. If it was product stewardship, they would be paying for that, not us, not the councils. We pay for landfill, we pay for litter. They do not pay for picking up litter and, unfortunately, that is missed in this debate.
On one side, this may cost more - I hope it does not - and that has to be worked through but, on the other side, there are offsets and that needs to be looked at.
I will read out this article which was done by an independent review of container deposit legislation in New South Wales around 2002:
- When both financial and environmental impacts were considered on a whole-of-society basis, the potential benefits of introducing CDL in NSW were found to significantly exceed the costs. The annualised nett economic benefit of CDL in NSW in the case where recovered container materials are recycled was found to be of the order of $70-$100m per year compared to the current situation. This nett economic benefit is largely due to environmental benefits that were valued by the CDL review at $100-$150m per year. This valuation of environmental benefits is exclusive of the value of the improved visual amenity due to the litter reduction. Litter reduction is, however, an important benefit to be gained from CDL and has historically been a major driver for its introduction both in Australia and overseas.
In summary, the estimated value of the environmental cost of disposing of a single average beverage container to landfill, compared to recycling that container, is 8-9. The costs of recovering that container through a combined CDL and kerbside recycling strategy is approximately 2-3.
That report was held secret for a number of weeks before it was actually issued to the public. That is part of a whole range of information out there to show you container deposits will benefit our community.
Lorna Woods should be applauded for the years and years of effort she has put into it.
John Watson, a recycler from South Australia, used to recycle the plastic fronts of cars, where the steering wheel is. He used to recycle that plastic. He released this document on behalf of KAB, which is the self-funding container deposit system. This document was released in 1999. Not a great deal has changed, except the deposit has gone up to 10 and we now do wax-paper cartons. The work has been done. The work was done to show it can work. Of course, people can stand here and say that it will not work. What we need is a group of people, on both sides of parliament and the industry, to say we can make it work. There are too many egos in here, and there are many people who simply see a position that they will not move from.
This is good for the Territory. The industry, if it comes on board, will make it work. I know much is said in public about the industry. I am saying to industry to come on board. The Territory is not a big part of the world; it is a small part. You can make it work, and you can make many changes to many people in remote communities or in the major towns and to our environment if you come on board and help with this. If you deliberately sabotage it, you will be named for doing it. I do not think you need to do that.
I thank Loraine Braham. She introduced a matter of public importance, a motion, and a private member’s bill, which were all defeated in this parliament. She worked tirelessly to introduce legislation in regard to container deposits. I thank her for all her work. She also recognised the importance of container deposits and the benefits to the Northern Territory.
I used to go to local government meetings with the late Andy McNeill. We discussed this time and time again. He was a great supporter of container deposit legislation. Damien Ryan – you only have to go on to the website and find how many containers the Alice Springs council is now recycling. Last year, it was seven million; it is now up to 10 million. This is proof of the pudding. At 5 a can, a council, with the help of the ratepayers and the government, has been able to pull 10 million cans and bottles out of the Alice Springs area’s rubbish. Sometimes, it is hard to believe people do not accept it will work; it just needs the old fashioned motto: where there is a will, there is a way. We have to work together instead of looking at all the negatives.
Jimmy Forscutt from Katherine, was always a great supporter, as was old Merv Myer at the Shoal Bay recycling - I do not think he is there any more. He would hammer you about the importance of container deposits. He is an old South Australian. He used to run the Howard Springs tip occasionally and the Humpty Doo tip, and he ran the Darwin recycling centre for a while, for better or worse. He was a great supporter and always promoted the benefits of the container deposits.
The Local Government Association, in their submission on the National Waste Policy, was a strong supporter. In fact, they said:
- (7.8a) Strong support for the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) as a litter control mechanism.
We have to remember it is local government which cops all this. It is local government that has to pick up litter and cover up landfill. If you can reduce those costs, you are helping local government. That is what it is about.
The beverage industry wants to keep talking about litter. It might have been that when South Australia put together its legislation. The South Australian legislation was based on the concept of throw away your beverage bottle. It had to be a container that you would find littering. I believe those principles need to be changed a bit because this legislation increases recycling, reduces landfill, and decreases litter. It has a lot more than that original concept which has been pushed much of the time by the beverage industry.
Mr Ian Kiernan of the Clean Up Australia group used not be a supporter of CDL. I remember when it first started I had spoken to him: ‘No, it would not work’. He is now a strong supporter. He has been in the creeks and the gutters and the roads, and has seen how it is something which will change and help the environment. He is not politically aligned with anyone, but he sees the importance.
The Lajamanu residents won the Melaleuca Awards in 2008:
- The community of Lajamanu has reduced litter by more than 60 000 bottles and cans, thanks to a program encouraging people to ‘manta kartarku’ – (pick up cans).
- The Lajamanu Container Deposit Project was starting to reduce litter and improve waste management. The Lajamanu store provided a 10 incentive for every can and bottle collected in the community surrounds.
- …
- The community is now looking forward to improved sustainability in the future. As one resident said, ‘Lajamanu’s a lot cleaner because of this project. The kids and the old people are getting involved’.
That is from the Power and Water media release.
Believe it or not, way back in the old days, a good friend of mine - it was nice to hear Len Notaras had an old media release going back a fair way, saying the CLP supported the legislation. I thought that was good. I have always regarded Len Notaras as a good friend, and it is nice to see that he also, at that time, supported it. Even Dave Tollner, my colleague who sits next to me - I have a little article out of the NT News on 15 April 2005:
- A federal government proposal to conduct a container deposit trial in the NT has been canned.
What was new?
- Federal minister, Ian Campbell confirmed in a letter to NT counterpart Marion Scrymgour that the pre-election commitment to conduct the container deposit trial was no longer on the federal government’s agenda.
It went on:
- Federal member for Solomon Dave Tollner announced the proposed container deposit trial during last year’s election campaign.
I know Dave was supporting it. He was supporting it while he was in the federal parliament.
I thank the Chief Minister. He has been a strong supporter of container deposit. As he said, and other comments have been made, the Territory government for a long time was not the greatest supporter. However, on 11 March 2009, much to my delight, they said they were going to introduce a Cash for Containers scheme.
The agreement with me was in August, long after that came into being. You have to read the agreement. It said: ‘… continued commitment to the implementation of a container deposit scheme’. I put it in there because I wanted to ensure the government went along with its own promise. That is what it was about. I was so encouraged that someone at least said they were going to introduce it. I wanted to ensure it kept going. You can read what you like into that but, for me, that is what it was all about.
I also thank the previous minister, Alison Anderson, who was part of the original campaign for getting this project off the ground, and she still is. I went to South Australia with her to look at the recycling depots, to talk to the industry. I have been to South Australia a couple of times. I was taken there amongst a group of Australian Local Government Association representatives quite some years ago. I believe Peter Wood was the New South Wales representative. I went with him and some other representatives on behalf of the beverage industry and we all came back from South Australia absolutely convinced that container deposits was the way to go.
I also thank the present minister, Karl Hampton, who has been a great supporter and has carriage of this legislation. It has not been easy to get to where we are today. I also thank the minister’s staff, especially Andrew Buick who, I suppose, is slightly biased - he is an ex-South Australian I gather. He and his colleagues have done all the hard work in putting this legislation together.
There is a comment the beverage industry made that Gerry Wood really did not have much to do with the legislation. That is dead right; the reason I was here was to push the concept. This legislation has been extremely difficult, the minister will tell you, because of the Constitution. Legislation went through originally; I did not need to see it because the legislation went to those people who are more knowledgeable about legislation. They said that legislation would not stand up, so there has been a great deal of work done to ensure we have legislation that can work.
I regard this legislation as the foundation for container deposits. There is a long way still to go, but it is important legislation. To me, what you need to do is read Division 2 of the legislation, Establishment, waste management arrangements and CDS principles. I will read it:
(1) This Part establishes a container deposit scheme (the CDS) that includes the following features:
(a) prohibiting the sale in the Territory of regulated containers unless they are approved containers;
(c) the approval of operators of collection depots and persons carrying on business as CDS coordinator;
(d) imposing conditions on the approvals to ensure the reuse, recycling, or other appropriate disposal of returned containers;
(e) waste management arrangements that give effect to the CDS principles.
(2) The CDS does not require beverage retailers to:
- Note for subsection (2)
- A beverage retailer may, however, obtain a collection approval to operate a collection depot; for example, a reverse vending machine at the retailer’s premises for the payment of refund amounts for containers.
I have heard people say: ‘Are you going to be able to take it back to the shop?’ In South Australia there are a few people, I gather, who are still retailers who take them back; they are a depot and a retailer. In general, the recycling depots are spread throughout Adelaide.
Clause 11 talks about the waste management arrangement:
(1) A waste management arrangement is an arrangement made by the CDS participants for:
(1) For achieving the object of this Act, the Minister must develop principles for ensuring effective, efficient and equitable waste management arrangements ...
(a) manufacturers, distributors and beverage retailers of the regulated containers; and
(c) consumers of beverages in regulated containers.
(3) The principles must deal with the following matters:
(a) The responsibilities of CDS participants in managing the collection, reuse, recycling, or other appropriate disposal of regulated containers in a cost effective and efficient way including, for example, by:
(ii) minimising costs to consumers and CDS participants while at the same time providing business opportunities and maximising benefits to the community and industry;
And it goes on.
There are some basic principles there which will be the foundation for how this program works. There are some important things in here which I believe are good. It talks about how the refund will be paid and also says ‘collection depot to pay refund amount for empty containers’. It makes a note - and it probably would have been nice if this was a ‘must’ – in clause 18:
- Before accepting empty containers for payment of the refund, the operator of a collection depot may require the person delivering the containers to the depot to sort the containers according to the type of material, including, for example, cardboard, glass and plastic.
That highlights one of the difficulties with this legislation. We have had to follow the South Australian model, and it would be nice if some things it has in it were not there, because there are some inefficiencies in it. The process where all the products come back to get sorted and, then, the product has to go to the people who actually own the product, gets really messy.
Also, South Australia has certain goods which collect the deposit. If you get on to the web, you will find a guide to the containers which collect a refund. In containers up to and including 3 litres, there can be carbonated soft drink, beers, ale, stouts, water, wine-based and spirit-based beverages - any beverage that contains wine or spirituous liquor plus additional ingredients or flavours. This can include but is not limited to fruit-flavoured wine, wine coolers, ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages and alcohol beverages derived from the fermentation of fruit. In containers less than one litre, it can be flavoured milk and pure juice.
In the case of flavoured milk, you get 10 back for iced coffee, but you cannot get 10 back for plain milk. That is silly because some have argued some do not drink milk, they only drink iced coffee. You take your milk home and put it in the fridge. I do not know about that. One advantage of us being uniform with South Australia is that, hopefully, we can talk to South Australia and ask if we can put some of these particular beverages on the deposit scheme so you increase the amount of recycling.
I hope the industry will come on board. I believe if the NT is successful, Tasmania - which is looking at it right now - and Western Australia might come back to the fold. Western Australia was just about to bring it in when there was a change of government - funny thing. Tasmania is certainly looking at it at the moment.
That is the big fear from the beverage industry; they do not want a national campaign. That is what this is all about. I heard the discussion about a national container scheme being looked at. I say that Peter Garrett will be back playing on the last night of the last concert of Midnight Oil before we get anywhere close to having a national container scheme. The reason is the power of the beverage industry.
I will give you an example. This is the Keep Australia Beautiful Northern Territory document that was sent to me. Basically, it says if the government introduces CDL they will lose funding under product stewardship. This is what it says:
The current MOU with PSF …
Which is packaging stewardship forum:
- … for delivery of the ‘clean up’ book …
Which is this book I have here which they send out to councils to try to get them to clean up areas. It is not a bad book, do not get me wrong:
- … and voluntary recycling systems across the NT is currently in jeopardy because of the NT government decision to introduce CDL.
Why is it jeopardy? Because the beverage industry threatened - and I think they might have done it by now - to withdraw funds from KAB if this legislation was brought before this House. I have lived under that. If you want to you can call it tyranny. I was a member of the Territory Anti-litter Committee for years. The government, at that time, received $200 000 to $250 000 for anti-litter campaigns based on the unwritten - you would not find it anywhere but you knew when you went to a meeting – belief that CDL would not be introduced in the Northern Territory. That is why it has been so hard for it to be introduced in the major states. Ask how many KABs in other states are funded heavily by the beverage industry and why some actually have a completely different point of view than Lorna Woods when she was in KAB, because they are a very powerful lobby group.
I met with them and had good discussions with Lion Nathan – two good meetings. I said I am willing to look at product stewardship, but I do not believe it will work in the Northern Territory, at least at the moment. It might work in some sophisticated community where they are all very much all green and everything is ‘we will work together’. It will not pick up the rubbish outside on the road near the Howard Springs Tavern, and it will not pick up the rubbish in Kintore. That is what this does, not the product stewardship.
I have said to the industry: ‘If you want product stewardship, you take over the councils because then you will pay the cost of the litter pick-ups and the landfill recycling’. Of course, they will not do that. If you really ask yourself what this product stewardship is all about, it is an excuse for the industry to get out of being responsible for their products. They will pull out the charts - I have seen them all - and show you most litter is cigarette butts and straws. However, the one you have to see from a council’s point of view is the one by volume; that is, bottles and cans. If you walk into a landfill - have a look even in Darwin, I bet you – you will see how many bottles and cans. Two litre bottles with the top on them take up a lot of space in landfill. It costs a lot of money to bury all that.
The reality is, yes, there is a lot of litter. I will put it on record now and I have said it to the beverage industry: the original reason they gave me why they did not support this is because it was discriminatory. I said I would be happy to see it on more products. I do not know why it cannot be on jam jars, liquid soap containers, pesticides and herbicides, batteries - materials that usually get put in the tip. Why could it not be on that? In some of that deposit is a certain amount to transport it to a recycling place down south or overseas.
I believe it is the way to clean up a lot of our landfill. Some places in Australia have a target of zero landfill. I remember George Brown saying years ago at a local government meeting that he wanted to see zero landfill. At the moment, that is a very hard thing to do. By putting a value on product, you do not need to have the bleeding heart. That is good, but you will get more success from something that is value in the pocket; that is the way humans are. Why are recycling rates higher in South Australia than New Zealand? Why are they higher in South Australia for container products than any other state? Because of a combined herbicide and container deposit scheme.
The member for Brennan talked about distance - and distance is a problem. It is a problem for people who live at Oodnadatta, Ceduna, or on Kangaroo Island where you have to take things across by barge. However, nothing is insurmountable. When this was first being discussed, they looked at that. They had a deal with Perkins at the time to bring all product back to Darwin free. I am not saying Perkins might stick with that now, but they might. This is part of what has to happen after this legislation goes through. There has to be negotiations.
They say people will have to travel into a town. Of course they will travel into a town because the footy is on. So, you load up the car with all the empties, head into town, and get your money back - probably enough money to buy, hopefully, the fuel to take you home again. Do people live out there and do not travel? They do travel, and when the grocery truck goes out to a community, it goes back empty. So, you have to look at this from a point of view, not the hypothetical, but the practical on-ground approach. That will require a clever person who takes this over - and I hope it is industry - to negotiate those things with communities and transport companies. If there is a will, there will be a way to make this work, and it will be great.
Little kids out in those communities will get some entrepreneurial skills they probably never had in their life. They will make some money out of picking up the rubbish, and they will have a cleaner town than they have ever had. We will have less landfill on those communities and more recycling. The person who collects all that material will also get the benefit of larger volumes of recyclable materials, because there are a number of ways in which this particular program is funded. People have to realise that is part of this …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Johnston. I am reading from John Watson’s report. People have asked where the money will come from. There are a couple of things. First of all, there is the levy. There is also container losses. That is important, even in South Australia. A percentage of containers never come back, and that is known in South Australia. In fact, that is why they increased it from 5 to 10, because they thought they could increase the returns. That money goes into a fund, and can be used to help run the program.
You also have to remember that the sale of materials is important. I have already had a couple of recycling companies ring me up - they are not going to get up in public and say they love it. I had brought to my attention an advertisement in the Tennant Creek & District Times which says it is good to recycle scrap metal, say, aluminium cans. It says in the ad:
- The Northern Territory will introduce a ‘cash for containers’ scheme next year but deposits are payable only on specially labelled bottles and cans. But you can receive cash for cans, now, so do your bit to keep our town clean and green.
One of the issues you can never get the industry to find a clear argument against is the fact that aluminium cans are the perfect example of cash for cans. You get a percentage - I do not know – 0.5 per can, it is done by weight. In fact, every can weighs the same. You take your cans to the Scouts, to the recycling depot, and you will get paid for them. That is why aluminium cans are the highest recycled beverage container in the Northern Territory; because they are valuable. Is anyone saying: ‘Oh, it costs a lot to get there’? I did not hear about that. People go to the recycling depot or the Scouts and they get money. That is what this is about. If you add money and value to the plastic, waste paper, and glass, you will get those products back. That, to me, is one of the major things we are doing here: getting those products back.
Why should we slave to a philosophy - and it is - of the throwaway society: if we want to fix it then we have to pay for it, not the industry. You have to remember, the industry once was reusable. It made a bottle that was used time and time again. I remember going to the Coca-Cola factory when I was a kid, seeing all those poor people sitting in front of bottles all day, watching them to see there were no rats, mice and cracks in them. We reused all the glasses and we got money for them. No one complained about that. Remember, it was not a tax, it was a deposit, a refund - you name it. We got money and you then bought more drinks.
Then along came the plastic one-way containers. Of course, the industry thought it was great; they did not have to have big bottling machines, did not have to wash them, did not have to pick them up in the crates. They did not have to do any of that; it was great. Where does all the litter end up? In the streams, out in the harbour, in the rubbish, everywhere. People slowly realised and said: ‘Hey, this is no good’. South Australia, of course, got in a bit earlier, because its scheme has been going longer than plastic bottles. It kept a scheme that many of other states had. It kept it current and converted it into modern beverage containers. That is where Australia should have gone but, unfortunately, big industry got in first.
I wrote some notes about some of the issues the member for Brennan mentioned. I will say again: his contribution was excellent. I did not agree with all of it but, if I am going to sit here and hope people say nice things about me, I will be waiting until hell freezes over. That is all right, I am not that touchy. I had some other notes here. I expect the opposition to question it. I would ask them: ‘How come you have not challenged some of the issues in here?’. I believe it is good you do; it would make better legislation. After all, that is what the job of opposition is.
I also hope - and I have not spoken to government about it - with the regulations we ensure there is a regulatory committee. I hope some of that information that is coming regarding what the regulations will be, will be available to all of us to look at. I do not know what those regulations will be, and it would be nice to see what they are about. Naturally, I will support it.
I will thank people like Lorna Woods until the day the cows come home, because of the effort she and people like John Watson have made. Whilst I am a strong supporter, I am not the person who wants his name attached to this scheme - not because I am scared of it, but because that would be immodest and wrong. There are other people who have worked very hard to make this legislation work, such as Damien Ryan. He has introduced a scheme. All right, he has had his issues about litter with licensing outlets and so on, but he is trying to do something. To introduce a container scheme and recycle 10 million containers was fantastic. He also has a glass crushing machine, so they are putting their glass into the roads there. Actions speak louder than words, as Damien would say, and it is fantastic.
I could go on, but I need to spend some time on the plastic bags. Member for Brennan, I have spoken before about the Irish model. I agree with it. I am not sure the Territory government can put a tax on a plastic …
Mr Chandler: No, a donation.
Mr WOOD: That may be the case. The Irish model has been around for quite a while now; it may be 10 years, I am not sure. In one year, it went from X number of plastic bags to about 10% of that figure. There was about a 90% reduction because they charged for it. The fault has always been that we have allowed businesses to give plastic bags away free. If you said they are not allowed to give them away free, people would think twice about taking a handful of them; it is not rocket science. The companies want you to have plastic bags free because they want you going to the shop and carrying as many goods out of there as you can. You have not come in with a bag in the first place, so it is for convenience. You pay for it, of course. It would be 0.0001 per bag, which would be added on to the cost of the product. They do not do anything for nothing.
I believe companies such as Bunnings - even before Bunnings, one of my favourite supermarkets, Rite Price at Nightcliff, used to have all the cardboard boxes out the front. You could not have that in Coles and Woolies because that would spoil their image. Mr Milhinhos used to put all the boxes out the front; you saw them, you grabbed one and put all your goods in them. He was one of the first to get away from plastic bags. Bunnings – fantastic - you do not expect a plastic bag when you go to Bunnings ...
Mr Elferink: They were doing that before there were plastic bags, mate. He was doing that when there were paper bags.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was good. It is only because of image that some of the big companies like Woolies and Coles do not do it. Who else? Target - great, but Target has corn bags. I think they are biodegradable bags. I would have preferred to see that system. That means you do not get something for free but, if you still wanted to use it as your rubbish bag, you paid for it. It was not a product which was just given out willy-nilly. It goes somewhere towards doing that, I suppose. We are saying plastic is a problem; we will put a biodegradable plastic bag out there. I am not sure that it stops it from being unsightly if you have to wait for it to break down, or for the termites or whatever eats corn bags to get rid of it. It is still floating around, but I suppose it will not be there for a long time because it is made of different material.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support both parts of the legislation. I think they should have been done separately. I would like to keep a watching brief on the bags. I want to see if it is actually going to work. If I still see bags floating around the countryside, then I do not think you have solved the problem. You might look at it again and say that plastic bags should have some sort of charge. If you do not buy one, you will not be a cause of litter. Even corn bags can be a form of litter if they are left to float around.
With that, I again thank the member for Brennan for his contribution. I thank other members. I hope people on both sides can take this as a serious debate about a serious issue that needs a good commonsense approach. We want the best legislation, the best for the Territory, and the best for the environment out of this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, so the scuttlebutt is not put out there that I am opposing this, I would like to say I shall not be opposing this nor shall this side of the House be opposing this.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister took that position because of a few critical questions asked by the member for Brennan. All of a sudden, he is announcing that we are opposing this and is trotting out some arrangement we have with the packaging industry of funding into the future. That is arrant nonsense! It is, essentially, nothing more than a lie for any person to come into this place and articulate that thought. The government was, obviously, of the impression, for some reason, that this side of the House would be opposing this legislation and started trotting out rumours yesterday. I was reading about it in the newspaper today because of the rumours circulating yesterday about some arrangement that had been reached. Nonsense!
However, that does not prevent this side of the House asking a few critical questions about this container deposit legislation that is before the House at the moment - and so we should because it is not inconceivable that, if what the liquor industry is saying as one of its arguments is correct, this legislative instrument may actually be struck down at some point by a court in the future.
I heard the interjections from the Leader of Government Business this morning to the member for Brennan, asking: ‘Where did you get that information from?’ when the member for Brennan raised the issue of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. Clearly, the minister was aware of the particular issue. What I am concerned about, at this point, is if we proceed down this path recklessly, the very things the government and the member for Nelson are saying they are trying to achieve may be undermined by the argument the packaging industry is putting forward.
Let us remove, for one second, the issue that the packaging industry has made these comments and put it to one side. Let us look at the argument they have actually raised themselves. It is an issue that, potentially, could undermine this legislative instrument. One of the issues that has come from the industry is in relation to the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. I really would like the minister to pay attention to these issues because it is something that has direct bearing on the viability of this arrangement. I will join the dots shortly as to how this argument runs.
If the packaging industry is successful in running an action - I presume in the federal court - trying to strike down this legislation based on the argument they have run, then they will have the effect of running a shiver up the spine of every other jurisdiction that is contemplating this sort of legislation. Unseemly haste may actually result in an outcome which is the very opposite of that which members of government, the member for Nelson and so many other people – Lorna Woods and all those other people we have heard about - have been trying to achieve.
The argument goes like this. In 1992, I presume through a COAG arrangement, all the jurisdictions became part of an agreement which saw the federal government passing a legislative instrument called the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. I will now quote from that act, section 9, Entitlement to sell goods:
- The mutual recognition principle is that, subject to this Part, goods produced in or imported into the first State, that may lawfully be sold in that State either generally or in particular circumstances, may, because of this Act, be sold in the second State either generally or in particular circumstances (as the case may be) without the necessity for compliance with further requirements as described in section 10.
I will not read out the whole of section 10, but I will read out section 10(b) which goes like this:
- The further requirements referred to in section 9 are any one or more of the following requirements relating to the sale that are imposed by or under the law of the second State:
…
(b) a requirement that the goods satisfy the standards of the second State relating to the way the goods are presented, including, for example, requirements relating to their packaging, labelling, date stamping or age.
The requirement of this form of legislation is, if you look at any can you buy at the moment in this company, it has a little mark down the side, ‘redeemable deposit 10 in South Australia’. The argument runs that the requirement to change that label will breach the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This is the complicating factor. The reason it is a problem is we, in the Northern Territory, as at 23 June 1993, adopted the federal government’s Mutual Recognition Act 1992 in its entirety down to the last comma into Northern Territory legislation, as has every other jurisdiction. This is where the complications start.
The problem you have, in this instance, is to change the requirements of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 - and I have to pause here quickly. The reason the South Australian act does not apply is because in Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, the South Australian legislation is exempt by virtue of the fact that it existed prior to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. There is quite a number of acts that are exempt from this legislation. The current legislation under debate will not be exempt under Schedule 2 unless it is introduced to Schedule 2. This is something we have to pay attention to, because you are then stuck with a particular problem which is: you cannot change Schedule 2 under the terms of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 unless the Governor-General – that is, acting in counsel - has the agreement of each Governor or Administrator from each jurisdiction which is a signatory to this legislation - which is every jurisdiction. In short, the way this operates is the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and its schedules cannot be changed unless every jurisdiction signs off on that change.
I will happily stand corrected on this but, if that is true, then what happens if one jurisdiction refuses to allow this required change to the schedule? The only other vehicle under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 is the temporary vehicle where you are allowed, for environmental reasons, to set aside the purposes of the act for a period not exceeding 12 months. I am not sure if it is from the day of passage of legislation or the day it receives assent, or the day it begins operation. I seek guidance on that. However, the bill before the House is meant to be a permanent arrangement.
The packaging industry could well begin actions. I presume the reason they are so aggressively defending these positions is because there are big dollars involved. We are talking tens of millions on a national basis. We have heard that Tasmania is flirting with the idea, New South Wales perhaps, Western Australia had a look at it; they are possibly looking at it now, I do not know. However, there is a potential cascade of states that are looking at going down this path. So, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars. The packaging industry will be more than happy to stump up the few hundred thousand dollars for lawyers fees if we are talking about tens of millions of dollars-worth of outcome, and they will fight it.
If the argument the packaging industry is referring to is correct, then this legislation is potentially challengeable. What greater calamity could befall the CDL process in this country - that process of other governments looking at it – than if one government who goes out on a limb, tries it on, and comes unstuck. It will be huge egg on face for the government of the day. I am not trying to be nasty, but please understand the political consequences if it turns out the legislative instrument we try to pass today is struck down because it does not comply with the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
Other governments will run away from it - too hard, too painful. If you cannot get every other jurisdiction to sign up to this so the Governor-General can give it a tick to add this legislative instrument to Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 then, again, the potential of this legislative instrument to fail is substantial. This is the next place where the packaging industry is going to be coming from.
I want to hear from government specific reassurances in relation to these specific issues. Have you spoken to the other jurisdictions - and I mean all other jurisdictions - to ensure you have their guaranteed support for the changing of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992? If not, what steps will you be taking in order to ensure that such agreement is confirmed? The third question is: why have you chosen to go down this path, potentially prematurely, if you have not secured the required support from other jurisdictions? Fourth, are you going to be relying on the 12-month moratorium, if you like, allowed under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 to sustain life in this legislation if you are doing those negotiations? Fifth, have you considered at the very outset - in fact, this should be the first question - the implications of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, or was it overlooked? If it was overlooked, why?
I would like those questions answered. If it has not been overlooked, then I seek the government supplies to this House a detailed response, even if it is a written one, tabled in a legal advice or whatever – fine. However, it would be calamitous for the future of CDL in this country if, because of an oversight or because of haste, the process of pushing this legislative instrument through has led to a result which is contrary to that which the government desires.
As I said at the outset, I will not be opposing this legislative instrument, but what I will do, and continue to do as a member of this House, is ask critical questions as they arise. This issue has been raised by the packaging industry, but it stands alone as an issue in its own right - not because it is their issue. Upon examining the legislative instruments - and I have not read the whole of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 from cover to cover - I think I have covered all the essential components. If you have covered all of this stuff, then I would like to see some evidence of it. If the evidence is available and you have covered all of these issues, and it has been raised and thought about, if you table that material we may not even need to go into the committee stage. I am mindful of the time.
That is my contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to the government’s response.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this legislation and congratulate the government and the minister, and also the department. It is fantastic legislation. As the member for Nelson said, the members for Fannie Bay and Nelson and I took a trip to South Australia to have a look at the CDL in South Australia and had a fantastic briefing from the Environment minister’s office of the South Australian government.
I pick up on some things the member for Brennan said about freight, mostly to Indigenous communities. We know that freight is a little more expensive for drinks in our communities, but this is a great opportunity for our Indigenous kids to be picking up cans and earning a bit of money for schools and sporting clubs and, at the same time, cleaning the environment. It is also protecting the environment because we have huge problems with plastic bags in our communities, as the member for Stuart will tell you. If you go to some of the communities you will see plastic bags hanging on trees and it looks like Christmas every day. Cans are usually a big problem. Member for Brennan, we know that the freight cost of drinks in remote Aboriginal communities is a little dearer, but this is a fantastic opportunity for kids to have after-school jobs to pick up cans and get a little pocket money so they can have the lollies, chips, and drinks again.
It is a great opportunity for sporting organisations in remote Aboriginal communities to pick the cans up and put the money towards a community bus. These are the great opportunities this legislation gives to Indigenous people in communities.
I will talk about the environment. If you go into remote Aboriginal communities, apart from the plastic bags, there are always cans lying around. I went to a sports weekend, and I will not say which community it was. To make sure, I put my initials on a plastic bottle and, the next year when I went back, that plastic bottle was still there. The rubbish continues to stay there. This is a great opportunity for the communities to get cleaned up.
Have a look at our rivers - the member for Stuart will tell you that in his electorate he has the large Napperby Creek, and there is the Derwent River. Sometimes, all those rivers and creeks are clogged with plastic bags and cans. This is the greatest opportunity to save the environment. I have to refer to the Chief Minister because he made a valid point when he made his contribution to this legislation and said we all have a duty of care to the environment. The environment is something we should cherish, enjoy, and protect at the same time. It is a legacy we will leave behind for our children and our great-grandchildren. They will test us by what they see in the future. What have we done to save the environment?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister, the department, and the government for going ahead with this legislation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, what has changed? I was Environment minister in 2003 when, as the member for Nelson said, there were various propositions brought forward by KAB, etcetera, which I did not endorse. At that stage, government did not endorse those positions. I will come back to the reasons for that soon.
I commend the member for Nelson. I also commend the member for Macdonnell who was Environment minister when a committee was formed of members of this parliament, consisting of her, and the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay. An invitation was given to the member for Brennan to be part of that committee and, from memory - I might stand corrected - the member for Brennan declined it.
Mr Chandler: Wrong, the opportunity was taken away.
Dr BURNS: My recollection is that you were offered a chance to be on that committee. You may want to clarify that by personal explanation. Ample opportunity was given to the opposition to engage in this process when the member for Macdonnell was Environment minister, but they declined. I do not think they wanted to be fully engaged in this process, although they maintain they have had a consistent position of support for CDL. That frames the opposition’s response in parliament today regarding the CDL legislation.
The member for Blain asked a direct question of me regarding what has changed from 2003. I am more than happy to place on the public record, once again, the concerns I had and put forward in this parliament in 2003. To some degree, they revolve around what the member for Brennan said about the Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, which is a ministerial council of Heritage and Environment ministers across all Australian jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth.
At that stage, in 2003, nearly eight or nine years ago, the ministerial council was moving towards having national container deposit legislation. I was a very new minister and I had a good deal of confidence the ministerial council would move along that path. I felt that was the best path to have nationally consistent legislation. Unfortunately, member for Brennan, that has not occurred and, as a government and as evidenced by the committee that was formed in March 2009 - long before we had an agreement with the member for Nelson about being in minority government - to move container deposit legislation forward.
Government was signalling it was more than happy to look at this issue again. I also place on the public record that I was concerned about another issue you raised here today about how CDL would work in remote settings. Basically, I thought there might have been some issues of its workability and efficiency in remote areas. Since that time, there has been extensive work done within government, and in the submissions that have come back to government on CDL. As a Cabinet member, I can say it was an issue I raised at the outset with the minister as he continued the work that had been started by the member for Macdonnell when she was minister. I was, and am, satisfied about the workability of CDL in remote areas.
I hope I have placed on the public record some of the history in relation to this as honestly and as straightforwardly as I can. There has been a change in stance of government on CDL, and I have explained some of that history. I have commended the member for Macdonnell. I do not commend her very often about things, but I do in this case. It was a strong stance she took and, with the member for Nelson and the former member for Braitling, Loraine Braham, was very passionate on this issue. She used to buttonhole me when I was minister and put that case forward.
Lorna Woods is another person who really pushed this issue. As the member for Nelson said, there are quite a number of people who have been very passionate about this. Some have departed, such as poor George Brown, who was also a staunch supporter of CDL.
I will try to answer some of the questions which have been put forward by the members for Brennan and Port Darwin about concerns the opposition has about container deposit legislation. Sometimes, we find reasons not to support something. My wife said something to me in relation to the kids when they were little: ‘Why say no when you can say yes?’ That is a pretty good motto because, sometimes as parents we say, ‘No, you cannot do that. No, you are not allowed to do that’, when we could be saying yes. We find all the reasons in the world why something cannot be done. I really have that sense about the opposition in a number of their concerns related to container deposit legislation.
I am reminded of the scripture in Matthew 23:24 when the good Lord was talking about the scribes and Pharisees. He said something like: ‘You strain at a gnat and you swallow a camel’. What that scripture is all about, and what he was saying to the scribes and Pharisees is you are worried about the minutiae. You find all these things that are wrong in the minutiae, but you forget the main game. The main game is there is much public support - nearly 80% public support - for the introduction of container deposit legislation so it is incumbent on government to try to support that public support.
As legislators, we have responsibilities to ensure the legislation and the regulations are right. Sometimes we have to push through, member for Brennan. I know a few times, as minister, I have been told by departments: ‘No, minister, you cannot do that’. However, as I test that against what the public want and expect of government and the way things are run, sometimes you just have to cut through and really try to deliver for people what they expect. It cannot happen all the time, but we should be mindful of that.
I will try to answer some of the questions you have raised. Just before I do that, in relation to the member for Nelson, I note, on 27 April 2009, there was an article in the NT News and you were talking about Gerry Wood:
Mr Chandler said he sometimes envied the freedom of Independent MLA Gerry Wood.
Well, don’t we all?
- ‘There have been times when Gerry has said something that I agreed with, but I am not allowed to say it because of party politics’, he said. ‘You support what the party decides. I appreciate that, I understand that. So you fight behind closed doors, but in public it’s full support. If I was an Independent, it would certainly be different, but I am not, I am part of a party’.
I am afraid to say, member for Brennan, whilst many of the questions you have asked are valid questions, they are questions that have been posed by the food, beverage and liquor industries. One gets the sense you have been constrained in your position on this particular issue by a decision within the party room about what you might say and do.
This morning when there were children in the gallery and you were talking about all the concerns and why you think it would not work, I was wondering what those children were thinking because, at the level of those children, they would endorse container deposit legislation. They would see the wisdom of it, the plainness of it. It has worked well in South Australia for many years - that is an important element - as it has in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister read out the quote from Damien Ryan that says:
- I find it interesting with the debate in the community about it does not work, it is (expletive deleted) working here. There are 10 million reasons to see why it’s working.
Damien certainly laid it on the record. I understand at Lajamanu also there has been up to 70% return rate on their recycling, which is extraordinary for a remote community. There are places in the Northern Territory where it is working.
One of the questions you asked was in relation to how it is working in the remote regions in South Australia. I have a document I would like to table, member for Brennan, showing some 80-odd depots across the state of South Australia, many of them in very remote areas. Attached to that is a table about the locations. The advice I had is it is working well in remote South Australia. I am sure there are plenty of challenges associated with it, but it is something that is working in South Australia.
I will try to turn to your speech, member for Brennan, regarding the questions you asked. In the time I have had, I have tried to annotate your speech and answer some of the questions as best I can. You said the legislation is underpinned by regulations we have not seen; mechanics have not been ironed out; costings have not been provided. I believe the minister will go into some detail about this.
Of course, the regulations will be developed in consultation with the community and industry, I would say with some differences. The minister outlined those in his second reading speech regarding some of the differences with the South Australian scheme, member for Brennan. I have it here. He talked about some of the differences. He talked about the responsibilities of participants in managing the collection, reuse, recycling or other disposal of regulated containers in a cost-effective efficient way; the provision of reasonable access to collection depots throughout the Northern Territory; the establishment of a standard and transparent process for receiving and paying refunds and handling costs, including those processed in bulk; a dispute resolution process for participants; and an accountable and transparent monitoring process. What the minister said in his second reading speech is he wants to be consultative, he wants government to be consultative, and the development of what is required regarding any differences between the Northern Territory and South Australia will focus on those elements I have just talked about.
You talked about the costings not being provided. There has been endless debate, member for Brennan, about the costings. Of course, industry has its spin on the costings. The member for Nelson mentioned a number of reports he has received regarding how this particular program would work economically. At one point in your speech, you mentioned it was even misleading regarding the amount it would take to actually recycle those containers in the more remote places in the Northern Territory. You talked about an NRETAS report; how they commissioned the Centre for Appropriate Technologies to look at the handling of fees associated with container deposit in three remote communities. The study found that handling fees between 16 and 31 per container would be required. The industry, as I understand it, member for Brennan, has used those figures of 16 to 31 and almost said that would be the cost right across the Northern Territory.
I understand the costs across the Territory, averaged out to some degree, would be somewhere between 2 and 5. That is the information I have. In relation to that figure of 16 to 31 cost was about stand-alone voluntary schemes in remote communities. That is a big difference from those communities participating in a whole-of-Territory scheme. Whilst those costs may be reflected in the voluntary scheme on three remote communities, you have to remember there is actually going to be a network, a scheme right across the Territory, and those costs will not be anything like that. That was an issue you raised. I am trying to address your issues. I am sure the minister, in his closing remarks, will also talk about it.
You talked about your trip to New Zealand and you have placed on the public record, member for Brennan, that you paid for your own fare and, I assume, your accommodation and sustenance while you were there. Well done, member for Brennan, and well done for you for doing that research in New Zealand. My understanding from what you are saying is you did not receive any support from any external source for your trip to New Zealand for your travel, accommodation, and sustenance.
You talked about what you saw in New Zealand. You saw it, I did not. I would like to talk to you sometime about what you did see in New Zealand. However, it is my understanding the stewardship program in New Zealand only refers to glass weights. Our container deposit refers to quite a number of things other than glass. We only have to walk around our major centres to see the whole gamut of container waste that is here.
I must confess there is one major issue I am concerned about if we bring in container deposit legislation. I do not want to see Trevor, the rubbish warrior, out of a job, because he does a fantastic job. I am sure Trevor would love a lot of assistance out on the road. I place on the public record that he is a very special person and I think he is much loved by Darwin people. We all appreciate Trevor and his efforts. He is a bit different but, then, so are many Territorians. It will be great to see a few other community people collecting waste, and not just Trevor on his lonesome.
You raised constitutional issues in relation to section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution and the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as did the member for Port Darwin. I will read the briefing notes I have been given into the Parliamentary Record:
- Government has received highly credentialed legal advice that the scheme in this bill successfully avoids being a tax, nor does it conflict with section 92 of the Australian Constitution or section 49 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, regarding discrimination against interstate trade.
The member for Port Darwin asked us to table the legal advice. I do not have the legal advice here, but I would be very reticent and advise the minister against tabling any legal advice. The member for Port Darwin said himself the beverage industry is red hot on this. If there was some sort of legal battle, why would you telegraph your detailed position and advice to them and give them a leg up? I do not think, as a government, we should be doing that. It is not a very wise tactical move; it is a bit like a football coach sending his game plan to the opposition. That is something I advise against, but I can assure the House we have received highly credentialed legal advice to that effect.
The member for Brennan raised the issue, as did the member for Port Darwin, about the mutual recognition legislation. The member for Port Darwin gave some of the background of that legislation. Once again, I will read the advice I have been given. Basically, it is not correct that it will contravene the legislation:
- The bill has been designed to conform to the statutory exemptions available under the mutual recognition legislation. But, to put it beyond doubt, government will be seeking a specific exemption through COAG.
That specific exemption, as I understand it, has been secured for the South Australian CDL scheme.
- If, by chance, that specific exemption is not approved, the view of government is that the bill is safe anyway through the general statutory exemptions in the mutual recognition legislation itself.
That is the advice we have had and I do not think it is advice we will be tabling. We have a great deal of confidence, and I challenge the beverage industry to make a legal battle out of this. I challenge Kate Carnell and all the heavies of the beverage industry to get into court and see how far they get with the Australian public, because we know this is a very popular measure. The beverage industry should be thinking very carefully about where they stand with the Australian public. They do not want to be labelled, like the tobacco industry, as being absolutely recalcitrant, only looking at their bottom line, flying in the face of a public opinion, and using all sorts of lobbying techniques to save their bottom line. It would be a decision for the beverage industry, but they also have to think about their public face. I do not think it will be a good look for them to be challenging this legislation. But, then, who knows?
That is the legal advice. The member went on at quite some length about the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, but I have encapsulated the legal advice we have had access to.
There was one edgy bit in the member for Brennan’s contribution, and that is when he talked about a meeting of the Chief Minister with, I think it was the liquor industry - was it? Between industry and the Chief Minister. I assume it is probably the liquor industry, but it could be the beverage industry. You asserted that you had heard the Chief Minister had made certain statements which he has vehemently denied, and took some offence - a bit the same as you took offence at the inference that the beverage industry may have paid your fares and accommodation to New Zealand. So, we should just leave that there. The Chief Minister has given the assurance that he has not said any such thing. So, just the same as we accept what you say, member for Brennan, we accept what the Chief Minister has said.
You asked some specific questions also about the modelling on the number of collection depots that will be required for its Cash for Containers scheme. Where will these collection depots be located? How far will the average household have to travel to redeem their deposit? It is probably pretty hard to say what an average household is in the Northern Territory. We probably have a few average households depending on where you live. What will it cost to run these collection depots? At what rate will container collection depots be paid in handling fees? There were four issues you raised, member for Brennan.
I am advised many of the issues you have raised will be encapsulated and captured within the regulations under this legislation. It is also fair to say the people who will be running these collection depots - it will be a business. There will be a process by which people tender or put in an expression of interest. I am not going to foreshadow or say any more on that because that will be a competitive process, and so it should be, subject to commercial-in-confidence.
Another issue you raised was about the good old days, the nostalgic days - and so did the member for Blain - about getting your bottles and going to the shop and getting a refund. In my case, it was threepence. I do not know what it was when you were young. That is probably going a fair way back. Threepence could buy a hell of a lot of lollies. I had my favourites, but I will not bore the parliament. They were usually the ones that lasted a long time. I liked the jujubes, the hot ones, as well. The dentist probably loved it for all sorts of reasons.
You talked about that being an arrangement where industry was keen to get their bottles back so they could sterilise them and reuse them. Of course, the economics of that industry, to some degree, has changed. It is important to place on the record, member for Brennan, that, at the end of the day, it will be industry that will be front and centre in our container deposit scheme, as it is in South Australia. Industry will be front and centre in this, and I hope industry will change their stance and be cooperative, to a large degree.
I just had a memory of my past, member for Brennan. When I was a university student, I actually worked in a glass factory making beer bottles. That is just a little aside. There you go. I have done my bit for Australia in bottles.
You have asked many questions about super collectors. I might leave those answers to the minister. Basically, there are many questions you have asked. I have tried to cover the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, which is an interesting group. As a government, we decided, to some degree, things were not progressing very well at a national level, and we were just going to push through on container deposit legislation. I believe the public is demanding of us that we do it. We have made a commitment.
I do not have much more to say. The Chief Minister certainly made quite a number of political points, and I am not going to repeat them, except to say that it is disappointing the opposition is not wholeheartedly supporting this legislation. The opposition has made commitments in the past and said they supported container deposit legislation. However, when push has come to shove, I do not see wholesome support. I do not see them standing up and saying: ‘This is great; let us do it’. I see reluctance in this, and a political position they are taking in relation to this so they are not getting offside with the 80% of people who want it. By the same token, they have obviously been visited and leaned on by the beverage industry and others, and are trying to have two bob each way to some extent. That is disappointing.
We have seen, as the Chief Minister said, your changing position over the Angela Pamela uranium mine out of Alice Springs. It is going to be interesting to see how the Leader of the Opposition is going to traverse the two positions the party now has. He has come out and said during the by-election campaign: ‘We oppose it’, even though, weeks before, I understand he was trying to organise industry meetings and telling the industry how much support he was going to give them. Suddenly, the political reality – a by-election – and he came out and said: ‘We do not support the mine’, supporting the member for Greatorex who, I understand, is quite nervous about the green vote in his electorate. Then, at the Central Council meeting, he was rolled where the party is talking about supporting the mine. It is going to be interesting to see how the member for Blain straddles these two contradictory positions. I am never amazed too much at this sort of thing. It is going to be interesting; it is going to be a political highwire act for the member for Blain. It is going to test him out a bit. We are going to watch that very carefully.
The public has a reason to be sceptical about the opposition. They promise one thing one day and then flip over on the next. They need to be careful about their record. Trying to be a low target in the last 12 to 18 months before an election maybe is not going to get them there.
I really hope the debate from here on is constructive; that we are not going to have a silly time in committee as we had with the pool legislation, where the whole world was going to fall over because we were having pool fences. But, it saved lives. It has saved lives; it was positive. So, let us have a sensible committee stage debate.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is great to hear the member for Johnston having a bit of a rant, mulling over a few things that may or may not be. He says we are not offering this wholesome support; he senses some sort of reluctance. I have to say it is probably a correct assessment by the member for Johnston - certainly on my part anyhow.
I put on the record right now that I support this bill, because this bill is a concept. I have been on the record in the past saying I support the concept. In this regard, I am happy to support this bill because I am supporting the concept - and that is all it is at this stage, simply a concept. We are buying a pig in a poke. For my part, my wholesome support for container deposit legislation in years gone by leads me to want to support this bill and to put some faith in the government that this concept will develop into a reality and a workable policy. That is the hope of everyone in this Chamber.
A couple of people in this place have talked about my support for CDL in the past. As I said, it is true: I have supported CDL in the past. In fact, when I was the federal member, I went to the 2004 election using CDL as one of the platforms for my re-election. At the time, we had the support of the federal minister, Ian Campbell. I took the minister to talk to people all over Darwin and, most importantly, Lorna Woods. After several discussions with Lorna and the KAB mob, we managed to convince the minister it was a worthwhile thing to do; put in place a pilot program in the Northern Territory to see whether we could get it to work. It is one of the great embarrassments of my political career that, upon being re-elected, the then Environment minister, Ian Campbell, reneged on that commitment. I am highly embarrassed about that. I am highly supportive of the concept of CDL, have been for a very long time and I felt very much betrayed and let down by the minister. So much so, it became very difficult to look Lorna Woods in the eye after that because I felt such a great deal of guilt about the way that minister treated us during the campaign.
Having said that, I have reservations about the competence of this government to handle this legislation. They have shown in the past, as you would be well aware, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that they are an incompetent mob. These people are flat out running a Sunday school picnic, let alone a full-scale, full-blown container deposit legislation scheme.
I cannot help but believe this is the Labor way: you create a big, flash headline, populist, something that gets the support of the public behind them, something that gathers a groundswell of support and then, over time, it peters out and all they actually ever deliver is a disaster. So it was federally, most famously, with Peter Garrett and his pink batts scheme. We were going to save the environment with the $2bn pink batts scheme. Every house was going to be better insulated. We would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and there would be work for people, and that sort of stuff. It sounded absolutely brilliant. They did a wonderful job of selling that concept. Look at the result: more than 400 homes burnt to the ground, people dead, contractors out of work all over the country, a glut of pink batts lying around in warehouses unused which, ultimately, cost the taxpayers more than twice what it was to said to have cost - and we are still paying for that typical Labor Party disaster.
We are now in this place being expected to support a concept which Labor says they are going to deliver. With their track record for delivering, I believe, member for Johnston, it is not surprising the wholesome support you expect is not there. There is a certain level of reluctance on our part to support this pig-in-a-poke you are trying to sell us. We have no meat on the bones whatsoever. There have been no costings of this program done, there has been no business case run, and we do not even have a glimpse of what the regulations might look like. It is clearly a concept we are debating today – nothing more, nothing less. So, in that regard, it is very difficult to stand up and sing the praises of government, not knowing what is in store for us down the track.
The other thing which is so typical of the Labor way is, whenever they have one of these sensational, big headline items, ultimately it costs us money. They have their hand in our pocket while they are telling us how wonderful everything is going to be. In this case, they are putting a tax on industry. They cannot tell us how much it is going to cost industry, whether it is going save the community money or cost the community money - all we know is they are going to be putting their grubby, dirty hand into the pockets of industry. We all know what happens when industry is forced to pay more: those costs are simply passed onto the consumer; in this case, all the residents of the Northern Territory who drink anything out of a container purchased at some shop. So, in that regard, we will all be paying more one way or the other.
I do not believe this is a point the government will deny. That is far from something they would deny. Everyone in this Chamber knows this is going to cost us money. The only question we have is if there is going to be a benefit or not for the cost we will be forking out in extra prices for drinks and so on.
I also find it interesting that they bundle into this bill their decision to get rid of single-use plastic bags, as if it is somehow related to this. I cannot understand why you would not take that out and debate that as a separate item. I find the concept, even the term ‘single-use plastic bag’, a bit deceptive. I know in my household none of those bags have a single use. They are used to bring your shopping home and, more often than not, they are used to put rubbish you collect around the house into, or used for other purposes such as to pack clothes in for kids to take to sports days or whatever.
There are a million and one uses that people have for those plastic bags. Those uses, those requirements people have, are not going to go away simply because you get rid of the plastic bags. What people will now do is, instead of going to the shopping centre and coming home with a heap of plastic bags, they will come home with plastic bags they purchased. You are still going to require the same amount of storage space for your rubbish and the like; the only difference is now you will be purchasing them from the shop. Is it any wonder that the large retail chains, Coles and Woolies, would be behind such a concept? They lose a cost – that is, the plastic bags which they have to hand out - and pick up a profit from the plastic bags people now buy. There is a big win in all of this for those major retailers that currently use plastic bags, because they will, ultimately, be selling them at the checkouts for much more than it costs them to buy. It is something, again, that the public, the taxpayer, will be paying more for.
I would have loved to have had separate debates on these two issues because, as I said, whilst I support the concept of CDL, I am not certain I support the concept of taxing everyone for the bags they receive as they are leaving the shopping centres. In my view, those bags are not single-use plastic bags. Very few of them, if any, are disposed of immediately once getting home. Some people do, I suppose - the rich and stupid, the people with more money than sense - but most people I know use those plastic bags for a variety of uses, most obviously for rubbish before they take it outside.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I did not want to speak for long on this bill, but I thought it was important to clarify my position on this. I support this bill because I support the concept, and that is all this bill is; it is a concept. I am very reluctant to leave all of the management in the hands of government because they have proven time and time again they are an incompetent, useless mob more often completely driven by the idea of raising revenue and putting their grubby, dirty hands into people’s pockets. For that reason, I have some reluctance and - as the member for Johnston quite rightly pointed out - that wholesome support for this bill is just not there. However, in the interests of supporting the concept, I am more than happy to do that.
Time will be the great judge on whether this works. I can tell you, in a couple of years time, if this thing is working a treat, I will be the first person out there congratulating the government and saying, well done. My goodness me, I hope it does.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. It is a large piece of legislation, the Environmental Protection Bill 2010, and a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes, putting the nuts and bolts together. There are many people to thank along the way. Members have mentioned some of those people who deserve to have their names on the public record for the work they have done, not only in pushing for this type of legislation to be brought to the House and into the Northern Territory - people such as Loraine Braham, the former member for Braitling, who has certainly been a champion, and the member for Nelson, who has also been a great supporter and has advocated very strongly for many years for container deposit legislation. Lorna Woods from Keep Australia Beautiful is another person people have talked about very highly. They are some of the people who deserve a mention at the beginning of my contribution, with the others I will mention in the conclusion.
I have been very privileged to be the minister who has brought this legislation before the House. Previous ministers and this government have, for a long time, talked about container deposit legislation. We know how hugely popular it is for Territorians. Previous ministers, along the way, have championed this, not only within their own government with Cabinet colleagues and Caucus members, but in the broader community and their department. I feel privileged today to be the minister who brings this bill before the House.
The member for Macdonnell, during her time as the minister for Environment, was a very active supporter of container deposit legislation. She has reiterated her support for the bill in her debate.
During his time as the former minister for the Environment, the member for Johnston attended those Environment Protection and Heritage Council meetings. There are agenda items on those council meetings. As the member for Johnston said, national legislation for container deposit legislation has been there for years, and it is something that is still there today. At the last meeting I attended, federal and state ministers for Environment congratulated me and the rest of the Territory for having the courage to work on our legislation and for listening to the community. There is support amongst other states and jurisdictions.
As members have quite rightly pointed out, South Australia has had this running for 30-odd years. We are the first jurisdiction to follow in the footsteps of South Australia. That is something we can all be proud of, as Territorians. Others will follow - Western Australia and Tasmania. I was talking to the Environment minister from Tasmania, and they are well on their way to putting together their own container deposit scheme.
There have been many questions raised, and quite rightly so; this is important legislation. I will attempt to go through many of those questions. The member for Johnston was able to answer some of the questions the member for Brennan asked during his contribution, and the member for Port Darwin from a legal perspective. Some very important questions were asked.
I thought the member for Brennan’s contribution was very good. He has, obviously, put a lot of work into it ...
Mr Elferink: Did you tell the Chief Minister that? He missed the point.
Mr HAMPTON: I am talking to the member for Brennan as the shadow spokesman. I thank you for the work you have done. It does make it hard when you go to a briefing - the first one you have had in two years - without the bill, pen or paper, or questions. It raises questions in that there was some stuff we could have worked on during that briefing to answer your questions. That is the way it is. I will attempt to do that during my contribution in wrapping things up here.
I will go to the member for Fong Lim’s contribution, and his time in federal politics. We are, in many regards, lucky in this House to have people who have had time in the federal parliament. He was disappointed in his own government - when they were in government at the federal level - not going ahead and delivering a national container deposit scheme. Talking around the table to other ministers from other states at MINCO and listening to the member for Fong Lim, this has been kicked around like a football for many years and it has not been delivered at the national level.
That is one thing that has driven me and we are not going to wait any longer. When I picked up the ball from other ministers in this government, it was a goal I wanted to kick with Territorians. We need to have this container deposit scheme up and running as soon as we can because we cannot afford to wait for the rest of Australia to lead. We can be leaders in our own right.
We know what the statistics are in our landfill waste. People have mentioned the Mayor of Alice Springs who has also been a champion: ‘There are 10 million good reasons why we should do it’. In such a short space of time 10 million containers have been picked up off the streets and out of the creeks in Alice Springs alone. It is 10 million good reasons why we need to do it. I have seen the waste facility in Alice Springs with the mayor, looking at the glass crusher this government contributed to the Alice Springs Town Council. We had a look at some of the concrete that has been laid with crushed glass and how we can recycle things such as bottles that end up in our creeks or in our tip. There are many benefits to this, and that is just one example.
The member for Macdonnell, being a bush member as I am - we see the litter in those remote communities, and the attempts by the people at Lajamanu to get something going. There have been attempts at Santa Teresa and many other remote communities but, because there is no Territory-wide scheme, these are small voluntary schemes that, without the economies of scale, without the backing of a Territory scheme, are struggling. With people such as the Boomerang Alliance, we know there are job opportunities out there. That is one of the strengths of the scheme that this government has put forward today before the House through this legislation.
In how it will work there are many details to be worked through. What we are doing today is presenting the legislative framework of the container deposit legislation, but there is much work to be done. There is considerable work to be done on the service level charter. That is something we have that the South Australian model does not have. While we are following the South Australian model, in things such as a service level charter and the flexibility to add other containers along the way, our model is much more flexible and stronger than the South Australian model in that regard.
The service level charter will map out expectations, roles, and responsibilities amongst the major participants. A considerable amount of work has already been undertaken on what a viable collection network might look like. This scheme puts the beverage industry in a central position on implementation. They have not yet engaged on that detail because they prefer to fight CDL. We need to move past that point, as the member for Nelson has said; we need the beverage industry to be at the table engaging in this process because they are the ones that are going to be running it. We have been quite open with them on that.
Pricing was an issue raised by members. The price of beverages in South Australia is not significantly different to the rest of Australia. If you go there now, you can buy a can of coke for the same price as you would pay here. So, there is no reason why these prices should increase once we have a container deposit scheme up and running by the end of 2011.
It is a competitive market and I do not expect the beverage industry to price gorge Territory consumers. If they do, we will certainly be bringing that to the attention of the ACCC. Our analysis suggests a maximum cost of 6 per container for the handling fee. This is gross, before unredeemed deposits are taken into account, which will reduce the handling fee to the operator. Again, I call on the beverage industry to absorb this cost, as they do in South Australia. Even if this cost was passed through to the consumers, it would amount to about $1.44 for a carton of beer after redeeming the deposit.
The beverage industry is selectively quoting from this report from the Centre for Appropriate Technologies. The member for Brennan, the shadow spokesman on the Environment, used this particular report from the Centre for Appropriate Technologies in his contribution. However, the member for Johnston put it into context.
I will also mention the scheme at Lajamanu. The report by the Centre for Appropriate Technologies was about a stand-alone, voluntary scheme in remote communities. That is a big difference to remote communities participating in a whole-of-Territory scheme. Because of this, the handling fee ignores one of the key aspects that helps reduce handling fees to the operator of the scheme; that is, unredeemed deposits as I have just mentioned. It is not the gross handling fee that counts, it is the nett handling fee, once unredeemed deposits and resale of recyclable material is taken out. It is simply not right for the beverage industry to use the Centre for Appropriate Technologies’ analysis as a valid figure for remote communities in the Territory-wide scheme.
The study also noted some limitations to its own analysis. For example, the report states:
- This study has also costed out all community travel as additional travel, but many communities may have opportunities to incorporate travel in routine runs to landfill or service centres ...
The Chief Minister and I were at NT Recycling Solutions today. Leon Schulz, the guy who owns the company, employs around 20 Territorians. It might have been the member for Nelson who mentioned the way around some of these costs, particularly in freight and transport. I know the member for Nhulunbuy is also concerned about this. As Mr Schulz pointed out, he had containers from McArthur River Mine there, which, as part of Xstrata’s environmental policy, they are sending back to Darwin. They are filling up trucks that go there, dropping off material or whatever - it might be to the mine site from Darwin - but they are coming back empty. So, there is a great opportunity to avoid freight costs being passed onto consumers by refilling - whether they are barges going to some of the coastal communities, the store trucks to some communities, or other vehicles going to communities. They go there with their load of goods and are coming back empty, so there are opportunities there, something which Leon Schulz raised today with what is happening with the McArthur River Mine and their containers coming back in those trucks.
Another question members raised was about the legal issues, which I will touch on now. The member for Port Darwin had some questions about CDL contravening the mutual recognition legislation, and the government needing the approval of COAG in other states. The advice is that these types of bills go through a fairly rigorous process, not only through Parliamentary Counsel but through Cabinet submissions, the Department of Justice, and NRETAS’s own legal advice. This is the advice I am referring to:
- The bill has been designed to conform to the statutory exemptions available under the mutual recognition legislation. To put it beyond doubt, government will be seeking a specific exemption through COAG, as has been secured for the South Australian CDL scheme. It is not clear that sections 9 and 10 of the Mutual Recognition Act would apply to CDL. That is not a given. The South Australia legislation did predate the Mutual Recognition Act. One consequence is that the question of whether the South Australian legislation complies with the Mutual Recognition Act has never had to be determined.
- One consequence is that the question of whether the South Australian legislation complies with the Mutual Recognition Act has never had to be determined.
Also regarding this question:
- If by chance that specific exemption is not approved, the view of government is that this bill is safe anyway through the general statutory exemptions in the mutual recognition legislation itself.
In the design of the scheme, from the outset, the government has indicated any CDL scheme has to be legally, regionally, and financially viable. There are three types of CDL models around the world. There is the one run by the beverage industry, the independently-run CDL schemes, and the government-run scheme. Government has looked at all these types of models, and advice from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia is that neither the independent- nor the government-run models will satisfactorily avoid the issue of taxation. Since the Territory, under our Constitution, cannot make a tax, these two models are not viable. The beverage industry-run model is legally viable and is the most successfully run model in South Australia for 35 years.
The containers to be included in the scheme will be along the same lines as the South Australian model, certainly for containers less than one litre - we are talking about flavoured milks and fruit juices; containers up to and including three litres - we are talking about the vitamin drinks, soft drinks we all know, such as sports drinks, iced teas, beer, stouts and ciders, alcoholic sodas, spirit-based beverages, and some wine-based beverages as well.
There has been some debate regarding consultation. Some people are unclear of what government has done. Government has made every effort to communicate and engage with the beverage industry. Government wrote to the Australian Food and Grocery Council over 18 months ago, clearly flagging government’s intentions and expressing our desire to work on implementation issues. From mid-last year my department and a team of consultants have been making considerable effort to consult with the beverage industry and others such as local government. During this period, five meetings with the beverage companies and three meetings with the beverage industry organisations were held, and a letter was sent to 35 individual companies. Following the introduction, my department also sent copies of the bill to all stakeholders.
In December 2010, the first beverage industry workshop was held in Darwin to commence discussions on the container deposit scheme principles to be established under the scheme, and discuss implementation more generally. Further workshops have been planned for March and May this year. I am happy to table a summary of the consultations.
There was also a question regarding the release of documents. The member for Johnston pointed this out in no uncertain terms. In our legal advice, the core elements of this legislation are no different to South Australia’s. The beverage industry has operated under those laws for 35 years. You would think that, given the hostility to CDL and their deep pockets, if the beverage industry thought they had half a chance to run an argument against these laws - that these laws are unconstitutional - they would have done that over the 35 years the legislation has been operating in South Australia.
With regard to the financial and economic analysis, government has based its analysis on real-world experience, not theoretical reports. We have done the analysis to confirm that the scheme will be financially, legally and regionally viable. This analysis has been used to help design the scheme and the bill.
In relation to the national issues - and I touched on that briefly not long ago; whether a national packaging covenant is better and a cheaper way to go - we do not believe it is. In the larger states such as New South Wales or Victoria, a packaging covenant might be fine where there is more kerbside and bigger population, but it has never been a good fit for the Territory. That is why this government has not signed up, and neither did the CLP when they were in government. After 10 years, the packaging covenant is only now starting to look at litter issues, but it still cannot demonstrate how a single can or bottle from places like Yuendumu will get picked up. Our scheme, which is legally, regionally and financially viable, will be able to do that.
In an ideal world, CDL would be implemented nationally, and government has argued for this. As the member for Fong Lim said, during his time as a federal member of parliament, he tried hard and, without the support of his own government, it fell over. This Northern Territory government is not prepared to wait and we are taking a lead.
The new Commonwealth product stewardship legislation is talked about quite often at the ministerial council meetings. This legislation is not yet in place. The Australian government released a discussion paper in November last year. Regardless, the Commonwealth’s discussion paper makes it clear that both extended producer responsibility schemes, of which CDL is one example in mandatory approaches, fit within the scope of their considerations for this legislation. I also note the Environment ministers across Australia decided, on 5 November 2009, that computers and televisions would be the first products to be considered under such legislation.
As I pointed out today in Question Time, there are many small businesses, but larger retailers such as Coles and Woolies are supporting the banning of the single-use plastic bag because they know it is a significant litter problem, particularly in the Northern Territory. It is also not just a litter problem in our streets and creeks, but it is also an issue of killing wildlife throughout the Northern Territory. The member for Macdonnell alluded to driving around the town camps in Alice Springs and, in many of our remote communities, seeing the plastic bags which are just a blight on the environment. Particularly during sports times, people gather and leave their litter. One item of that litter is plastic bags, and they hang around for a long time. In waste in landfills, it is estimated that 47% are plastic shopping bags.
The member for Fong Lim raised the economics of banning plastic bags and the costs to families and poorer people. The lightweight plastic bags we are going to ban after we introduce this legislation are not free and costs are imbedded in our groceries. So, in banning plastic bags, some of those costs are there already; we already pay for them by it being incorporated into our groceries.
The important thing is the support of the small business community, and the support of the broader retail outlets such as Coles and Woolies. It is fantastic. Through my own shopping habits, I have had green bags for some time and they last a lot longer. There are non-biodegradable bags being sold and there is no reason why they cannot be used for bin liners and those issues people have talked about.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, being aware of the time, I hope through my wrapping up of this debate I have covered some of those issues members have raised regarding the legal, financial, and regional viability of our container deposit scheme, and also the legislation banning plastic bags.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr Elferink: We are not going into committee?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realise that. I am going to read that and, then, I will put the committee on the Notice Paper and we will go into General Business. That is what I was doing.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm. The remaining stages of the bill will be placed on the Notice Paper.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Changing of Building Code – Rural Living
Changing of Building Code – Rural Living
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that - The Northern Territory government considers changes to the Building Code which would allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed under certain conditions.
This is a very important debate that has been needed for a long time. For me, one of the main reasons is the lack of affordability of accommodation in the Northern Territory. I will put today some arguments I hope will convince the government to support this motion, which does not force the government to necessarily agree, but asks the government to consider this as an option to allow people to have a start in life which, under the present system, is very hard for many people.
If you have tried to buy land in the rural area of Darwin - and when I say Darwin, other people can fill in the gaps for other parts of the Territory - then you will know how expensive it is. A 2 ha block of land in the rural area around Howard Springs and Humpty Doo sells for $300 000 to $350 000 to $400 000. In fact, a 2 ha block of land just down the road from me with no bore, but has electricity, sold for $400 000 last year. For someone to build a house, at say, $250 000 to $300 000 – which would probably be an average price for a two-bedroom home - then the cost starts to become prohibitive, especially if you are a young family starting out.
Rents are also very high as well. This makes it very difficult for people to live reasonably after they have paid rent. We know that many people are leaving Darwin, and probably other parts of the Territory, because of high rents. The government needs to look at other options to make living in the Northern Territory more affordable. Affordability, or lack of it, is a common complaint these days.
If you can buy a shed for about $40 000 to $80 000 and put it on your block to live in, why should this government stop you doing it? After all, if the shed had an office in it, you could legally have a toilet and shower in it. So why could you not add a sink and a laundry - even locate them outside of the shed - and just move in? You can park a caravan next to a shed and use the shower and toilet in your office and that is legal. You can even pitch a tent, and live in that tent and be legal, and use the shower and toilet in the shed. But if you installed a bed and a sink in the shed, and used the toilet and shower, you are illegal.
Many people in the rural area and out bush have, for years, lived in sheds. I lived in a Sidney Williams hut at Daly River for three years, and it does not seem to have affected me, although others may have another point of view. It was in a floodplain, although I noticed on the aerial photograph of Daly River yesterday, it was still high and dry. It had a concrete floor, push out windows, no insulation, no flywire, no fans, the lights came on at 8 pm and went off at 10 pm. It was hot, but it was all I had. What is wrong with that? Why can’t you live in a shed? Is it immoral? I do not think so.
According to the wise men who believe in the Australian Standards - a standard that I always find very strange, because you have to buy it if you want to know what is in it, and it seems to be developed by people who, somewhere down in Canberra, develop new changes to everything every year. It is a little like having to have tags on every electrical cord in existence in your office, one of those areas I would love to debate one day, the cost of those …
Ms Purick: Do not put your hairdryer in the bathtub.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is another issue. They are regulations designed by those people who are supposed to know what they are doing. In the Northern Territory, we support those with our own regulations. They have all come up with the idea that we are not allowed to live in a shed. The closest thing I can come to finding out why a person cannot live in a shed is that a shed is a Class 10A building, a non-habitable building which, according to someone, does not meet the standards of the Building Code of Australia. You must live in a house or, in technical terms, a single detached dwelling, a Class 1A building. This, so they say, provides for a higher requirement in structure, health, safety, and amenity standards.
What is the difference between the shed and the house, or the single detached dwelling? According to the Department of Lands and Planning guidelines you can get off the web, the standards differ in regard to the following: weather proofing; natural light; fire protection; structural wind design - that is, the cyclone coding; ceiling heights; moisture barrier; energy efficiency; sanitary facilities such as kitchen, laundry, and bathroom; slab height; ventilation; smoke alarms; and requirements in flood-prone areas.
Let us look at these matters separately. Water proofing: you can buy a shed today and it will be waterproof; they make them waterproof. They have a roof, they have walls, and they are waterproof. I have one at home. It is waterproof unless I leave the door up and the windows open. So, I am not sure what they mean by that. You can design a shed that is waterproof. Of course, what is wrong with living with the elements on a verandah? At my house, we have our meals on the verandah ...
A member: Oh! Shame!
Mr WOOD: I know. I suppose there is some regulation that says that it is not allowed, but we have our dinner on the verandah. The rain does come in there occasionally. There is a washing machine, the dishwasher, and the fridge on the verandah. The dogs are on the verandah. There is probably a health reason - I am probably in trouble now. Where else are you going to feed the chicken bones from? Oh, I am not supposed to feed the chicken bones to dogs, I know. We live for much of our time on the verandah. Occasionally, it is subject to wind – terrible. When there is no wind we turn on the fan. There are occasions when it rains …
Ms Purick: Natural air-conditioning.
Mr WOOD: No air-conditioning; natural air-conditioning. We have light and, if we do not have light, we turn on the light. We have an area on which we basically live - the verandah - not much different than living in a shed.
Natural light is the next one. I wondered what natural light means. If I live in a house, unless I have – what do you call them; they come down through the roof?
Mr Vatskalis: Skylights.
Mr WOOD: Skylights. Unless you have skylights, the only natural light you get in a house is through your windows and doors. That is all you have in a shed too, so I am not sure what the big problem is with a shed.
Fire protection: my shed is made out of metal. Good old metal, it will not burn. Things in it might burn but not the walls - no different than my house. The argument may be that you might be storing flammable materials because, at times, that is what people have in their sheds. They might have a vehicle, tractor, or lawn mower. So they might say you have flammable materials. What is to stop me keeping two drums of petrol on the back verandah of my house? I stick the lawn mower on the back verandah when it is raining. There is nothing to distinguish why one should be more dangerous than the other. The danger is if you are silly enough to put fuel next to where you live - that should not happen, whether it is in a house or a shed. You should ensure it is safely put away.
Then it says: ‘structural wind design cyclone coding’. This is one issue where there may be a difference between a house and a shed. I am not sure, because of the Australian Standards, but there seems to be a difference. That is not to say a shed is not built to a cyclone standard; you must build your shed to a cyclone standard. However, it might be a slightly lower standard than for a house.
You have to put this into reality. If you live in the Territory - I have lived in the Territory for 40-something years. Cyclone Max was probably the strongest one I have been through. I did not go through Tracy because it missed us at Bathurst Island. I have worked out I have probably lived most of my time without a cyclone. Well, say, 99.8% of the time my house has not gone through a cyclone.
Are we saying, for 0.02% or 0.01%, because the shed is not up to code, you cannot live there? Why could we not, for instance - and I saw this at, I think, Elcho Island - placed on the side of the shed: ‘This shed is not constructed to residential cyclone code requirements. It is suggested you do not stay in this shed during a cyclone. Go to your nearest shelter’, or something similar so, if people buy your property later on, it said the shed is not up to residential cyclone code. The other 99.8% of the time, there is nothing wrong with that shed at all; it is structurally sound. Can’t we find ways around these so-called regulations so people can have a less costly form of accommodation?
Ceiling heights: I have to work hard on this one. I can only think that ceiling heights are either too low for a fan or they are not insulated. You can easily insulate a ceiling in a shed, even if it has a gabled roof. If the ceiling happens to be too low for a fan, you buy a pedestal fan - not too hard, you just cannot have a ceiling fan. I must admit, I am living in one of those houses with lower ceilings where you do not get dressed under the fan, otherwise you tend to come out short at the elbows. You adjust to these things. They are not life-threatening issues.
Moisture barrier: I had to look up what a moisture barrier is. A moisture barrier is where you put down plastic or other materials when you are pouring the floor so the moisture does not come through the floor. You do that for a house. You do it for a shed. You do not want the moisture coming through your shed as it starts to rust out the walls. That does not seem to be a big deal.
Energy efficiency: the minister will like me when I get on to energy efficiency. We are going to look at energy efficiency for other things later on. You are going to review the 5-star efficiency rating. However, this is a shed - big deal. As one shed builder said to me when I told him I was going to bring this before parliament, what many people do is put a small room inside the shed and air-condition it. It will be lined, probably 5-star efficient. But it is just one room so people can sleep at night. The rest of the shed is a shed. If I was to live in a shed, I would ensure it had a verandah, because I would live on the verandah - perfectly okay for most of the time in the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End. I do not think that is a big deal. It might be a big deal for those energy-efficient fundamentalists - and I know there are a few of them around …
Ms Purick: Zealots!
Mr WOOD: Zealots, yes, same thing. There is no reason for not being able to live in a shed.
Sanitary facilities: I like this one. A toilet and a shower can already be built into a shed. Why not a kitchen and a laundry? If you do not want them built inside, you can build them outside, because you can buy outside things today. I have seen them. They are moulded plastic. You can also, as we do, put the washing machine outside. Heaven help me if the department of environmental health is looking. Ah, there is the minister. We water the palm trees, I am afraid to tell you. We do not put that water into our septic tanks. One reason is it would probably kill the septics, because you know what goes into your washing machine. We try to save that water and it keeps some of the garden green. I do not think that is a big deal either. I reckon most people in the rural area do not put their grey water into the septics; they run it out onto the lawn or somewhere. That is the way it is.
Slab height: I have a shed and it is built this high at the back and this high at the front, and it has been through all that rain and did not get wet. I do not know what is hard about this. Why would you build a shed flat on the ground? I have seen houses flat on the ground. I was on Pioneer Drive the other day and there was block of land as flat as a tack. It is not a wet block in the sense it is in a flood-prone area; it is just flat, so when the rain comes it takes a while to get away and the house is dead level with the ground. Slab height is a matter of common sense. Build your shed up; build your house up. Why would that be a problem, whether you live in a shed or not?
Ventilation: I say: ‘Open the windows; turn on the fan’. With a shed, you could put a vent in the roof where the air can go out if you want. The building they call the Old Timers at Bees Creek - classic building, one of the best tropical designs. It is just a long hallway; you can call it a shed. It has a long vent right along the top of the roof. It does not have any louvres now because the Vietnam Vets took it over and put mesh on the windows with security screens instead. Beautiful! With the long verandahs, you hardly ever get any rain in there. You actually get a beautiful breeze from under the verandah and out through the roof. Easy! So, I cannot see ventilation is a problem. If you are hot, go out on to the verandah or sit outside. That is what most people do. I am talking about rural areas here for the last two minutes or so; I understand there can be certain issues trying to do this in Fannie Bay.
Smoke alarms: when the electrician comes along to put in your lights and your switches that you have in your shed, because you still want to be able do something in the shed at night, just get him to put in some smoke alarms. You would want a trip switch in a shed anyway if you are using a bit of equipment. Again, I do not see these as unsurmountable issues that would be the cause of anyone saying it is immoral or unsafe to live in a shed.
Requirements in flood-prone areas: I had friends from Katherine come to see me. He was one of the reasons this has been brought forward today. It is not the only reason; I have had concerns about this for a long time. Unfortunately, he has built his house in a flood-prone area. You probably know about him, minister. However, I cannot argue the case for him; he should have known he was in a flood-prone area and he should have got permission. He might be able to find ways around that. This issue is a secondary issue: can you live in a shed? There are rules about living in flood-prone areas, and there are rules for a house. It should be the same for the shed. Again, I do not see that as an insurmountable problem.
They also mentioned health, safety and amenity. Health: I am not sure what the problem is. I have a concrete floor on my back verandah. It is not bad; sometimes it is not as good as it should be, but you can hose it down; you can sweep it. It is okay and it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure what the health aspect is.
Safety: I am not sure what the safety issue is, unless it falls down on me, or it could be an issue as in cyclones. I agree on the cyclones. A thin-walled shed could be hit by a structure which goes through that wall. I have said that is why you should have a sign on the side of the shed saying: ‘If this shed is to be used as a residence, then we advise you to go to the nearest shelter or a place where it is guaranteed to be safe’. So, I do not think it is a problem.
Amenity could be a problem for some people. One of the joys of living in the rural area used to always be if the neighbour wants to build a pink house, let him build a pink house. It would upset the covenants in Farrar like you would not believe. However, if someone wanted to build a pink house, as long as it is off the fenceline with a few trees, I could not care. It is not interfering with me. Maybe if it was five storeys high I might have a different opinion, but not with a single dwelling. One of the nice things about living in the rural area is you tend to be able to do your own thing to some extent. Living in a shed is one of those things you should be allowed to do. You may have to have it a certain distance from your fence. That could possibly be looked at if you knew that shed was going to be used as a residence.
Many people cannot afford to build but, by allowing them to build and live in a shed, they will have a period of less mortgage stress and more time to save for a house. Many people in the rural area - and I am talking again about the Darwin rural area - have come out there since the early 1960s and lived in sheds until they got enough money to build a house. There are many - I would not say the majority. That was a common practice, and a very good practice. People had a roof over their heads and had time to save to buy a house.
That mortgage stress is not taken into account enough. We see these figures for affordable housing and I know they might be affordable for two people or one-and-a-half, but I can tell you from my daughter’s point of view, she has no hope of buying a house. She is a single mum with three kids. We used to look after them as well. She would not have the money and, if she did have the money, she would be flat out paying for it, and would have no money to live on. The problem with mortgage stress is it is one of those social issues that you might say leads to some of the problems we have today, with kids not being cared for, being able to run amok as mum and dad are working flat out. They come home and are so tired they just sit down; they are not really interested in kids that much and, then, they are back to work again trying to make up the money to pay for the mortgage. This, in some little way, would try to help reduce that.
Certain costs would apply, regardless whether you build a shed or a house. For instance, you have to have a septic tank, and water and power have to be connected. If the power and septic are planned to be used for the shed and designed to be used for the house at a later time, there will be no doubling up on the cost. It may be that when you show your plans for the shed, you must show where the future house will be built so you can ensure the design means you can still use the septic, and the connection of the power and water from the road is the same connection. Another condition, as I said before, may be the distance from the boundary so you are not intruding on the neighbours. Perhaps there could be a limit to the size of the living section of the shed, depending on the number in the family. A granny flat is generally for two people and is 50 m2. Maybe if you have three or four kids it might be 100 m2.
I am only throwing those ideas around because what I am looking for is for the government to say: ‘All right, we might agree to this but there might be certain conditions’. I believe there is an opportunity for the government to show some positive initiative and give people a more affordable way to live.
I have also said - and other people may have a different opinion - a shed for living may only be built on a block 1 ha or larger. In Litchfield - not in other places - we regard 1 ha and above as rural and believe below that is not rural. Other people might have an opinion, but the idea was I could not see people living in sheds in Farrar or Johnston, or maybe even Parap; the neighbours might get a bit upset. It is horses for courses, and sheds are not uncommon in the rural area. There is enough space for you not to be intruding on your neighbour.
The question I ask is: is it immoral for someone to live in a shed? When the Building Board speaks and acts, one feels to live in a shed is a sinful occupation - maybe what you do in there might be sinful, but just living in it is not - and those partaking in such evil action should be thrown out and made to live in a tent or a caravan right next to the shed which is, obviously, a moral lifestyle. No matter about the cyclone proofing of the caravan or tent, or any other of the limiting determinants stated before. This is where it is very hard for me to understand where these rules and regulations fit.
I can put in a caravan and I do not have to tie it down. It could be a second-hand caravan from Buds – it might be about 20 years old and looking a bit worse for wear. It is not the greatest place and could even be a fire hazard; probably does not even have a fire alarm in it. But, I can live in that legally, use the toilet and the shower in the office, and everyone is happy. If they do the right thing, you might say, by building a room with the fire alarms and making sure it is above the flood area and all that sort of stuff, then I am told they cannot do it. And the same with a tent. A tent is definitely not going to be cyclone proof, but that is legal.
I cannot see one good reason why one cannot live in a shed. If there is a reason why not, it can be overcome. I should remind people there was a company called Northstar. Around the rural area, about 15 years ago, it was a little controversial, because the old Building Board was not too happy with the idea. He built sheds and they were homes, and they are still. A friend of mine, Caroline, has one. My friend down the road on Barker Road has one and he rents it out. It is, basically, a shed. If you walk in, the walls are metal. You see the outside of the shed and it is the inside; they are not lined. You can line them. He built quite a number of those sheds in the rural area at that stage. As far as I know, they have lasted and they have not blown over. They are not the classiest place. It is like a shed with a verandah. That is, basically, what he has done and they are around the rural area now.
The rural area was settled by people living in sheds and, when they made enough money, they began to build their house. We are not giving young people an opportunity to live in the rural area because land has become so expensive. Where their parents live, they cannot afford to live there. Rural living is a good life, with a few chooks, a horse and a dog, and a few mangoes or maybe just the bush. There will be a house and there will be a shed, so why should it matter if the shed comes first and is lived in first, and then the house later on? Affordable housing for some in the suburbs may be someone’s cup of tea, but it will not suit those who want to live rural.
So, government, please do not knock this on the head because the bureaucrats have told you to do it. They probably all have well-paid jobs to fund their beautiful Class A1 detached dwellings, but not everyone is so lucky. I am asking the government to give those who are not so well off a chance. Give those families a chance not to be tied to high debt where both parents have to work long hours and then have little time for their children. Call this early intervention.
Show us that you believe in the Labor principles you always espouse: a fair go for the less well off and a hand up for families. This is a matter of principle. Not the principle of the Building Code of Australia or the NT Planning Scheme; it is the principle of people having a right to shelter at an affordable price. Be brave, support this motion, and allow people to live in a shed. It will not be for everyone, but it will give people an option - a cheaper option, a sensible option and a chance to get ahead.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing on this debate tonight. There have been many interesting elements, and we can see many elements we are going to agree on, and that means agreement with government.
I will start off by talking about affordability. I must acknowledge the Housing the Territory strategy, which is a really good proactive strategy to drive affordability into the market. It is interesting that you talked about your first dwelling at Daly River. I would like to share a story with you, too. It is all around affordability.
I can remember my father taking me out on to Juno Parade, Greenacre and pointing at the neighbour’s house over the road and suggesting I should buy that house. I was in my third year at teacher’s college. I had the whole world as my oyster, and I certainly had a plan, and it did not involve investing in real estate in downtown Greenacre where I was born and bred. From memory, the family who lived in that house lived there their whole lives. The house was in the vicinity of about $45 000, and I turned that offer down and ignored my father’s good advice. To buy that land in downtown Greenacre these days would be about $500 000, and the house that sits on it at the moment would be a couple of million dollars. I let a good opportunity go by the wayside. Yes, that was affordability.
Leading from that, we have a responsibility to talk to young Territorians about affordability, because there is a perception amongst young people I talk to that a $600 000 home is your first home. Well, guess what? It was not for me, and I do not think it is going to be for my children either. It is about how we can have that discussion. Sometimes that means walking through the unpalatable ‘crawling before you can walk’, and looking at renting, saving and hard work, as our parents did and their parents did before them. We need to have this discussion to rationalise it. However, an option which the member for Nelson has put in a rural environment - absolutely and fantastic!
To share another anecdote from the home front, I am just a bit sad my wife will not live in a shed. I have encouraged her on a number of occasions when we have had the opportunity to get a start if we could start in a shed. It goes back to the days where I made her live without a shed, without a tent - we were actually on the riverbank. They were wonderful days. I did upgrade that accommodation not long after the Wet Season kicked in, with a tent. We shared a tent through that Wet Season at Robinson River, which was fantastic. Maybe it was when I took her to Nicholson River to do it all over again that she turned off the shed idea, but she definitely will not live in a shed.
I agree with the member for Nelson. They are fantastic opportunities for getting a start in a rural area by living in a shed. She wants a $600 000 house so, consequently, we do not have our stakehold in the rural area. But we did pick a good one in Tennant Creek in downtown Ambrose Street. That was a great and affordable start for the McCarthy family when we moved back into town.
The government has an important role to play in building regulation. That role is about public safety; that is the bottom line. We have to factor that into the debate. The member for Nelson has outlined the practicalities of it very well. We have to add to that the bottom line of public safety. The member has considered the significance of this role in the wording of the motion, and I commend him for that. It is a good motion; it is a logical motion. Throughout Australia, the community has, for decades, expected government to maintain and ensure minimum health, safety, and amenity standards for habitable dwellings. The Building Code of Australia sets these minimum standards and they are applied in all states and territories.
I do not have any problem with pink houses either. Maybe it is our generation, we go with the flow. Having moved into Ambrose Street, Tennant Creek, I do take an interest in my neighbours and what they are doing regarding any risk to public safety. In this portfolio, I have come to understand how that regulation, on a macro scale, is very necessary to deliver public safety, which the public demands from any government.
The Building Code of Australia is based on best evidence. It is the best evidence available from building and engineering professionals and exists to ensure dwellings are built to withstand the elements; that there is sound plumbing - particularly that waste water is removed; fire safety protection for occupants, and adequate levels of ventilation for those residing in the building, amongst other things. These minimum standards apply to residential areas across Australia, including the building control areas across the Northern Territory. We are talking about the building control areas across the Northern Territory, not my tent structures in the Nicholson or the South Nicholson.
In the Northern Territory, we have a system of private certification. Building certifiers ensure that buildings meet the minimum standards by issuing Building and Occupancy Permits. As the member for Nelson outlined to the House, the Building Code refers to sheds as Class 10A, non-habitable buildings. Examples of Class 10A buildings are garages, carports, garden sheds, and farm sheds. As these buildings are mainly for storage purposes, the Building Code sets minimal requirements of structural, health, safety and amenity standards. These requirements are quite different to what you would expect of a normal home.
Under the Building Code, houses are referred to as Class 1A, single detached dwellings. These dwellings are for people to live in and, as such, the Building Code sets higher structural, health, safety and amenity requirements than required for Class 10A buildings. Class 1A standards specify requirements for such things as energy efficiency - and the member for Nelson has talked about that - fire protection and smoke alarms, weather proofing, natural light, structural wind design, cyclone coding, sanitary facilities - kitchen, laundry, bathrooms - ventilation and requirements in flood-prone areas. They are all important parts of the specifications the member for Nelson adequately described.
It is important to understand the Building Code of Australia does not prohibit people living in a building that is marketed as a shed, provided it is fitted out to the requirements of a Class 1A or a house building. That is the principle issue here tonight. Some manufacturers are building dwellings which, from the casual look, appear to be a shed or resemble a barn, but they can be built in and lived in.
Whilst I appreciate the member for Nelson’s desire to support habitation of sheds, government must ensure standards are in place for health and the wellbeing of the whole community. Living in sheds, particularly in the Darwin rural area, is often seen as a cost-effective option while people save to build their house. That has been outlined very clearly in this motion and, as the member for Nelson has said, is very much a practice of the Darwin rural area, and has been over many years. However, people need to be aware of the minimum standards that need to be complied with to allow it to be certified as a Class 1A dwelling, a residential dwelling. Building certifiers can provide advice on what needs to be done to have a shed certified as a Class 1A dwelling.
Government supports the motion to consider changes to the Building Code which would allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed, provided there is no relaxation of the standards that would impact on health and safety provisions. We will also need to consider any impacts on planning and development control in the rural area.
I want to be clear. Current planning controls mandate a ‘one house per one block’ arrangement, and many rural dwellers will want to be assured this approach is unchanged. Where the issue of people living in sheds or small dwellings has been controversial in the past is where neighbours have believed a second dwelling was being lived in. This has happened, and happens for a variety of reasons. For government, though, the issue is regulating development to ensure the planning requirements around densification are upheld to ensure the amenity of the rural area is not impacted by uncontrolled development.
I have listened with interest tonight to the member for Nelson’s thoughts on the issue. I believe that, with further work and some expert advice from building professionals, we can come up with a way to appropriately regulate the industry to protect Territorians while promoting other building methods.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is supporting this motion. I am looking forward to further work with the member for Nelson in relation to supporting this motion. It is always a pleasure to listen to the member talk about the rural area and about that culture and heritage of the Territory which, I feel, is extremely important and offers a great deal of value for the Territory. As I have tried to outline, there do not seem to be any problems until we start to look at the public safety issue being ignored, and minimum standards being ignored. I believe there is a really good way to move forward on this. There are many people out there already who have demonstrated this is a great concept in housing, particularly for the rural area. I look forward to further work on it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this motion that the Northern Territory government considers changes to the Building Code which will allow people on rural blocks to legally live in a shed under certain conditions. It is important to note a couple of those key words. That is to ‘consider changes’ and ‘under certain conditions’.
The motion is a commonsense motion; it has a lot of practicalities associated with it. It will be very useful in assisting many young people get into accommodation and start building a life towards a house of a description not associated with corrugated iron. It has the potential to be very accommodating as the rural areas of the Northern Territory continue to grow. If we can come to some kind of satisfactory resolution, it also offers lifestyle choices to many Territorians who possibly do not have that choice at this point in time.
This motion goes across many of the electorates of the Northern Territory on both sides of the parliament. In the Top End it covers the member for Nelson’s and my electorates and, of course, the Daly, Barkly, Katherine, Araluen, Arafura and, possibly, even the Nhulunbuy electorates, where we have many residents in those areas living semi-rural or rural. In the discussions with industry and others that, no doubt, will follow after this motion has gone through the parliament, I suggest there may be an area we need to look at as well regarding dwellings that are built on some of the Aboriginal communities that would be considered rural, given they also have certification issues.
I accept what the minister said in regard to ensuring the amenity and safety of residents. At the end of the day, that is what standards and National Australian Standards is all about - safety and amenity, to ensure people who either reside or pass through dwellings can do so in a safe way.
The member for Nelson referenced the fact that he lived for many years in a Sidney Williams hut. These Sidney Williams huts are well known, particularly to older Territorians or people who have been here for a long time. We have one on our property which was relocated from Darwin and rebuilt. It is still standing. It has gone through Cyclone Tracy and every other cyclone we have had, and not a sheet of iron or anything to do with that Sidney Williams hut was damaged or lost. I know where the other Sidney Williams huts are in and around Darwin, and they too went through Cyclone Tracy and also did not fall down or get blown away. There are sheds out there, from past times, which have been designed incredibly well.
There is a whole flourishing industry of shed designers, constructers and developers. It is not like putting two bits of tin together with a bit of angle iron and a few rusty old bolts. They are designed very well these days for tropical, cyclonic conditions right across northern Australia and down into Western Australia.
In supporting this motion - and the minister has expressed that the government is keen to support it - I am interested to know how it would progress from now on, because it is important to involve not only the community and government but the certifiers, the builders, and those who are the experts in the industry of developing, designing and building sheds.
There are inconsistencies at the moment, as the member for Nelson has highlighted, regarding having a Class 10A shed you cannot live in but, if you stick your caravan underneath it, then that is okay - or a tent for that matter. If you have an office, you can have an ablution facility but you cannot live in it. We need to get some of those inconsistencies sorted out and get some common sense back into the building regulations, such that we can accommodate people who choose to have accommodation arrangements which I would call stepping stones. If they choose to go from a caravan to a shed of any description and style and then on to a house which is commonly referred to as a residential dwelling, they should be able to have that choice, as long as they are doing it appropriately and within the safe boundaries of living arrangements.
If there comes a time when we are threatened by a very serious cyclone, people who live in sheds in the rural area - and there are many of them in my electorate and across the member for Nelson’s electorate - are not going to stay there if they do not feel safe. They will either go to a cyclone shelter or to someone else’s property or house where they believe they will be safe. And they will take their family, their pets, and all their valuables with them. I feel there is some implication that people who live in sheds, or propose to live in sheds, are somehow reckless, which is just not correct and is just nonsense.
The other aspect that was raised previously was it offers an alternative option to a house that might cost $400 000, $600 000, $700 000, and the key word is affordability. Like the member for Nelson’s daughter, who is unlikely to be able to go into a house, she might be able to build a small shed-type house on a block of land and accommodate her family. There is nothing wrong with that.
I also find it a bit curious that people have this notion that because something looks semi-industrial, or is made out of corrugated iron, tin or metal, somehow it is not right and it is ugly. I say that is just an urban namby-pamby fluffy-bunny type of notion. I find sheds quite attractive. I have two lovely sheds on my block, which I would …
Mr Wood: All with permits.
Ms PURICK: All with permits, of course, and very safe. I would be happy to stay in them, except I would not; I would go and stay with my mother in her house.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the parliament, and the minister for advising that the government will support it. I look forward to further discussions with regard to progressing the possible changes to the Building Code which can accommodate and allow people to live in sheds in the rural area.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. Thank you very much for bringing it on, member for Nelson. To the minister, thank you for your support as well. It is a logical step. It is a journey we have actually already been down, because people already occupy these facilities. It is more a procedural recognition that we need to understand this is already in existence. Perhaps some of the problem is the government’s reality has come in and they have a problem they cannot see a solution around. If they try to enforce it, they do not have enough building certifiers to do the job totally. It is a problem.
I would like to highlight some of those problems, if you were to go down this enforcement path and object to some of this stuff. The government would be wearing the cost, and it is a lot of money, particularly under the already existing, expensive SIHIP. Take a look at the Indigenous village at Knuckeys Lagoon. I have just been advised they are down to only three of the old-style homes there - they are sheds; that is all they are. Believe it or not, they have delivered an answer to a need for a long time. How the people personally, individually, treat those dwellings is a different story. That is the individual person. With the intent of keeping people out of the weather; they have done a good job.
At the 15 Mile Palmerston Indigenous Village, roughly half are still just sheds. They have a shed with mesh on them for windows instead of real windows, and a raised shed within a shed. That is all they are. If the minister was to enforce every aspect and really crack down, they have a huge problem just in the cost, because you would have to pay for that replacement. Ironically, they have done a pretty good job delivering what they have needed to do: a habitat, a place where people can sleep, seek safety from the weather - all in all, pretty good. Most of the ones I have seen over my time are also up out of the water; they are not getting flooded out every five minutes, so they have complied with certain aspects there.
If you look through the Department of Lands and Planning paperwork where the standards allegedly differ between sheds and houses, as the member for Nelson just mentioned, it is: weather-proofing; natural light; fire protection; structural wind design; deeming for cyclone coding; ceiling heights; moisture barriers; energy efficiency; sanitary facilities, otherwise known as wet areas; slab height; ventilation; smoke alarms; and requirements in flood-prone areas.
There is not one thing there which people would not want to comply with if they are going to occupy. As the member for Nelson has just pointed out, I would be rather annoyed if I bought myself a shed for any of my toys - my race cars and bikes, my Escape; even my tools - and it was not weatherproof. The idea of the shed is to keep things out of the weather by being weather-proof. It has natural light if I lift the roller door, but the reality is you would put windows in. That is how we get light into our buildings. Surprise, surprise! That is how we would get natural light into a shed. As the member for Nelson said, put a big verandah around it, which aids in the cooling of the building which means it is more energy efficient anyway with plenty of natural light.
The member for Nelson mentioned fire protection – in most cases it is a steel structure. Some of the very old sheds, going back around pre-World War II, may have had some wood structures and they would have burnt a bit differently. However, a steel structure does not burn. It is what you apply to that structure - the gyprock, the wood wall studs - which can become the fire hazard, including the sofa you have in there. Those are the issues you have to consider: what you are putting in there. Maybe we should ban sofas and curtains from houses because, often, they are the things that go up in flames - someone falls asleep while smoking inside their house and their sofa or their bed catches fire. That is where the fire comes from often, by someone setting fire to a curtain, or a kid playing. A steel structure is probably more fireproof than the average home.
Structural wind design: sheds already have to comply. I will go quickly on to that in a little while about some other aspects of the structural wind design, because the materials used in a shed are no different to those in a house.
Ceiling heights: in most cases sheds have greater ceiling heights; they are a bit like cathedrals - a little like my house which has massive ceiling heights. Ceiling heights in a shed are generally not a problem. The biggest problem is the fact you have to find a longer pole for your fan. If you buy the wrong fan, like I did once - the pole to lengthen the fan to suit my pitch was going to cost me as much as a new fan, which was pretty stupid, but that was my fault for buying a fan that looked fancy. The pole was going to be nearly $100 just so I could hang my fan.
The moisture barrier: I agree; there is a difference in moisture barrier. That is normally the bitumen-style barrier before the layer of bricks and what is normally an orange plastic that goes under the slab before you put down the mesh that goes into the slab. You have to have that underneath a shed as well, otherwise you will not get approval. I understand there is some difference. They are talking about stopping that moisture coming up from the ground - even the moisture off the slab in general terms – preventing it from affecting any of the gyprock you may have added. There are secondary moisture barriers on top of the initial slab moisture barrier, which you already have to have in a shed.
The energy efficiency: this is where, as the member for Nelson pointed out, there will be some very interesting conversations around this. In my opinion, when we continue to chase European energy efficiency ratings it steers us away from the real intent, which is to lower the consumption of electricity. In my house, which I will get to soon, I only use, on average, about $420 a quarter for my Power and Water bill. Most people who have the newer 5-star energy-rated houses are chewing up $1200 a quarter because it is a house reliant on air-conditioning. My house is not. I very rarely need an air-conditioner because I have natural ventilation. Air flows through my house; it was built in that design. What is that energy efficiency? If you are looking at the 5-star rating and what has now become the traditional expectation of that, it is, in fact, poor energy efficiency. That is what you get with your house nowadays because you are going to have to build a house that costs more to run. When you are handing over real, hard cash that is not good energy efficiency, is it? It is certainly not cost-efficient. I do not know how people work it out. Sometimes, they get a bit googly eyed and do not really think about what they are doing.
Sanitary facilities: there is no argument there - none whatsoever. A wet area is a wet area and must be built to the appropriate standard. There is nothing prohibiting that wet area being an external wet area. There is nothing prohibiting that wet area being anything like the houses rebuilt in some of our communities under SIHIP. We have seen photos before in this Chamber of different wet areas the government has refurbished on houses, and they are, essentially, a stainless steel bench with a sink, with no doors on it, a couple of bits of tile in front of it and a bit of a splashback behind it. There is nothing super hard about that. Of course, you have to comply with the appropriate plumbing requirements. That is why we use licensed plumbers nowadays. There is nothing difficult about the sanitary facilities, the wet areas, and I support that. It is not a hard thing; we are not asking anything different.
Slab height: again, it comes down to this logical aspect of: ‘If I build a shed, I do not want to build it in a way that my toys are going to get wet. So, I am going to build my slab up’. Of course, you are. Anyone with any brains would do that. It is a natural thing to do. Do not build it in the quagmire. Lift it up to where it needs to be. It is easy enough to comply with, not hard, and makes a lot of sense.
Regarding the ventilation, the member for Nelson pointed it out that he has seen some shed-like designs with full-length gable roof vents. We do not see enough of them anymore. We should because they allow natural ventilation. You almost become cold in these houses because they can allow that much airflow through. When you allow enough air to escape through the roof, it is a very good ventilation system. In fact, those in the Emirates, like the ones I saw in Dubai, have massive ventilation shafts that go up into the roof and away. That is how they air-condition even though it is 45C-plus outside, it is below 30C inside the house because there is beautiful airflow that runs straight through these quadrant four-cornered vents. What we can learn from that is we should be doing more to get through ventilation into our ceilings and out through the roof. We should be looking at reinventing some of the previously used systems which actually worked very well indeed.
Smoke alarms: it goes without saying; you need a smoke alarm. It is not a hard thing to do; you must have it. Get it put in when you are doing your electrical work.
Requirements in flood-prone areas: there is no argument in that.
I turn to, let us call it, the appearance of these buildings. I live in what, if it was not an elevated house as it is, would look just like a shed. It is corrugated iron on the sides, corrugated iron on the roof - it is a shed. The only difference is it is steel studded. There are big steel beams from top to bottom and there are louvred windows. They put Masonite on the lower parts of the walls and cement sheeting in the upper parts of the walls. There are massive gables in my house. For all intents and purposes, it is a shed. In fact, in some parts of my house, it is mini-orbed on the inside so it looks like a shed from the inside as well. There is no difference. It is one of the early Troppo Design homes. It was a showcase, display village house. For all intents and purposes, it is just a shed except, because we have put some sheet at a different angle or called it a home, it is a home. It has complied with every other reasoning here but, in reality, it is a shed.
As I said, my energy consumption bills are only just over $400 a quarter. If you are talking about energy efficient homes, mine would not get much more than a 2-star rating. The reality is, I do not use any power to run my house because it has natural airflow. Fool for you if you think your energy efficient house is something that consumes $1200 a quarter. I am pretty proud of my shed that I live in; it is a great, little house. But, for all intents and purposes, it is just a shed. I am proud to live there; it is my home and, obviously as such, it is my castle.
What the member for Nelson has brought forward is relevant. I thank the members opposite for their support of this. It is common sense to continue down this path.
We were talking about structural wind design and cyclone coding. As I said, the sheds still have to comply to be approved in the first place. Often, a lot of those materials used in that construction have to have what is called a DTC number, which is a Deemed to Comply number. If you pick up your box of screws to put your roof on, you will have a DTC number on it. It if does not, you have to go back and check it against the schedule to ensure it does comply. If not, you will not get your compliance on your house anyway - or on your shed for that matter. The same goes for the roofing iron, the steel itself, the Colorbond; they have all been deemed to comply - the same building materials for a house as for a shed all have DTCs. It is not a big issue as things have already been put in place. The minister knows about the deemed to comply; he understands what I am talking about. We have to screw the roof down the same way, so there is your safety covered. It is really that good.
Ironically, it took me a while to work out where my cyclone shelter was in my house because an object was going to come through my louvres, through the windows, or it was going to come through my tin walls. They built this little shed underneath the house which is ply lined with a combustible material. That becomes my cyclone shelter; it is a stronger place. The other aspect was it also was the corridor from which termites would get into my house. So, for all the compliance, the downfall was that, through legislation, we built in a place from which termites would enter my house. So, good job there; it was great to find those mastotermes having a bit of a chew away. They were big, fat fellas having a great time. Anyway, I knew where I was staying in my cyclone-coded shed. Thank you very much for your support.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I will just say a few words to this motion. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing it forward, and the minister for his support for the motion as well. My contribution is primarily around my electorate.
It is a real situation out there in the rural parts of Darwin and, I am sure, in the other regional centres as well, where many people have built homes that are sheds which they live in. That is very widespread. It is changing of late with more gentrification of the rural area. People moved out there for a whole range of reasons, but mainly for the lifestyle. Many people did not have very high incomes, so I acknowledge the affordability issue the member for Nelson was talking about. I am glad to see he acknowledges - as the minister acknowledged in his contribution - the safety issue that exists. There have to be some basic standards. The health standards need to be recognised as well.
I do think there is some workability in it, some practicalities in it. The lifestyle which people enjoy - and I have been doorknocking in my rural area and seen a whole manner of dwellings. Some of them I would have concerns about, and others are quite safe and healthy, and certainly liveable, and those people enjoy that lifestyle.
That is just my contribution. I thank the minister for supporting the motion. It is a very reasonable stance and, hopefully, we can work through the safety and health issues within, particularly, the rural area of my electorate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate, and the government for supporting this motion. Obviously, there is a fair bit of work to do before we move on from this particular point.
I hope there could be a member from each side, and someone from your department if you do not have time, to be a small working committee which could sit down with people who are independent of the department such as a representative of the shed builders - I do not think they have an association, but there is a number of them around – and an engineer from outside, to have a look at the various issues.
The minister mentioned how we have to fit in with the Building Code of Australia. That is nice, but the Building Code of Australia covers a very big country. The funny thing is, in the Territory, it really only applies to Darwin and the Darwin rural area, Katherine and Alice Springs, maybe a little of Tennant Creek, and maybe Gove, I am not sure. Basically, outside of that, I can put my shed up at the mouth of the Daly River, at Bulgul, where my wife lives, and live happily in that shed. It is one of those strange quirks in the Northern Territory that safety, health, and amenity does not apply, yet, if I come back inside an artificial boundary, safety, health, and amenity do apply. It is the way the Territory is.
I am not an overly great fan of extending, at least compulsorily, the Building Code all over the Territory, simply because it is impractical. If you were to apply some of these rules to Mistake Creek Station, by the time you got down there and back again to inspect it - what problems there would be down there, I do not know. We have to live with the practicalities of a small population in a large area, so we concentrate on those areas where people live in towns.
I noticed certain issues about these growth towns. That is an issue that has to come up for debate; as to whether they become Building Code areas, or whether each house, dwelling, or shed that is built in those communities is built to the standard that would be required in Darwin. They are other issues, but it just highlights that in this debate you do get anomalies.
The minister spoke about making sure the plumbing is correct. Even under the existing laws, if you want to put a toilet and a shower in your shed, you have to get a plumber to install it.
I mentioned about planning regulations; that you are only allowed one dwelling on a rural block, and that is correct. However, the facts are you are allowed to have a granny flat of 50 m2 without a permit. You could combine the two together, shed and house, as long as the dwelling and the shed is no more than 50 m2. So, you really have not changed anything from what is allowable at the moment. People could say they are not sure granny is going to live in the shed, but I do not think it has ever been interpreted that kids could live in the shed and granny lives in the new house. I am not sure what the interpretation is there, but there are certain rules that allow a second small dwelling on a block.
The issues I would like thrashed out were the ones that relate to safety, health, and amenity because, obviously, from a one-page document one does not get much of an idea what that really means. I have had to guess it and, as I said before, it really annoys me if you have to subscribe to the Australian Standards. I know they cost a great deal to put together, but I gather the Australian Standards are run by a private company. If I wanted to check what the Australian Standards were for road widths in a suburban area, it would be nice if I could get on the web and check it. No, it will say subscribe or something; it would make it difficult for me to find out what those Australian Standards are.
The member for Drysdale made some important points. There are a number of buildings at the 15 Mile and the Knuckeys Lagoon community which are, basically, sheds. They are just corrugated iron houses. They are very strong, solid steel houses; they will never blow away. They have mesh on the windows so branches and things will not come through. They are being replaced by more modern houses. If you go past the 15 Mile, you will see some much more modern houses, but the older houses are still there. You have to say they are regarded as dwellings; they have toilets and showers in them. They are not the greatest buildings, but that is because they have been allowed to become run down. In years gone by they have been used as houses.
No matter what we discuss in our little group that might be formed - and we can discuss that later, minister - the principle of making a house, dwelling, or a roof over a head more affordable is really important. It is the principle which should be driving us. It is the principle which has driven the government to build the new, low-cost accommodation in Alice Springs. I am not sure that the member for Macdonnell is a great fan of that but, to be honest, it is at least putting a shelter over someone’s head. It may be a tent; it may be a far better building. However, the government is saying it thinks it can supply a range of accommodation which will at least give people roofs over their heads, so they have allowed tents to be used for accommodation, versus some shelters, versus some one-bedroom units, etcetera. The government put forward a range of options to overcome disadvantage for people who need shelter, and this is not much different than that. We are looking at a range of options, and a shed would be far stronger than a tent. It should be looked at in the light of that.
We are trying to reduce the hardship of people getting a roof over their heads. For me, it is an important social issue. I know the government has been striving to try to reduce the cost of development. I have been to Bellamack Gardens and it is very good. It is not everyone’s cup of tea if you come from the rural area because there is not a huge amount of space. They are well-planned houses and they have space around them, but they are still relatively expensive.
My argument has been that rural living is an alternative option. We need to give those people who want that option a chance. Many young people in the rural area are now staying on their parent’s block because they cannot afford to leave. I am concerned that places like the rural area will become too expensive, and you will get a drift of population. You will have schools where there are no kids or you have to bus them in from another area. Howard Springs is a good example. A house on Whitewood Road recently sold for about $1.4m. A block of land near me sold for $400 000. You are starting to deal with land prices which are getting out of the reach of young people, especially young people with families. Therefore, it becomes harder to service the schools, or you have to bring in children from elsewhere. There is a danger that community becomes a very wealthy community, but not necessarily a young, vibrant, growing community as young people cannot live there because they cannot afford it.
It is about affordability. It is a social issue. It is about giving young families a chance to grow without excessive mortgage stress, which is a real issue we need to be aware of. It is early intervention; we are making sure families are not under the sort of stress which means their children grow up without love and attention. We see so often in our society the results of that in the number of kids running amok - whether it is in Alice Springs, around Palmerston, or wherever in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I hope we can get together as soon as possible within the next few weeks, develop something and move forward on this. It is something many Territorians, especially young Territorians, will take advantage of and will appreciate the government has done something practical in trying to allow people to get a roof over their heads at an affordable price.
Motion agreed to.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VICTIM PROTECTION ORDERS) BILL
(Serial 145)
(Serial 145)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, I invite members of this House to place themselves in someone else’s position when dealing with the intent of this legislation. Primarily, whilst not exclusively, I want members of this House to place themselves in the position of a woman who is a rape victim.
In the process of going through the system of justice we have in our community, we have many women, sadly, who are raped. In many instances, they take the courageous decision to pursue the matter criminally through the courts which means, under the normal process of things, they are required, from time to time, to give evidence before a committal hearing and, then, to repeat that evidence describing in detail the nature of their rape to a Supreme Court, often a jury. These details are intimate and personal and, in many respects, go to extend, by virtue of the inquisitorial nature of a court case, the victimisation of the victim.
Whilst I appreciate there are numerous legislative instruments helping with the collection of evidence before a rape trial, the truth of the matter is, it is a necessary continued invasion of a woman’s privacy, or a sexual assault victim’s privacy, when they have to repeatedly tell of their trials and tribulations and the details of the rape which was perpetrated against them.
Should that person who is accused of that rape be found guilty, whilst the Criminal Code carries numerous serious sexual offences and substantial maximum penalties, the truth is that rarely is a full maximum penalty dished out. Typically, for a rape, a penalty of five to eight years with three or four to serve is not unusual in what is issued by a court to an offender. That offender then does their time in gaol and, after completing their time in gaol, they are released from custody into the community, normally through the provisions of the Parole Act.
The position I would like members to place themselves in is this: we all live in small communities. In fact, even Darwin, for the purposes of this legislative instrument, is a small community. I ask members of this House to picture a woman walking into a place - for example, a restaurant - only to be confronted by the person they were raped by not three or four years earlier sitting in the restaurant. At that point, there is nothing the woman or the rape victim could do other than to turn on their heel and leave the restaurant. The offender is there quite lawfully, has broken no law since coming out of prison, and is serving parole. Unfortunately, those circumstances, or circumstances like them, continue to render the victim as a victim in this process.
This bill intends to address that particular issue, and I ask members to approach this bill with the same genuine intent with which I bring it before the House today.
The intent of this legislation is quite straightforward. It cannot be retrospective - by virtue of the principles of double jeopardy you cannot be sentenced twice for the same crime. However, from now on, what I seek the approval of this House to do is render, as part of the sentencing process, not only the prison sentence which is imposed by a court on the offender but, additional to that prison sentence, an order of, essentially, avoidance for a period which can be set by that court but has a default period in this legislative instrument of 20 years. The principle of this order is that the right of way will be afforded in a public domain to the victim, not the offender. This legislative instrument is designed to enforce the opinion of this House upon all offenders; that once you have chosen to commit a rape and be convicted of a rape, part of your penalty will be that you will have to get out of the way of the victim whenever you should, by virtue of happenstance, meet in a public place.
This principle has similar provisions in other legislation, in the sense that avoidance by legislative instrument is not a new concept. There are other legislative instruments which make avoidance one of their central planks. Bail conditions may choose to do so. There may be restraining orders issued under the Justice Act. Domestic violence orders are common, and there are other forms of restraint and avoidance in legislation.
This is unique in the sense that it is attached to the penalty for the crime. It is in addition to, and not to be considered part of, the penalty process. So the penalties which are currently issued for rape are not diminished in deference to one of these orders being made; this order is in addition to the penalty that would normally be issued.
The system would work in the following way. From an evidentiary point of view, the greatest challenge for this legislative instrument is to demonstrate the mens rea or the intent of the offender or the rapist to breach the offence this legislative instrument creates. Essentially, an offender or rapist who is in a public place - or in a private place for that matter but, essentially, in a public place – who, by virtue of happenstance, finds them occupying the same place - and they are subject to this order - as the victim, then the offender must move on. That has to be an offence of intent. The offender must know the victim is present. Therefore, the act anticipates a process by which either the victim or a victim’s agent can make the offender aware of the presence of the victim. This, hopefully, will empower rape victims to be able to walk up to their offender in a public place and say: ‘I am here to be here with my family,’ - or for whatever reason they are there – ‘it is time for you to move on’. The offender will then be expected to stand up, pay his bill, and leave the public place.
If the victim is not feeling sufficiently courageous, there is capacity within this legislative instrument that an agent can be used to simply demonstrate that the offender has become aware of the victim’s presence. For example, if the victim asks a waitress, maitre d’, police officer, other person in the restaurant, or spouse, to point out the presence of the victim, that will be sufficient under this legislative instrument, by pointing out the presence of the victim, thus obliging the offender to move on.
It is intended this legislation be read in that fashion. Different environments will require different responses. The test of reasonableness is the test by which a court will be asked to determine whether the conduct of the offender was, indeed, reasonable in all the circumstances. So, for argument’s sake, should there be, by way of example, a seat allocation on an aircraft where a rape victim and offender have to share joint seats or close proximity, the duty will now fall on to the shoulders of the offender to speak to cabin crew to ensure there is an appropriate seat allocation. In those circumstances, it is the offender’s duty to avoid the victim. Similarly, on a bus, this legislation does not expect an offender to get off a bus, but remove themselves to a place on the bus which is remote from the victim. At all times, it is the offender’s duty to move.
The legislative instrument does not contain itself particularly to rape victims. Rape is a colloquial word; it does not actually appear in the Criminal Code as far as I am aware, but it deals with a series of sexual assaults outlined in the bill. There are section numbers there. I have chosen, by virtue of the nature of these sorts of crimes, to extend it also to the victims of kidnapping and attempted murder.
The order will be sought as a matter of course by the prosecution when the sentencing process is conducted by a court, which means the prosecution will automatically apply for the issuing of the order. That will not be captured in this bill, but it is expected it would be enforced by the Department of Public Prosecution, unless the victim chooses otherwise. Consequently, if the victim does not want the order to exist for whatever reason, the victim can ask for the application not to be made. However, a court is left with full discretion to apply this legislative instrument in circumstances which it may deem to be appropriate. For argument’s sake, in the instance where a court considers that a shorter term of avoidance is necessary or is required - and they may do so based on the evidence of a victim, or on the evidence they have become aware of during the process of the trial - the court may do so.
On the other side of that coin, if a court feels an avoidance order for life could be deemed to be necessary, then that avoidance order may be ordered for the natural life of the offender, or the victim as the case may be. Full flexibility remains with the court.
In the case of Aboriginal communities - and I have not forgotten Aboriginal communities in this process - a court may determine, based on the facts and submissions made to them, that a direction may be given in relation to avoiding a particular house in a community or, in worse circumstances, the offender may be, effectively, banned from the victim’s actual home community. At all times through this process the rights of the victim will be considered to be paramount.
There is a default period of 20 years in the bill before the House, but that is all it is; simply a default period should a court choose not to make a different order.
If members want to know more about which actual sections of the Criminal Code this legislation applies to, then I direct members to clause 97J of the legislation. I have outlined the principles and concepts of clause 97K and point out the order needs to be properly explained for the order to take effect. Clause 97M creates the offence of contravening the order, and contravention of the order will lead to a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units or $13 300, or imprisonment for six months. A reasonable excuse is a defence for breaching the order.
In circumstances where a victim may choose to use the order to harass the offender, which is contrary to the intention to this legislation, an application may be made to a court by an offender, when the offender can demonstrate that such harassment is occurring - for argument’s sake, if a victim uses the order to make a offender’s life unmanageable or difficult by virtue of the fact that the victim may choose to follow the offender. If that should occur, there is a capacity to vary the order under clause 97N and, perhaps, even revoke the order.
This is not a complex issue. Whist I have talked in my second reading speech largely about women being the victims and the offenders being men, it is written and drafted in a gender-neutral way. The issues of evidence have been dealt with and this can also apply to a male victim and will include the victims of child sexual offences. This will also empower the parents of children who have been victims of sexual assaults to act as the child’s agent. Should the offender, by happenstance, find themself in the proximity of the child, the parent can act as the agent and ask the offender to leave.
The Country Liberals will always maintain, particularly in relation to serious crimes such as rape, that the rights of the victim shall be paramount over the rights of the offender. We make no bones about that, and make no apology for that.
This is truly about empowering, particularly women, to become stronger, tougher, and bolder survivors of the sexual assaults of which they are so often victims. The message from this parliament to those women should be that their rights are more important than the rights of the men who raped them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and plead for their considerations not to be consumed by political considerations, but to truly understand the intent of what this legislation is attempting to achieve. If this legislative instrument does become enforceable, it will be unique, as far as I know, not only in the country but possibly in the world. Perhaps one day it may form a benchmark for something to be done in the future. I signal at this point that if the government brings forward some amendment they deem necessary, in an effort to advance this legislative instrument I will be all ears to government’s intent, as long as its intent is the improvement of the legislative instrument in trying to achieve the goals it sets out.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS) BILL
(Serial 134)
(Serial 134)
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell has 27 minutes remaining.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have spoken to the member for Araluen because yesterday the minister gave notice to present amendments to the Children’s Commissioner legislation. I make it very short and congratulate the government for taking the initiative and realising that these are really important amendments. I congratulate the Council of Territory Cooperation as well because the recommendations also came from the CTC. It is good to see the government working in bipartisanship to ensure there are no loopholes in protecting our Territory children.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I first presented this bill to parliament on 27 October last year; that was the second reading. Since then, I have met with the Children’s Commissioner several times and had numerous conversations with him.
This amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Bill was really about extending the powers of the Children’s Commissioner to fall in line with the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report which was released by the government to the public on 18 October 2010, just over four months ago.
Much has happened between then and now but, we, as the opposition, were on the front foot in working on this legislation and getting it up within a matter of weeks after the report was released. This was not the first time we brought up this amendment. My predecessor, Jodeen Carney, presented a very similar bill in February 2010. We have been on the front foot with recognising the fact that the Children’s Commissioner was a little hamstrung in the powers he has; in not having his own motion powers to initiate investigations into matters or services provided to protected children. We recognise that, in line with Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report, the Children’s Commissioner required additional powers to be able to monitor the implementation of this report.
On Tuesday, 22 February 2011, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Children and Families, the new department, presented his version of what he thinks the Children’s Commissioner should do, in extending the powers and addressing the recommendation in the Growing them strong, together report. I am not going to go there in relation to responding to the amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Bill he presented earlier in the week.
What I would like to say is there is some arrogance in the immediate dismissal of this amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act. It was virtually immediately dismissed by the government on the basis that they had their own agenda, their own idea, of how to respond to Recommendation 136 of the report. The opportunity was missed, as the member for Macdonnell has suggested, to work in a bipartisan way to fulfil one of these recommendations the government has completely committed to implement. However, this is what has happened.
As a newcomer to parliament, I was a little taken aback that the government did not approach me or ask me for a briefing on the bill. That is probably not usual practice for a government, but I have been accused of not organising a briefing with the government in the past. So, I guess I can put that back on to you and say you did not ask me for a briefing on this bill, nor did you approach me to discuss any aspect of this bill. I suppose that is your prerogative but, in working together and perhaps improving the plight of children in the Territory, it would have been in order.
On Monday night, the government launched the new Department of Children and Families. It was a wonderful launch - which I was not invited to, I might add. I am getting used to that too; being left off the guest list for things that are highly relevant to my role as the shadow minister for Child Protection. Get used to it, Robyn, that is the way things apparently happen in the cut and trust of politics.
This document called Safe Children, Bright Futures, Strategic Framework 2011 to 2015 was released. I was able to obtain a copy of this strategic framework by demanding a copy, having not been provided one. Nevertheless, it is a very impressive document - nice font, great colours, nice graphics, great photography. Basically, it is a glossy form of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, very nicely packaged. I commend the government for spending a considerable amount of money on what we could have all photocopied from the original Growing them strong, together report. Once again, this is how things are done.
I was a little disappointed when I read through it today to find there is really nothing new in it. I have to be consoled by the fact that by rewriting the 147 recommendations in a more creative, colourful way, there is in that some commitment to implementing each and every recommendation in the time frames provided by the three board members of the inquiry.
The other development over the last few months is the formation of the Child Protection Reform Group which, again, came as a bit of a shock. Not being as savvy as my colleagues, I assume at least one of the Board of Inquiry members - Dr Howard Bath, Prof Muriel Bamblett, or Dr Rob Roseby - would have been included on this monitoring committee. That was not the case and I am very curious why the decision was made.
These three eminent professional people in the field of child protection and child health were excluded from this external monitoring and reporting committee. They dedicated a year of their life to putting that report together. They did some incredible consultation across the width and breadth of the Northern Territory during that time. It, quite frankly, astounded me that, of the eight members of the new child protection external monitoring and reporting committee, none of those three people were included. I would like to know why, if it is permissible to ask such a bold question of the government. Many people might be scratching their heads asking the same question. As the shadow for Child Protection, I believe it is a reasonable question to ask.
I do not have any questions about the integrity or the qualifications of the other members of the committee. I have a question about the frequency which the committee meets - every three months, I understand. The first meeting was well publicised. I have somewhere amongst all these papers a media release from the minister publicising the credentials of the new committee and they were having their inaugural meeting of the committee, and it was going to take some time to orientate the committee to the issues. Quite frankly, there was a lost opportunity there. You could have had three members of the committee well and truly orientated to the issues of child protection in the Northern Territory – in fact, absolute experts in child protection in the Northern Territory: Dr Bath, Ms Bamblett, and Dr Roseby.
Nevertheless, we have a group of eight committee members who will be externally monitoring and overseeing the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report. The fact that you have not given the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report to the Children’s Commissioner is also a curiosity to me - more than a curiosity. I say it is in breach of your commitment. You committed to implement each and every one of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. Indeed, that was a part of Recommendation 136; that the Children’s Commissioner be given the job of monitoring the government’s implementation of the report. So, that has not been done.
Clearly, you have decided against giving the Children's Commissioner that responsibility. I can only construe that there is something to hide. The government has made that decision because you do not want the Children's Commissioner to have that role. You do not want the Children's Commissioner to have that role because, as you have over the last 10 years, you, indeed, have something to hide.
The Children's Commissioner has made a few critical comments of government and how you have implemented the recommendations of the report, even over the last four months. I am reading between the lines thinking perhaps that was enough to put the government off: the government does not want to be criticised and the Children's Commissioner to have the power to be the watchdog because he probably knows a bit too much about what should happen and what is happening at the moment. The Children's Commissioner has not been honoured by the government giving him a role as a monitor of the implementation of this report - very curious. The government has, basically, contravened its commitment by not providing the Children's Commissioner with that critical role.
The own motion powers in the bill the opposition has put forward would have given the Children's Commissioner greater capacity in managing complaints identified by the community of the provision of service to children in the protection of the government. That was a critical role that was also identified in the Growing them strong, together report, which I understand has been taken up in the new amended legislation you put forward yesterday.
I make no apologies if the provisions of this bill I have put forward go further and give the commissioner a broader range of powers than those recommended in the report, which it did. That probably scared the government off too; we took it one step further than the government probably feels comfortable with. I also make no apologies for taking what action I can to improve the ability of the Children's Commissioner to monitor and implement government responses to inquests, reports, and judicial recommendations relating to the wellbeing of children. I make no apologies for giving the commissioner greater powers to compel witnesses to produce documents or give evidence across the whole range of his functions, rather than only for investigations related to protected children.
Finally, I make absolutely no apology for treating the report’s recommendations with the respect and urgency they deserve. I stand here today disappointed, but probably not surprised, by the government’s rejection of this bill. I realise, as government, you have to prove time and time again you have the power, and the final say on these matters. However, I thought, mistakenly, as a fairly nave politician that, under the circumstances, with the severity and damning nature of the Growing them strong, together report and the fact that it exposed the government for failing to protect children in the Northern Territory and to adhere to the legislation the government is responsible for legislating, this bill would have been given more serious consideration by the government.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mrs Lambley Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra Van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
INQUIRIES (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 114)
(Serial 114)
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am going to surprise the opposition and say we are going to support this legislation with an amendment which has been negotiated with the member for Brennan. Member for Brennan, you are probably leading the batting order over there at the moment because you have had two or three pieces of legislation we have supported.
As I have said during these sittings of parliament, since I became Chief Minister, if any member of this House brings forward legislation that is sensible, stands the rigour of our internal Cabinet processes in regard to its suitability and impact on the budget, we will support it. I assure honourable members that when you do put forward legislation, it goes through a full Cabinet process of circulation to government agencies which comment on the bill in the same way they would comment on government legislation, so we can make an informed decision about whether the legislation is suitable, workable, and affordable, and decide whether we will support the legislation.
I commend the member for Brennan for bringing this legislation forward and supporting the amendments we proposed, and for his cooperative approach to the bill.
The bill is to amend sections 11 and 12 of the Inquiries Act to increase the penalty for offences of failure to attend or produce documents for parliamentary inquiries. We agree this bill has not been amended for many years, possibly decades, and it was out of step with other legislation that established inquiries or oversight of government. The bill is certainly consistent with the government’s policy of converting penalties to points rather than dollar figures and, now it is going to be amended, consistent with the failure to attend or produce documents for all types of parliamentary inquiries.
The Justice minister will introduce the Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Bill in the upcoming sittings. This will amend penalty provisions in 21 pieces of legislation including the Inquiries Act and this provision. However, we have no issue with this penalty being dealt with in isolation today.
Under the original bill, refusal to be sworn or give evidence before a board of inquiry would increase the fine from the current $100 to a maximum 200 penalty units. Under the amended bill - and I thank the member for circulating the amendments last sittings - the maximum is now 100 penalty units. The government agrees people should render every assistance to inquiries and there should be appropriate sanctions for those who do not comply with the law in this regard. This is fair legislation, and $100 is no deterrent for someone to fail to comply with a request from an inquiry under this legislation.
Two hundred penalty points would have provided a fine of a maximum of $26 600. That is a fair old leap from $100 to $26 600. The government felt that this was excessive and the 100 penalty points were more appropriate and consistent with other provisions. For example, the government considers the provisions of the Inquiries Act relating to these matters are akin to the Ombudsman Act and given the inquiry and investigation role under both pieces of legislation. Accordingly, our view is penalties for the offence of failure to attend or produce documents, and refusal to be sworn or give evidence before a board of inquiry, should be consistent or have parity with similar offence provisions under the Ombudsman Act.
That was the rationale for the putting this forward: to have a penalty regime that is consistent across legislation. Therefore, we believe the penalty provision of 100 points is appropriate. We put that to the member for Brennan who agreed and offered to amend his bill. He has circulated those amendments, and we support the amendments the member will bring forward, and we will support the bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for bringing this bill forward, and identifying the inadequacy in regard to the penalty provisions. We are happy to support an increase in those penalties consistent with what is provided for under the Ombudsman Act which was reviewed last year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I also commend the government on their approach to this commonsense legislation. I feel I have been tarred and feathered today by the Chief Minister and, now, offered shelter from the cold ...
Mr Henderson: It is all right, Pete, I am gracious where I can be gracious, as we all should be.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you. The Chief Minister has been very accurate in summing up the intent of this bill and the amendments to the bill tonight. I remind people how we got here. It was the minister for Environment, minister Hampton, who first alerted me to the inadequacies of this particular legislation when I thought it a possible route to take when defending our environment. However, as he quite rightly pointed out, the legislation I pointed to was inadequate. It is timely and, again, thank you to the government for looking at this and taking the approach they have.
It is good to see government can, from time to time, see that the opposition does not always throw up legislation, motions, etcetera, for pure political purposes; that, in fact, like you guys over there, we are here to do things right for Territorians. The demonstration of goodwill on both sides of the House today is something we can all be proud of. So, thank you, Chief Minister and the government.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Inquiries (Penalties) Amendment Bill 2010, (Serial 114) together with schedule of amendments No 51 circulated by the member for Brennan, Mr Chandler.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I move amendment 51.1.
Mr HENDERSON: It just changes it from 200 penalty units to 100 penalty units. We support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I move amendment 51.2.
Mr HENDERSON: Again, that just changes from 200 to 100 penalty units.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ARSON) BILL
(Serial 116)
(Serial 116)
Continued from 18 August 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in a similar circumstance, this bill which has been on the Notice Paper has actually been superseded by measures which have been included in the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Damage) Bill (Serial 141); therefore, it should be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave for the bill to be withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
MOTION
Camel Industry in the Northern Territory
Camel Industry in the Northern Territory
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the member for Brennan for contributing to the debate. This motion was brought to the Chamber in October last year with the specific intent of trying to develop an industry around what is commonly referred to as a pest. There have been many studies undertaken on developing camel industries around Australia, particularly a recent study which has been conducted in Western Australia.
I do not want to go over old ground on the first speech within this debate, but we continually look towards how to develop industries in remote communities. In agencies or organisations such as Desert Knowledge and the former Cooperative Research Centre, people are looking at how we can maintain sustainability in the bush. It seems to me to be a perfect opportunity to grab hold of what is considered to be a pest - a pest problem, I might add, which is having $19m spent on it by the federal government in eradication of camels by just shooting them.
I understand the need to try to manage the species; I understand the environmental degradation that is caused. I do not understand the mentality of just shooting the beast which will lie on the ground and, I believe, contribute to further environmental damage. Other animals eat perishing meat. Dingoes eat the dead camels, just growing more pests through the Northern Territory.
In the opening debate, I went through the opportunity of an international boxed camel meat industry. I explained how a multi-species abattoir is currently operating in Wamboden just north of Alice Springs off the Tanami Road. I detailed the cost structure in communities being able to muster camels, put them on trucks and get them to the multi-species abattoir, the abattoir get them down to Adelaide, South Australia in the particular example I gave.
There are international markets, with people with significant resources who are prepared to invest in the industry. What they need is confidence in the Territory and federal governments to come to the party and invest in that industry. I have spoken at length with Samex. I have been in discussions with Lauren Brisbane of the Australian Camel Industry Association. There are opportunities and Australians out there who want to see the development of this industry.
I listened to what the minister said when he provided justification why he cannot support this motion. I do not think it is that simple. He spoke about live camel exports, and I understand live camel exports are significantly difficult, particularly getting them to market, to port and overseas, with the size of the boats, containers, trucks or trains you need to get them to the port and the management of them from there. However, the opportunity to move to a boxed camel meat industry is real and present. It would create jobs in the bush.
I was fortunate to have a briefing today from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and her staff. I received an overview of A Working Future, and the LIPs, the local implementation plans. What came out of that was that the local implementation plans around Yuendumu are very bureaucratic; I had read them before and we spoke a bit about them. They are highly bureaucratic and are a way of coordinating government and welfare service agencies around the table to try to provide support services. The questions I raised - and one of my colleagues, the member for Fong Lim – was: how do you transplant industry into those growth towns to create jobs? It is a question we all have on our lips and we all try to get something done. It is easy to score cheap political points about government, opposition, or others not doing anything, but this seemed such a no-brainer to me. We continue to see welfare dollars, or the dole money, which stops people from engaging in a real economy. Sit-down money stops people from engaging in a real economy.
Here we have a pest, the camels - around 1.4 million to 1.6 million on a cross-border geographical basis - and the federal government is putting $19m into eradicating them. It would be much better if that $19m - or otherwise tax incentives, re-manipulation of the employment service funding that is provided, whether it is CDEP, Job Network, Job Services Australia or other – was put towards developing infrastructure in some strategic locations, whether it is permanent and/or temporary - temporary being moveable - to be able to muster these beasts.
Docker River and the two bottom corners of the Northern Territory seem prime locations to be able to run mustered camels in. There must be something behind the scenes which is stopping this from going ahead. I am sure there will be many in the cattle industry who would be worried about this model, but this can complement the cattle industry. There are many pastoralists who would be happy to have camels mustered from their property, rather than having them shot. They can actually earn money. If you can be paid $150 to $200 a camel, rather than someone being paid $200 to shoot them, it would be much better and you would see Aboriginal people being able to get employment in locations where that normally cannot happen.
Camel meat is a good meat. The opportunities to get into export markets which the Northern Territory does not get into now are being completely overlooked. I know the government is not going to support this motion. It is something I will not let go of and it does not need to pass through parliament to become viable or effective.
I have corresponded with the federal government. They are not supportive. They have responded that they are not supportive, but the fight does not stop here. The fight will continue and I will try to develop an industry which will support the Territory across the board. One thing I have learnt in parliament is that, often, this is a game and the real business is done outside of parliament where we try to get things which you cannot do in here because of politics. The camel industry is something I will continue to pursue. While we look gift horses in the mouth like this we will be prevented from going ahead. It reminds me so much of the failure to support uranium development in the Northern Territory. This is another issue where we seem to be digging our heels in and going nowhere.
Madam Speaker, I will leave my comments there. I encourage those opposite, particularly the minister for Resources and the Minister for Indigenous Development to support this motion. It can help grow jobs, bring money into the Territory, and support the direction everyone says we are trying to move towards.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Peppercorn Rental Agreement
for Government Facilities on Aboriginal Land
Peppercorn Rental Agreement
for Government Facilities on Aboriginal Land
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member for Nelson does not wish to make any further comments. Do we have any other speakers?
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the Legislative Assembly. The issue of land leasing and tenure for government assets is of fundamental importance to our development agenda of A Working Future. The debate is about whether we, as a government, take seriously the issue of normalising land use arrangements on Aboriginal land, the establishment of a market for land in our growth towns on Aboriginal land, and creating opportunities for owners of Aboriginal land to enjoy the same benefits of land ownership enjoyed by others.
My aim as, Minister for Indigenous Development and Minister for Regional Development, is to work with the Aboriginal land councils across the Northern Territory, landowners, and the business community to maximise the business opportunities and job creation. A key part of this is working with land councils to develop lease arrangements to underpin business investment on Aboriginal land.
Our approach to leasing of Aboriginal land for government assets is not a cave-in to the Australian government’s Executive Director of Township Leasing, or the land councils for that matter, as suggested by the member for Nelson in his speech supporting the motion. Ours is a practical and pragmatic approach to lease agreements for the government assets on Aboriginal land, and a step forward in helping to establish a system which will facilitate investment and economic growth in our growth towns.
Normalising arrangements involves accepting and recognising a fair payment may be required for the use of land for government assets. This is an important step. It is the right thing to do for the title holders of freehold land, and the right thing to do by taxpayers. Government, on behalf of taxpayers, should require tenure over assets on freehold land, and be prepared to make fair payment based on a community-standard formula for the use of that land. This is a principle that applies to other citizens and government use of other people’s land. It is a principle enshrined in our Constitution; that governments should pay fair and reasonable compensation for the use of other people’s property. This is the right way to help establish a property market in our growth towns located on Aboriginal land.
It is now the established policy of both the Australian and Northern Territory governments that neither government will fund public assets on Aboriginal land without some form of secure tenure. Since the commencement of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act more than 30 years ago, the land tenure arrangements for government infrastructure on Aboriginal land have been marked by informal arrangements between landowners and land occupiers. These historical arrangements do nothing in providing long-term certainty; they do not help engender the development of a property market and new investment; and they do not establish a model of good governance. Indeed, informal arrangements provide fertile ground for dodgy deals and inequity. It is now our policy that all Northern Territory government infrastructure located on Aboriginal land is underpinned by a form of lease, appropriate to the use of, and economic life of, that infrastructure.
Our approach is to work with the land councils, to build and establish a fair approach to the use of Aboriginal land for government purposes - a practical and pragmatic approach. We accept the premise of the member for Nelson that a starting point for public good assets should be a peppercorn rent. There is a strong argument that schools are considered in this way - an important public asset, value-adding to the community and contributing to the wellbeing of children and families. There is also an argument for airstrips, barge landings, and easements for essential services such as power and water, together with other public assets to be considered in this way.
Receptiveness to this approach by landowners who have a legal right to negotiate a fair rent for their land will be aided by community support for an overarching and principled approach to land leasing so landowners do not feel they are being disadvantaged or pushed into a cheap arrangement designed solely for the benefit of government. This support will be engendered by respectful negotiations - and it is the right approach - not dictated policy implying that title to Aboriginal land is a lesser form of property right.
I am heartened that the mainland councils have already taken this view in respect of 40-year leases negotiated for public housing. The land councils and local traditional owners have accepted the public good nature of this work and agreed on peppercorn rent under these lease arrangements.
Where a lease payment beyond a peppercorn rent is required, the Northern Territory government’s position is to make fair and transparent payment for the use of land for Northern Territory government infrastructure, provided the lease payment shall not exceed the unimproved capital value of the land as determined by an impartial and professional valuation expert such as the Australian Valuation Office.
It is also the case that the Northern Territory is prepared to enter into full commercial tenancy arrangements in relation to buildings on Aboriginal land that are owned, controlled, and maintained by a third party; for example, an Aboriginal organisation.
Here lies another key objective we would like to see as a consequence of the new arrangements; that is, that lease payments to traditional owners for the use of their land are reinvested in the economic future of the relevant growth town. As an example, we envisage a situation where government leases housing for government employees rather than renting land and building our own assets. We envisage a situation where government and non-government service agencies rent premises from local companies - potentially joint ventures that have made the business decision to invest in the property market within a town. This is the way it works elsewhere, and the future we see is exactly this for our growth towns. This is the kind of future the land councils want to work towards.
This is not about landowners gouging income from government; it is about recognising the legitimacy of Aboriginal freehold title, creating a property market in our growth towns, and engendering an investment environment. The ability to attract private investment is dependent on the provision of lease arrangements that provide security and certainty for investors. By attracting private investors, we provide improved employment opportunities that, in turn, support home ownership and development in economic enterprises by Indigenous people.
We are acutely aware of the need to have a plan to attract private investors. We have an Indigenous Economic Development Task Force working on that very theme of attracting private businesses to these areas across the Northern Territory. We are doing it through the local implementation plans, with each of these growth towns determining the way they wish to grow. This year, we want to see a series of futures forums in each of these growth towns that encourages private enterprise to come into the space to learn, to network, to understand each other, so there can be opportunities for economic development in these areas.
Government can help lead the way for private investors and demonstrate how property can be secured and appreciate in value on Aboriginal land. In his speech, the member for Nelson noted comments made in the Council of Territory Cooperation by the member for Port Darwin; that is, would the government consider the sale of government assets to local business enterprises and lease back and/or purchase services? The answer is yes, as long as the services being delivered continue to be delivered at appropriate levels. This would be a natural progression of the future we are talking about.
I am also mindful that creation of a property market and availability of jobs, and a property-related income, will also aid home ownership by resident traditional owners in our bush towns - another key long-term objective of our development agenda.
Our government is also acutely aware of the expiry of the five-year leases on prescribed communities in August 2012. The five-year township leases were a measure imposed by the Howard government as a part of the emergency response, a mechanism to address the legacy of previous governments’ inaction and secure government assets in the prescribed communities, including the growth towns. We want to move beyond this regime and develop a range of tenure options to ensure government assets remain secured under some form of tenure beyond this date.
In relation to costs to the Northern Territory of this approach, it is difficult to be absolute at this time for a number of reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, some leases are being negotiated on the basis of peppercorn arrangements and some on the basis on UCV, and this will vary from location to location.
Second, we are only now, as a part of the A Working Future policy, surveying lots in remote towns to calculate the land areas. Without the exact land area, it is difficult to calculate an exact unimproved land value. However, that is the new future before us.
Third, we are talking about an emerging market with methodologies for independent valuation of unimproved capital value evolving over time. It will be expected that agencies absorb lease costs into their capital works and operations budgets. It is important to note that, based on the UCV model, a lease payment would be a small component of the total cost of a new building - often less then 5%.
The member for Nelson has rightly questioned the impact of this Northern Territory policy initiative on shire councils which also have to negotiate land tenure for their assets on Aboriginal land. We think the traditional owners, land councils, the Executive Director of Township Leasing, and the shire councils need to negotiate and work out arrangements that take into account the use of infrastructure for community purposes and the capacity of the shires to make payments, if any. We will assist in this process as required. We are working with the Local Government Association on this land leasing approach. The work we are doing with the land councils in developing a sound and practical policy approach to leasing issues will support the work of the shires in securing their assets.
In concluding, I make reference to the views of our Coordinator-General of Remote Services, Bob Beadman, in regard to land tenure and leasing on Aboriginal land. Mr Beadman rightly notes that land tenure lies at the heart of our economic system. In his second report to government, our Coordinator-General expressed concern about restrictions and encumbrances on subleases of Aboriginal land hindering economic development and business investment in our growth towns. This is one of his central concerns about current arrangements in relation to the Australian government’s Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing. These are concerns that are being discussed and negotiated with the Executive Director, land councils, and the Australian government.
Mr Beadman has also raised the issue of establishing a Northern Territory leasing entity to negotiate and hold township leases in our growth towns and to be responsible for administration of subleasing. This is a matter that will continue to be considered by government, but it is obviously in the Territory’s interests to cut red tape and have a seamless intersection with our other planning and land leasing arrangements across the Northern Territory.
Negotiating secure tenure for government assets and paying, where appropriate, a fair value for the use of land is the right thing to do to engender a real economy in our growth towns, secure government assets, and pay, where appropriate, for the use of Aboriginal land according to community standards that apply elsewhere.
The Northern Territory government’s A Working Future policy is about improving the lives of remote Territorians through economic development. We know this is an enormous challenge, but we have to ensure the foundations we build to grow into the future are firm; a foundation based on equity and a process where all can live with a future that has a bright start in economic development on their land.
Last sittings, I delivered a ministerial statement on A Working Future. Listening to the debate, I was heartened by the responses from many members about A Working Future. Secure land tenure arrangements and investments in our towns are critical to achieving the objectives of A Working Future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion brought forward by the member for Nelson that would have the effect of limiting our approach to leasing. It prefers to continue working with Indigenous landowners, to provide secure land tenure on a case-by-case basis for government assets, private investment, and private home ownership building A Working Future.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on. That is a bit of a private joke. I am not going to talk for very long. It seems like a sensible approach to reducing the expenditure for government, in how we can manage money and put government facilities in communities - whether they are police stations, schools, or whatever.
I must say I firmly agree with the minister who has just spoken; if we are going to normalise communities, we have to move to a model of market-based approaches. While, fundamentally, the motivations behind both of us agreeing on this principle may be different, we need to move that normalised model. As derogatory as normalisation sounds, we need to move to that normalised model where we have the principles of real economies put in place. Schools and police stations, etcetera, should be paying the proper rent.
We had a good discussion on our side of the Chamber about this, and we are 100% behind trying to ensure that Aboriginal communities, particularly in the growth towns, become towns. If you do not support the fundamentals of how the economics of a town operates, we are not going to achieve that. That is important.
On the same basis, looking towards local government, facilities in communities must pay full tote odds in rates. We have not talked for a long time about shires in this place. It needs to be discussed a great deal more now; I know it has in the past, but now it is time to talk about it some more. The unsustainability of shires through their income bases and their rate base is of significant concern for the future of local government across the Northern Territory.
The basis for why I and the Country Liberals take the position of not supporting this motion is that if we want to get to that normalised community, or a proper, new town of the Northern Territory, everything has to be normal and treated equally. Schools, police stations and health centres should be paying rates. They should be paying for services. Everyone should be paying for services. We have to ensure we create an income stream for shires in the communities so they have the money to provide those services.
The current model under which shires operate is a discriminatory model where pastoralists seem to pay all the money, apart from the government top-up, and the equalisation across the services which are being received is not right. The model of local councils with road rates rubbish does not seem to operate in the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support most of what the minister said. We need to move to proper market mechanisms in communities. Peppercorn rentals may save some money in the shorter term, but we have to be fair dinkum and real. If this land is people’s land, as we know it is, rent has to be paid and we have to move to a model of real economics. I am sure the shadow Treasurer or one of my other colleagues might like to have a chat. Thank you, minister, for your comments and thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and the member for Braitling for their contributions. Nothing they have said has changed my mind. I need to make it clear that I understand where the minister is coming from.
However, there are two words there that stood out: one was ‘normalising’ towns and one was ‘leasing’. I fully accept that if government puts a facility on Aboriginal land, ownership of that land should be recognised. One way to recognise it is that you require a lease. A lease is like having a permit to put your facility on that land. When the minister and the member for Braitling talked about ‘normalisation’, the question from my point of view is: if you take that argument to its furthest extent, many of these facilities in these communities would not exist in a normal town.
We have a very small population of Aboriginal people in relation to the Australian population. We have a large number of very small communities. If you put many of those communities into normal Australia - and I am not using that in a derogatory term, I am meaning into parts of outback Queensland, New South Wales, country Victoria - these facilities would not exist. Although we can make these statements that it should be this way and it should be that way, we should not leave out of the equation that, if it should be this way and it should be that way, why should we put those facilities there?
Governments put facilities in places where they get value for money. They build a hospital where they can get the most people in to use that hospital. They put a school where they can get the most children to go to that school. They will try to have a school in a regional area and not many little schools all over the place. They do not have health clinics all over the place. They will have, maybe, a major health centre in a larger town in Victoria. So, if you were to put the argument that we are trying to normalise things, I say in some circumstances, government should pull out facilities.
I put the case of Amanbidji - nice little town. I gather people do not live there all year either. When the Wet Season comes you cannot get out because you have to go through 70 km of black soil plains before you get to the Victoria Highway. On that community of about 70 people, there is a women’s centre, a clinic, an office, sewage ponds, a nice airstrip, a powerhouse, bitumen roads, power lines and there are about, at a guess, 15 to 20 houses. Where in Australia would someone put all those facilities in a town that big? Very unlikely.
I am not trying to be anti-Aboriginal leasing, or say that Aboriginal people should not earn income from leasing - I am very much in support of leasing, especially for private development. However, I see that this is a two-way street. Take the aged-care facility at Bathurst Island for Tiwi people. I can tell you Humpty Doo does not have an aged-care facility. With 20 000 people in the rural area we do not even have a retirement village. However, the government has built one for a population of about 2000 people. Nice facility; I support it wholeheartedly; I probably know some of the people in that aged-care facility.
What you are saying, minister, is that the government should, therefore, pay a rent for a public facility which will look after the people of that island. It seems to me, as I said before: ‘Thank you very much, here is the bill’. That is the feeling I get. I need to make it clear I am not against leasing and I am not against Aboriginal people making money out of leasing. However, we need to be careful that we are not losing our touch with reality. Many of these facilities would not exist in the rest of Australia. They are put there because government believes facilities should go there for the benefit, health, and welfare of Aboriginal people - and I support that.
It seems to me that if I then became an economic rationalist, I would say: ‘If someone is going to charge me for rent for that particular building, as an economic rationalist I do not think it is worth putting it there; it does not make any sense. So, we will either pull out or we will say to the land council it is their facility, they can take it over and run it’. Which I do not think is ideal anyway; I do not think that is the role of the land council.
It is trying to find what I believe is some due recognition that, on one hand, we accept Aboriginal people own the land - no question, not even the slightest question. On the other hand, we have had government assets on Aboriginal land for a long time - a lot of that goes back to mission days - where there has not been a recognition of that. There has been a personal recognition of that, but there has not been a legal recognition. Time has caught up and there is a requirement to ensure facilities have a lease. As you would know, if I build a shed on your place, minister, that shed is yours unless I take out a lease. If I build it there, that is silly me because that is your shed. So, if the government puts infrastructure on Aboriginal land, technically it belongs to the people who own the land. The government, obviously, has to go through this process of leasing, complex as it is, and work through the issues.
People say we are producing a normal town. I might be wrong - and I am happy to be contradicted - but I say, in the majority of cases in Australia, especially in less urbanised parts of Australia, the government owns its own land and facilities. I spoke to David Ross of the Central Land Council about this and his argument was the police do not own Mitchell Street; they have their headquarters in a private building in Mitchell Street. I thought: ‘That is fair enough but it is really the exception rather than the rule’. If you look around Darwin and other places in the Territory, most police stations outside of Aboriginal land are on government-owned land; most schools are on government-owned land; most hospitals are on government-owned land. The reason is because they do not pay a rent or a lease. For all I know, one could argue the movement of the police from Berrimah - which was on government-owned land - to Mitchell Street might have had some political connotations; government trying to fill up a major facility in Darwin to increase the business of the city. Overall, the way I see it, generally speaking, government owns the land it has facilities on and does not pay lease to itself.
I am not saying this is an easy situation. I am not saying the whole issue of leasing is simple; it is certainly not simple. I would like to see township leasing, if it is possible, simply because it simplifies the issue a bit, considering we are starting to put in large subdivisions under SIHIP. Instead of trying to cut it up into little blocks and lease every block, if there was an overall agreement there would be a township there and it was all to be leased as a whole township, it is easier to plan it. It is probably easier to negotiate the leasing arrangements.
That is another issue. Bob Beadman has page after page on leasing. The Council of Territory Cooperation has looked at leasing for quite some time. I have tried to home in on this particular issue. Bob Beadman spoke about it at the Local Government Association meeting I attended in Alice Springs last year. His concerns were that it could be anything up to $10m to $20m. It would be good to hear from the government what sort of annual costs they think they will be paying for having these facilities on Aboriginal land. Will it be an annual cost, or will it be a one-off payment for a 40-year lease? All those issues need to be out there for discussion.
It is an important issue we are debating; it goes to the heart of where the growth towns are, and access to the growth towns. What is going to happen to roads? Presently, 99% of people in some of those more remote communities - I would not say 99%, but say 90% - are Aboriginal motorists. Yet, quite a few of those roads, especially in Arnhem Land, are technically not roads; they are graded stretches of land on private property which require a permit. They are not necessarily gazetted. They come under the Traffic Act. I found out recently that any portion of land in the Northern Territory the public use, you actually have to stick to the road rules. However, the road can be cut off by the owners of that land - and that does happen at times.
In fact, we have a bill coming up – and I am not trying to preempt that actual bill – and some of the discussion we had at the briefing was, if you are going to close a road, normally the Roads and Infrastructure and the councils closes roads. Who closes the top end of Central Arnhem Road if it is private? Is it the traditional owners? Is it Roads and Infrastructure? There is a whole range of issues that need to be sorted out. One of those issues will be whether there will be lease payments on roads. One of the sticking points for some of the local government work is they are having to pay for gravel to fix up a road that really is a private road, but it is the main road to a community.
There is a whole range of issues this leasing debate is raising. There has to be much more work on it. If we are talking about normalising, then a road should be a gazetted road, owned by the councils or owned by Transport and Infrastructure. That is what normalisation of roads is, and I would find that difficult to pay rent on because, without that road, the people of that community do not have any access. I know you said, minister, there might be peppercorn rental for airstrips and boat ramps, and that is important. I also believe it is important it is clear who the people are who should manage those facilities.
To find at Galiwinku that the barge landing was closed because traditional owners had a bit of a difference of opinion with some contractors might sound fair on the surface, but makes it a bit difficult for other people to deliver their goods to that particular barge landing. Then, to find out there might be some charges for people who will deliver freight to that particular barge landing, and other barge landings in Arnhem Land, you get the feeling everything is getting very complicated.
There could be lease arrangements for the barge landing. There could be some extra payments that traditional owners want. Then, the council, of course, would be required to maintain these facilities. So, should it charge for people unloading either cargo from a plane or from a barge landing? There are many issues that really need to be clarified. I would prefer that it is council’s responsibility, just like roads, to look after airstrips and barge landings, and perhaps charge a small amount to maintain those facilities. They become, I suppose, facilities leased by the council and they manage them. Again, they are important issues.
I was pleased to hear there is some discussion about council facilities. My understanding is Nguiu Council pays quite a large lease to the Office of Township Leasing, which is really off the Tiwi Land Council. I know there is not a good relationship between the Tiwi Land Council and the shire council, which is a pity, because I worked for not that particular shire council, but the council there for a long time. I would hate to see the average Tiwi having to pay extra rates to cover a lease for their own shire council, which is, basically, there for the benefit of the people who live on that community.
There are still, in my mind, many issues that need to be sorted out. I know this is not one of those debates where you can sum up because this is my motion, so I cannot necessarily get a comment. I understand where you are coming from, minister, when you said things will be negotiated. I suppose in some areas they will be peppercorn rental; in other areas they may not be. It would be interesting to know which areas are not going to have peppercorn rental on them.
Another area I should raise, of course, is if facilities like the powerhouse, for instance, are going to pay a rental. One could argue that Power and Water is a commercial body, but my understanding is the cost of providing electricity in remote areas is something like six times more than in the urban areas. I was given a figure the other day. Someone had sat down and worked out what the cost per kilowatt is from Darwin to, say, a remote community. The difference is quite alarming. The government provides power to many remote communities. Most of those remote communities do not pay for water, nor do they pay for sewerage. If someone came to me and said Power and Water now has to negotiate a lease to have their powerhouse and their sewage ponds there, I would find that difficult to accept because I do not think it is fair. The provision of electricity to some of those communities is extremely costly, especially when it is not actually paid for. Electricity is but, in the case of water and sewerage which requires electricity, none of that is paid for presently on communities.
It is trying to find, I believe, what I call a fair balance between the theoretical that anyone who has a lease on Aboriginal land should pay some money towards the traditional owners or the land councils, balanced by the reality that some of these facilities are subsidised heavily, as in the case of Power and Water, or simply would not be in that community if you took one of these communities into another part of Australia. They are there and they should be there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the last person to say we should not have those facilities in those communities. However, when we debate this issue, we need to look at the bigger picture, not so much at the little picture.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN ASSAULTS) BILL
(Serial 113)
(Serial 113)
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have carriage of this debate in the absence of the Attorney-General, so I hope I do it justice in the briefings I have had on this matter and the fact that I realise it was the former shadow Attorney-General, the former member for Araluen, who introduced this legislation. I am not sure whether she is listening tonight; she probably has better things to do than listen to parliamentary debates. She may well be, so we wish her all the best. I know she will probably disagree with the arguments I put forward.
Starting with the former shadow, Jodeen Carney’s, remarks on 11 August 2010 in relation to this bill, she stated the rationale of opposition:
- We say the time has come where it is no longer acceptable for a sentence to be reduced if it is dealt with summarily; in a lower court. We say because a matter is dealt with summarily in the lower court does not mean the offender should be subject to a different sentence. We say those days are gone, given the high rates of assaults in the Northern Territory; for matters to be dealt with summarily should no longer be an incentive.
The proposition put forward by the opposition, and the former shadow in particular, is there is a regime of sentencing, as I understand it, within what I call the Magistrates Court - others call it the CSJ - for various assaults which is less than what the maximum sentence in the Supreme Court is. I have a little table here. I have a prepared speech as well, but the table has helped me understand the proposition being put forward with this bill.
For aggravated assault in the Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence under the current regime is two years; under the Supreme Court, the maximum sentence is five years. For assaulting police, in the Magistrates Court the maximum sentence is two years; in the Supreme Court, five years. Assaulting police occasioning harm - I assume that is what this abbreviation means – the sentence is three years in the Magistrates Court and seven years in the Supreme Court.
The proposition put forward by the opposition is that for the first two categories I mentioned - aggravated assault and assaulting police - the maximum sentence in the Magistrates Court should go from two years to five years, which is in line with the maximum sentence in the Supreme Court. Interestingly, for assaulting police occasioning harm, the sentence is five years under the opposition’s proposal but is seven years in the Supreme Court. I do not know whether that is an error or there is a rationale behind that. Possibly the member for Port Darwin could explain that in his wrapping up. That is the basic premise as I understand it.
Turning back to what the then member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, said, she was putting forward the proposition that, as I understand it - and I might stand corrected - the Magistrates Court should have the same capacity of sentencing maximum sentences as the Supreme Court. Furthermore, she argued she believed this would free up the Supreme Court; that there were many people opting to have the matter heard within the Magistrates Court for what they hoped would be a lesser sentence. She put forward the proposition of why they should get a lesser sentence. The current system promotes a lesser sentence, basically allowing the magistrate to impose a sentence that was commensurate with what could be imposed in the Supreme Court. Thus, on the premise it would also free up the Supreme Court in matters being heard by them.
That premise is rejected by government. We do not believe that is the case. Turning back to the former member for Araluen’s speech, in relation to this she said:
- I have had discussions with senior members of the legal profession. Like any group, some will agree and some will oppose.
She believed her view was the majority view within the legal profession. There is no unanimity of view here in the legal profession. Indeed, the advice and the view I have had does not support the proposition put forward by the member for Araluen. I have a prepared speech, but I wanted to try to demonstrate that I have done some research here. I have looked at what the former member for Araluen has said. I wanted to understand what was said.
In summing up the government’s position, we believe under the current system, if a matter is serious enough to warrant a heavier sentence, the magistrate will then refer the matter on to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the advice I have is the magistrate can do that almost to the end of the proceedings within the Magistrates Court.
Our belief is that there would be an incentive - almost a perverse incentive - on the behalf of the defendants to say: ‘I could get this in the Magistrates Court, but if I was to pull it in front of a jury, I might get less. The prosecution has to get 12 jury people to agree on a sentence. I have a very good QC’ - no name, no pack drill. There are a few around town who are very good with a jury. ‘I will really lash out and get so and so’. I am trying hard not to suggest who those so and so’s might be. ‘So and so will plead my case before a jury. He will grill those witnesses. We will find inconsistencies in the stories and, hopefully, even if I am found guilty, there will be a fair degree of doubt there, and there is a chance I will get a lesser sentence in the Supreme Court than the Magistrates Court’. That is, essentially, why government will be opposing this bill.
I will turn to the prepared speech I have on this particular issue on behalf of the Attorney-General:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support the bill. The bill proposes to extend the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the CSJ, for the offences of aggravated assault, assault police, and assault police causing harm.
The bill proposes to amend sections 188, 189A(1) and 189A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to remove the restriction on the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for those offences and, instead, allow magistrates to sentence to the full statutory penalty of five years for aggravated assault and assault police. It appears the intention of the bill is also to empower the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to impose a penalty of up to five years imprisonment for the offence of assaulting police causing harm.
A penalty up to the statutory limit of seven years could not be imposed, as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction has a jurisdictional limit of sentencing of five years imprisonment. It looks as though I have answered my own question there, member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: I enjoyed it when you were making it up as you went along.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, it seems as though it is settled in that particular paragraph.
The situation at present is that a magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction can impose a sentence of up to two years imprisonment for a section 188(2), Aggravated assault, and section 189A(1) Assault police, and up to three years of imprisonment for section 189A(2)(a), Assault police causing harm.
When sections 121A, 122A, and 131A of the Justice Act are read together, a regime is created in which some indictable matters, including those under discussion, can be heard in either the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Supreme Court. This is to enable the efficient use of resources where the indictable matters are of such a nature they do not need the extra resources and power of the Supreme Court to be employed. The purpose of having the jurisdictional limit of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in these matters is to provide an incentive for accused persons to have their matters heard in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction rather than the more expensive and time-consuming Supreme Court.
Obviously, there is a judgment call on the part of the defence team in whether that matter will be referred to the Supreme Court. So, it is not just about the expense and time; it is about a matter of judgment whether that matter can be dealt with within the ambit of the Magistrates Court, and is not of sufficient seriousness that needs to be referred on to the Supreme Court.
When introduced by the former member for Araluen, she stated the effect of bill was to free up the Supreme Court by ensuring magistrates have the ability to impose a greater length of imprisonment on offenders who appear before them. It would appear this is just simply not the case. Removing jurisdictional limit could remove the incentive, as I have alluded to before. This could possibly mean more aggravated assault and assault police matters moving to the Supreme Court, with consequent increase in the Supreme Court workload, and an increase in the cost and time taken for these matters to reach conclusion. This is because more time is needed and more resources are used when matters proceed to conclusion in the Supreme Court, rather than the CSJ. Jury trials are expensive and time-consuming.
All other Australian jurisdictions have a similar sentencing regime to this, with the incentive to have matters heard in the lower courts, related to the lower jurisdictional sentencing limit in the lower courts. All other jurisdictions see the cost and time savings in having a choice of court. When a magistrate sentences for aggravated assault, the magistrate knows the maximum statutory penalty is five years, and this maximum sentence of imprisonment is for the very worst examples of the offence. An offence that is not serious will receive a ...
Mr Elferink: Commensurate?
Dr BURNS: … a lesser sentence …
Mr Elferink: A not so big one.
Dr BURNS: Yes, okay. The magistrate knows he or she is able to sentence up to two years imprisonment. If the appropriate sentence should be more than two years, then the matter must be removed to the Supreme Court.
When the magistrate sentences for an assault police causing harm, the magistrate knows that the maximum statutory penalty is seven years, and this maximum sentence of imprisonment is reserved for the very worst example of the offence. An offence that is not as serious as the very worst will receive a lesser sentence - a proportionately lesser sentence is what I was going to say, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: That is all right. I know what you mean.
Dr BURNS: You know what I mean? I was trying to talk about a commensurate …
Mr Elferink: Whoo!
Dr BURNS: … lesser sentence. I got my lips around it; there you go. It is late on General Business Day.
The magistrate knows he or she is able to sentence up to three years imprisonment for that offence but, if the appropriate sentence should be more than three years, then the matter must be removed to the Supreme Court. Thus, if that magistrate is of the opinion that the permissible maximum sentence in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction may be too low, then that magistrate will send the matter to the Supreme Court where a higher sentence is available. This is the main point that needs to be heeded and one of the main reasons why we do not support this bill. Magistrates will refer matters to the Supreme Court if a harsher sentence is needed, so this bill, we believe, is entirely unnecessary.
This referral to the Supreme Court can be done at any stage of proceedings but, generally, the practice is that, in appropriate cases, the magistrate will, in cases where there is a plea of guilty, ascertain what the alleged prosecution facts are and then decide whether the matter should be determined in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.
Where there is a plea of not guilty, the magistrate can, at any stage, convert a summary hearing into a preliminary examination if it appears that the matter is too serious or difficult to be dealt with summarily.
This bill, if passed, will merely result in a risk that, with the sentencing power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court being basically the same, one of the incentives to have the matter dealt with before a magistrate would be gone, and defendants might prefer to ‘take their chances’ before a jury, with increased costs for no benefit. It is for these reasons that government cannot support the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was with some amusement that I listened to the minister struggle his way through this. I can well understand he has had to struggle with this, because I suspect this was thrown in his lap very recently. I commend the minister on making the effort to get his head around the issue before coming into this Chamber.
However, he has left us with a Gordian Knot in our benchmark for now requiring legislation dealing with matters justice passing through this House. It appears if you do not have the unanimity of view from the legal profession, this government will not proceed with a bill before this House. The legal profession is the only profession I am aware of where unanimity of view is not only impossible but, where you have three lawyers in a room, you will have four diametrically opposed opinions on any issue. So, as a benchmark it is unrealistic and ambitious, to say the least.
I listened also to the minister’s reflections on the nature of the types of villains which find their way into the Supreme Court armed with silks and barristers who are eloquent of tongue and quick of mind when, in actual fact, the vast majority of the cases to which we refer - the aggravated assaults – refer to people who are invariably represented by, sadly - and this is no reflection on law school graduates - but a law school graduate often working for the first one or two years of their career for a legal aid commissioner who has 17 files on the go and who looks like he slept in his shirt the night before. There are no rafts of silks protecting the vast majority of people who are arrested and face trial for matters of aggravated assault and assaults of police officers contemplated by this legislative instrument, or this bill, before the House.
I am also curious about the other argument that prosecutorial convenience is the fundamental rationale for getting these matters dealt with in the lower courts. Indeed, the minister talked about prosecutorial convenience; the value, if you like, of running Supreme Court trials and those sorts of things in an effort to get these particular villains dealt with more rapidly by the lower courts. In fact, he said it is an incentive. That is the complaint of the former shadow Attorney-General and, indeed, my complaint. When I was encouraged to adopt this bill, like all adoptive fathers, I embraced this as my own child, whilst it was given its natural birth by my predecessor …
Mr Henderson: What on earth is he talking about?
Mr ELFERINK: I am speaking metaphorically ...
Ms Scrymgour: Maybe you should have said that at the start.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, perhaps I should have. I will pick up on the interjection and accept the critique - metaphorically speaking.
The point is that this is a government which will tell Territorians it is going to be tough on crime. During Question Time today, we heard the government talk about its concerns about the sentencing regime; how public expectation has not been met, not only in relation to the particular matter of Mr Sargent, but more broadly in relation to sentencing practices.
I find it curious that, on the very same sitting day, a vehicle by which lower courts will be able to impose stiffer penalties for the very crimes we find so repugnant, and that Mr Sargent was a victim of - mind you, I suspect the offender was charged with more serious offences in this instance - that we now have an argument from government which is the very opposite of the argument they proposed during Question Time today: that it is easier and more convenient to offer a lower sentence to people in the lower courts to encourage them to accept the sentencing practices of the lower courts. But ‘Hark’, says the minister, ‘if a magistrate feels it warrants a more serious sentencing contemplation it can be flicked off at the higher courts’.
There is no need to go to the higher court. If a magistrate comes to the conclusion that a more serious penalty is required, then a magistrate is well enough versed in the law surrounding sentencing practices to come to a result which would be reflective of what would occur in the Supreme Court in any instance. Consequently, the arguments of the government do not hold water and are inconsistent with their ‘tough on crime’ stance, which they broadcast to Territorians during their earlier debates in this House.
The fact is in the vast majority of the cases which end up in the lower courts and are accepted, you have those instances where there is a little conversation that occurs between the magistrate and the defence council. The magistrate asks: ‘Is your client prepared to have this matter heard in the lower court?’ The lawyer instantly stands up and says ‘absolutely’, because they know there will be a cap on the sentence in the process. If a magistrate is asking if the client is prepared to have the matter heard in the lower court, he already knows he is going to be capped in the sentence he can dish out. There is no comfort in Territorians knowing their lower courts are not going to dish out the penalties contemplated by this House for aggravated assaults in particular.
Also, the trial process as described would often not manifest itself in the Supreme Court. The acting Attorney-General said the issue of guilt is determined in lower courts, and the higher courts then determines sentence if the sentence warrants it. The truth is, in most cases of aggravated assault before the court, the issue of guilt is not an issue which is argued in practical terms. Yes, occasionally it goes to a hearing in the lower courts as to whether the person is guilty but, in the vast majority of instances, the evidence is so overwhelming in the first instance - including things like admissions from the offender as in the vast majority of cases - the offender is already in a position where they are pleading guilty. Without having looked at the statistics, I can tell you from personal experience the vast majority of aggravated assaults are guilty pleas. So, it is just a reward to an offender to stay in the lower courts. Those are exactly the terms in which the acting Attorney-General described it: it is a reward. You are rewarded for staying in the lower courts and not making our justice system any more complicated.
Well, this is about protecting Territorians and enabling the lower courts to introduce the penalties which, we all agree in this House, need to be stiffer and stronger, and need to send a resonating and strong message out to villains and potential victims – namely, the citizens of this Territory - that a lower court is capable of putting you in gaol for more than two years, in the case of an aggravated assault, and for as much as five years.
I am concerned that the government in Question Time says one thing and, in the late hours of the evening during General Business Day, comes in and says something that is diametrically opposed to their earlier position.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to take up any more time on this issue; the government has made its position clear. I express my disappointment, the disappointment of the former shadow Attorney-General, and the disappointment of my colleagues in the government’s bloody-mindedness on this issue.
I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion negatived.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT (SMOKE ALARMS) BILL
(Serial 130)
(Serial 130)
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, in principle, we absolutely agree with what the opposition is trying to do in ensuring that mandatory smoke alarms are fitted to residential buildings built post-1997, and commend the member for bringing this bill before the House as a signal that this is a very serious issue and it certainly does need to come into play.
However, in the construct of this bill and where we are at, we cannot support the bill in its current form. We will be looking to provide for mandatory alarms post-1997 before the middle of the year. I will recognise the opposition in bringing that forward at the time. I will go through the reasons why we cannot support the bill as it is constructed.
I do not want to dwell on it because it is all too close to home and has been very traumatic. I urge members in any consideration of debate on this today to avoid making specific reference to recent events because people are still grieving, and do not need guilt piled upon grief in discussing this particular bill tonight. It is pretty close to home to me, and we need to step up to the plate, but not in this particular manner.
We are moving to ensure pre-1997 houses in the Territory are fitted with smoke alarms. As part of this initiative, we conducted extensive public consultation. It is not just a case of mandating this; there are many issues to consider. I can also say the opposition’s approach will not provide smoke alarms for all pre-1997 buildings in the Territory - that is our main problem with this bill - and our legislation will.
The opposition’s bill will only cover those buildings in declared building areas. Whilst there are major centres like Darwin, Palmerston, and Alice Springs in declared building areas, significant population centres like Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt are not. Most minor communities in the Territory are also outside declared building areas. That is one of the main reasons why we cannot support this legislation.
I am advised that means there is a significant number of residential buildings in the Territory which are outside declared building areas. That means a substantial number of dwellings across the Territory would fall outside the ambit of the opposition’s proposal. Even so, the owners of these pre-1997 residential buildings would still be liable for a $798 fine under the opposition’s plan.
We will also turn to the classifications of residences that would and would not be affected by the opposition’s bill. The opposition’s bill requires Class 1A and 2 residential buildings constructed before 1997 to be fitted with smoke alarms but, for some reason, the bill does not require Class 1B residential buildings to be fitted with smoke alarms. Class 1B buildings are structures including boarding houses, guest houses, or hostels – and that is a significant omission.
There are also no requirements in the opposition bill for caravans which are not rented or permanently sited at caravan parks to be fitted with alarms. This means caravans leased for the short term or sited away from van parks - for example, on a residential block - will not need smoke alarms. Under existing legislation, rented and permanently sited vans at van parks must have smoke alarms fitted.
The government intends to ensure that all vans, such as all pre-1997 dwellings, will join the majority of other caravans and residential dwellings and be fitted with smoke alarms. Government wants to cover all pre-1997 residential buildings in the Northern Territory, regardless of where they are located. That means providing protection for people living in structures such as boarding houses and guest houses.
Of course, it is vitally important we also consider the type of smoke alarms that might be used to protect Territorians. There is significant debate occurring on this at the moment. The government is seriously considering the use of photo-electric alarms with built-in lithium long-life batteries; the opposition is not. The government is considering that, as a minimum standard, pre-1997 dwellings must be fitted with alarms powered by 10-year lithium batteries. The benefits of alarms fitted with lithium batteries with a 10-year life are obvious. They do not present the risk of cheap batteries failing; it is set and forget. There is less maintenance and the battery is built-in and, therefore, cannot be removed to power other devices, therefore the smoke alarm is less likely to be tampered with. Smoke alarms with 10-year lithium batteries offer the prospect of enhanced safety.
I know that also needs to be traded off in the increased cost of those batteries. The opposition is proposing the nine volt cheaper battery alarms. I can understand why they may well do so in encouraging compliance, but that also needs to be considered alongside effectiveness and what we are trying to do here. The fact is, the price of smoke alarms fitted with a 10-year lithium battery has reduced dramatically in recent years and is a more robust and effective alarm.
We intend that domestic dwellings in the Northern Territory must, in the future, have a smoke alarm fitted at the point of sale. Once this is mandated, the reality is insurers will become focused on the need for dwellings to be fitted with smoke alarms. I do not think there is any doubt that once insurance companies become involved the level of compliance is certain to improve dramatically.
The opposition bill contains no explanation about how they intend monitoring whether domestic dwellings have smoke alarms fitted, but the bill makes it clear that the homeowners who do not have smoke alarms will be liable to a $798 fine. This is another issue we have with this particular bill. As a matter of course, I am extremely reluctant to authorise random inspections of citizens’ homes. A person’s home is their castle, and I cannot think of any other scenario, unless a homeowner agrees, that an authorised agent of government can enter into a citizen’s home to carry out an inspection for anything where the homeowner is liable to a fine for non-compliance. Police need a warrant issued by a court to enter someone’s property and, as a matter of course, I find it very difficult to support legislation that authorises random inspections of citizens’ homes. I can understand, in a simple way, why that is in the bill but, as a practical enforcement measure, I do not see how it would work. If I did not have smoke alarms fitted to my home, I would not authorise the inspector to come into my home and whack me with a fine. I do not see how this aids compliance with the obvious policy intent the opposition has for this particular bill.
We have consulted significantly with the real estate industry, the legal fraternity, and with Fire and Emergency Services on this legislation. As I said, we will have this issue resolved by the middle of this year. The time has come for the Northern Territory to step up to the plate, to ensure we do everything we can to protect life and property from house fires, no matter how they occur.
I applaud the opposition for bringing the intent of the bill to this House but, as I said earlier in debate, we subject all legislation that comes before us to a rigorous Cabinet scrutiny process. Through those processes there are significant areas of this bill that miss the point. I am not saying that it in any critical fashion at all. It certainly does not go as far as we intend to go in protecting all citizens in residential dwellings wherever they might live in the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for bringing this legislation before the House today. As I have been able to explain, in the spirit of good faith, we are unable to support it as it currently stands. We will be introducing legislation to resolve this issue and have that passed by the middle of the year. At that time, I will certainly make reference to the opposition’s support and encouragement of the government to enact legislation to effect what the opposition is trying to effect today. However, for the reasons outlined we cannot support the bill.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, what I want to point out - and the Chief Minister danced around it a little - is there has been a recent, unfortunate, tragic highlighting of the need to do something more in relation to smoke alarms. The Chief Minister danced around it, and rightly so.
What we are saying is it is time to take some action and put some steps in place to mandate for this. It is a first step allowing for the cheaper, more readily available fire alarms to be compulsorily put into houses. It is a cheap first step, and it is an important first step. Our fire services have talked of it. We probably cannot afford to wait until the middle of the year as the Chief Minister has indicated. The rate at which this government talks about achieving fast or rapid responses, immediately rolling something out, tends to normally mean about two years. That is not good enough.
If the Chief Minister was serious, he would have brought into this House his own legislation. Some of the issues the Chief Minister raised are correct in regard to determining or accessing a person’s private residence as to whether they are compliant or not. But guess what, Chief Minister? You will have the same legislative problem when it comes to your bill - whenever we see it. So, come out, support the intent, and support this bill. Let us take a first step together in protecting Territorians’ lives and work through this together. Do not bury your head in the sand any more and say: ‘We are going to bring a bill out in six months time’. Unfortunately, you have a very pathetic track record of bringing further bills out in that six months time. It normally means we are not even going to see it in 12 months time. That is not good enough; it is time to take some action. This may be a small step, it may have some flaws, but I tell you, you have produced a lot of bills on your side that have had stacks of flaws, but you still brought them into this House. Let us take a step together for the safety of Territorians.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw the government’s attention to the report to the Legislative Assembly, dated 11 August 2009 and signed by the member for Karama, Delia Lawrie. I quote from the letter attached to it, in paragraph 3:
- The Deputy Coroner made the following recommendation:
- That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
That report from the Deputy Coroner is dated 16 December 2008. It is now February 2011. There was only one recommendation from the Deputy Coroner:
- That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
Paragraph 4 of the accompanying letter from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General said:
- A copy of the Coronial Findings was provided to the Chief Executive Officer of the DPI, Mr Richard Hancock on 22 June 2009, in accordance with section 46A(1) of the Act.
It went on to say:
- A written response was received from Mr Hancock, dated 16 July 2009 …
Which is Attachment B to the letter.
- … as required by section 46B(1) of the Act, advising that the agency has prepared and circulated a Cabinet submission to the relevant agencies for comment, the implications of which it anticipates Cabinet will consider in the near future.
The last paragraph said:
- I am satisfied that the DPI is taking steps to address the recommendation of the Deputy Coroner.
That was August 2009 and, in excess of 18 months later, we still do not see anything. The consequences of delays in this are only too obvious to all of us in this House.
We had situations where the government introduced pool fencing and said: ‘This is a great idea; it is going to save lives’. Yes, pool fencing is, to a degree, a good thing in many circumstances; it has, no doubt, saved lives. There are requirements for some properties to have pool fences and some properties not to have pool fences. There are degrees of where we put in pool fencing. I am suggesting to the government there could be degrees where we could make smoke alarms compulsory in all houses.
I note the member for Wanguri, in response to this, spoke about Class 1A and 2 houses, but we did not talk about Class 1B. I am sure, if the member for Wanguri was amenable to bringing in the odd amendment to this very important private member’s bill on this very important issue - I am not saying it is the case, but it appears, when the Chief Minister said the government will introduce legislation, perhaps in June, it might have been in response to this private member’s bill, given that it is about six months after. I would think, in instances such as this, where you have a good recommendation from the Deputy Coroner, that the government might have acted on it a little quicker than it did.
In reply, the Chief Minister said there has been extensive public consultation. I certainly hope so. In my inquiries, I have not found that to be the case. I am sure the Chief Minister would be able to explain that better if he had had a little more time to do so. He also said we are looking at $798 fines for people who do not fit smoke alarms. That is true; it is certainly a good incentive to put smoke alarms in premises. He went on to say he does not know of anything or anyone who has the ability to walk into premises and check, and he did not want to impose that upon the community. I will quote from the Fire and Emergency Act, section 25(1):
- (1) For the purpose of hazard reduction, the Director or an authorised person may enter a place as follows:
- (a) at any time to determine if a law for the prevention of fire or the protection of life or property from danger arising from fire is being complied with;
- (b) if the place is in an emergency response area and the Director or authorised person reasonably believes that a hazard in relation to a fire exists in relation to the place - at any time to conduct a strategic burn-off to eliminate …
We are not really worried about people’s back yards. However, it is section 25(1)(a) we refer to. It is very clear a person or an authorised person, at any time, can enter to determine a law for the prevention of fire. The compulsory fitting of a smoke alarm actually becomes an issue here and comes under this particular subsection. There are powers for people to do this already. It is with that in mind we continually hear from the government that there are things which are in place that prevent people from doing things when, in fact, there are the rules and the laws there to give the required people the access they need to go in and check this.
If we say we are going to make it compulsory, I recommend - and I think I did in my previous comments on this bill - that you would ask that people put in hard-wired smoke alarms. To do that, there is a fairly large degree of expense to go back to the actual cost of fitting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I could interrupt you. In accordance with Standing Order 41A(b), it is 9 pm and you have some 22 or 23 minutes remaining. Is it your intention, because we would need to …
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will complete my comments at a later time. There are a few more issues I would really like to discuss and I would rather not just rush it.
Madam SPEAKER: Certainly. You will have that matter again in the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this month is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, an initiative of Ovarian Cancer Australia. Today is Teal Ribbon Day.
One in 77 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in their lifetime. While the risk of ovarian cancer increases with age, the fact is the majority of Australian women do not know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. In a tribute to women diagnosed with this disease, Teal Ribbon Day is intended to create a national awareness campaign to educate women on the symptoms of ovarian cancer. I encourage all Northern Territory women and their families to actively consider their own health prevention measures and seek medical advice if any symptoms are detected. I support this initiative by Ovarian Cancer Australia and very much thank the members from both sides of the House for wearing a teal ribbon today.
I continue in relation to some issues raised and comments made by the member for Araluen with regard to child protection and the Children’s Commissioner. The member for Araluen stated publicly today in the media that the Children’s Commissioner is not independent because he is under the CEO of the department of Health. This is far from the truth.
The Care and Protection of Children Act provides for the Office of Children’s Commissioner, and that position commenced in 2008. At the time, the Minister for Child Protection, Hon Marion Scrymgour, made a statement with regard to the office of the Children’s Commissioner:
- This is a statutory, independent role, equipped to keep a public eye out for the interests of children who have had contact with the child protection system and to ensure that services, systems, and policies serve them well.
The Children’s Commissioner reports to the Legislative Assembly through the Minister for Child Protection, and prepares an annual report relating to his statutory function. The Children’s Commissioner does not come under the CEO of the department of Health; the CEO cannot direct the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner is an independent person who examines all of the complaints made to him with regard to provision for child protection.
I was disappointed in the member for Araluen when she misled the public by putting this statement through the media. I am also disappointed the media, the ABC, did not seek an explanation to find out about the position of the Children's Commissioner, and published the misleading information provided by the member for Araluen.
In addition to that, I heard with great interest the member for Araluen make a statement yesterday and today about a situation in Alice Springs. Like the members opposite, I know very well that there are problems in Alice Springs. In fact, a few years ago there were serious problems in Casuarina. The difference between me and the member for Araluen is, while there were problems in Casuarina, instead of going out and bagging Casuarina, I chose to work with police, with Children’s Services, with my colleagues on this side of the House, in order to resolve the issues at Casuarina. We all remember the Casuarina gang. Now, there is no Casuarina gang. I worked very closely with the police and all the services for children, and we managed to resolve the situation.
I am very alarmed that the member for Araluen said that she knew young girls and young children were prostituting themselves in Alice Springs. If you are aware of child abuse, or a young child prostituting themselves, or someone exploiting a child, it is a mandatory obligation to report this to the police or to my department. To date, my department has not received any official notification, either from the member for Araluen or other people, about the situation. The police will investigate these allegations. The reality is we - not as politicians, but as human beings - if we realise a child is procuring themselves, or someone is procuring a child, we should report it immediately to the police. It is a moral obligation of all of us.
I know the members opposite are very anxious about Alice Springs, and I understand that; I was in the same position. However, we have to be very careful how we address this issue of young people in Alice Springs late at night, and the allegation of them committing crimes. I have already read some comments in the media about people who are disillusioned with the campaign; they do not hesitate to call it racist. We have to be very careful how we divide the line. The last thing we need now in Alice Springs, or any other place in the Territory, is to convert the Territory from a very tolerant place to divide society across racial lines when blacks and whites have been friends for 50, 60, 100 years.
Not only are there bitter complaints about it but we now have this campaign they threaten to put on national television. Just think what you are going to do about your own town; how your town is going to be portrayed by the media. They cannot wait for an opportunity to portray this rural and remote town as a centre of crime to justify some issues that have been portrayed very badly down south. I do not think the Saturday article on Alice Springs was fair for Alice Springs. It was a one-sided article which portrayed all the bad things that happen in Alice Springs. My understanding is - and I heard comments from people – the person who wrote the article, Nicholas Rothwell, did not bother to speak to a variety of people in Alice Springs to get different opinions. Instead, he quoted all the bad things that happen in Alice Springs.
I am prepared to work with members from Alice Springs. There are child protection issues, and we have to address the problem together. Let us put politics aside. Let us find out the future of Alice Springs because, after all, Alice Springs is still in the Territory. People there deserve to have a peaceful life. If we have to address the issue of children, we have to address it. We have to be very careful how we deal with Alice Springs because it is not only that you are bagging your own town, but how do you think I am going to employ nurses and doctors in a place you admit is not a good place to bring up a family, or not a safe place to go out at night?
In the past 10 years that I have been a member of this parliament, I have been to Alice Springs many times. I have walked many times from the centre of Alice Springs to the Crowne Plaza or to Lasseters Casino or Alice on Todd late at night. I had people in Alice Springs being surprised that I walked at night by myself. I did not feel threatened. I did not have any problem with approaches to me or anyone committing an offence against me. I felt very comfortable. There are other places in Australia I would not walk at night like Northbridge in Perth, but I felt very safe in Alice Springs.
I understand there are problems, but we have to be very conscious of how we address these problems. Do not think that Darwin is immune. We have some places around Darwin which can sometimes be very interesting. Mitchell Street late at night or early in the morning can be a very interesting place. Most of the problems there are not caused by Indigenous people. They are caused by mainstream white people who have had too much to drink, or have taken some funny things before they go there to drink.
Let us work together to resolve the issue of Alice Springs.
I call upon every member of the House: if you realise a child is abused, a child is prostituted, or a child is in danger of harm, you have an obligation - not only moral, but legal - to report that to the police and to my department.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have a couple of things I would like to talk about. The first is to provide my sincere thanks to one of the ministers. In this place, we often get at each other’s throats. I was pretty much hung out to dry this morning by the Chief Minister, but welcomed his support for legislation this evening, which I thought was terrific and shows that both sides can work together from time to time.
In this case, I refer to Dr Burns, the minister for Public and Affordable Housing. I wrote to him because of a horrific situation in regard to a young man who, admittedly, had a colourful history. The sad thing was that he was given custody of his two young children by the courts due to a marriage breakdown. His partner, at the time, had gone interstate. He was left with these two young children to care for, one with Down Syndrome. The horrible thing was that this young family was living in a shipping container which was sitting in someone’s back yard in Palmerston. Quite frankly, not a fantastic place in which to raise anyone, let alone children, in the build-up, with no air-conditioning, no nothing - living in a shipping container.
Unfortunately, Territory Housing told them they were on the waiting list, but it could take 18 months or more to find a home. I thought that the circumstances were rather tragic and I wrote to the minister. To his credit, before too long - it was a very quick time period - they had organised a non-government organisation, Somerville Community Services, to step in and provide emergency accommodation for this young family until Territory Housing can provide adequate housing. It was good to see the minister can take action, particularly when horrific circumstances are raised and brought to his attention.
The second thing I wanted to speak to you about is that I have had a number of complaints about the lights on the road in the new Johnston subdivision. I am talking more specifically about Lambrick Avenue. I will read out one of the e-mails - and I have had quite a few complaints about it. The context of the complaints is the fact that government has pushed everyone to be environmentally friendly and that we should turn our lights off, yet we have all these new lights out there burning 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I even took it up with Power and Water and was told they were doing testing on the lights and, until the testing and the development was complete, the lights had to stay on. I am not sure how that works. If you have an electrical fault in your home and an electrician comes around, they do not have to leave things running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to find fault.
In this particular case, the e-mail says:
- On Lambrick Avenue, where the new entrance to the suburb of Johnston has been created, a total of 16 street lights, including new ones mounted on high towers, have been burning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week since they were installed. I have taken the following action to try and get the situation addressed.
… I was given a job number 24049. No action taken.
Both operators were very courteous and professional. No action taken.
I go along this stretch of road eight times a day and you can have some appreciation for my frustration that nothing has been done.
I am left with the belief that there is a major problem with the installation of these lights and Power and Water are unable to fix the problem.
It finishes off with:
- The government and Power and Water encourage us mere citizens to conserve the use of our electricity and water but ignore issues … which have been brought to their attention. I would be very interested to find out the cost associated with the unnecessary operation of these lights over this very protracted period.
When the stimulus package was being debated in this House during 2009, the Territory government made a commitment that stimulus money committed for Building the Education Revolution would be used to build cyclone shelters where possible. A question I have for minister Burns is: how many new cyclone shelters resulted from the BER program; where are they; and how many extra people will they accommodate?
I have had any number of complaints about the Ochre Card system which we now have operating in the Northern Territory - not so much about the intent of the Ochre Card but the processes involved. There would not be a person in this room who would suggest we should not be doing all we can to protect children in our communities. I have raised before regarding the H endorsement of bus drivers where they need an Ochre Card application - $50 to the police - and also the H endorsement. It seems to be a double up; they are both police checks to enable them to do their job.
Similarly, I have had complaints from people who are concerned that time is running out. I believe 1 March is when people are supposed to have the Ochre Cards. I have knowledge that at the Katherine High School there is only one teacher so far who has the Ochre Card. The advice is they are running about three months behind schedule. I would like to know what government is doing to cover this time period if people are supposed to have these Ochre Cards by 1 March and the process is running three months behind schedule. Is there any frame in place at the moment to deal with that? Is there going to be some kind of amendment, or some extension in the time period given?
The other point on the Ochre Card is there seems to be many concerns with the need for people to have these cards; sometimes a second card, and even a third card. One story I was told - and correct me if I am wrong, but it is the information I have been given - is that if a parent of a child who goes to school decides to go on an interstate trip with the school, as most schools do every year, not only do the parents need the Ochre Card in the Northern Territory, they also need to have the equivalent in each of the states they visit. So, if they do a tour from Darwin to Canberra to Melbourne and back to Darwin, from my information it appears they would need the equivalent to the Ochre Card in the ACT and Victoria, and the one here in the Northern Territory. That is $50 a time. It is quite remarkable to think how complicated this system can become.
No one is against what the Ochre Card is trying to achieve, that is, to protect children. But, surely to goodness, we can streamline the processes involved. Why do people need an Ochre Card and another police check for a job when they are exactly the same thing? I would really like some clarification on where we are going to go with that in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of other things but time is upon me. I will pass on to the next person.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about a holiday. It seems as if it was an eternity ago that I was on a holiday, but it was a very good holiday. My wife and I decided we would be selfish and take the holiday together - so none of the kids were invited. We went to London. Heading to London gave me some opportunities to explore. I thought one of those opportunities would definitely relate to Westminster - the parliament and the origins of the Westminster system.
I thank Madam Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard MLA, who started to advise me on how to go about seeing and learning about Westminster. I thank Mr Ian McNeill, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and Jane Gunner, Executive Secretary to the Clerk, who made the connections for me with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom. It was a wonderful connection.
They set the communication up for me, and I followed up and was put in touch with a wonderful young British lady, Rachael Cox, the Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom, who organised the tour of Westminster for me and my wife. We were received with a very warm welcome. It was an incredible opportunity to participate in a tour of Westminster that took you into all the areas of the building with a sensational guide who provided the history and the culture of the place. We enjoyed it immensely.
The other thing that came about from Madam Speaker’s advice was to make contact with a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That turned out to be a very informative visit. I met Mr Adrian Saunders MP, the member from Devon. He is a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and the Vice Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom, Branch Executive Committee. Mr Saunders made me feel very welcome and set up a meeting in the members’ lobby. I was very interested to discuss a number of issues in relation to arts and museums. We talked at length about the British policy for public art and also what we are moving into very much so in the Northern Territory; that is, looking at philanthropy to support government funding to develop our arts and museums sector.
In essence, I took the Building Our Museum and Art Galleries consultation with me on the road. I made an oral presentation for the member and we discussed at length ways the Territory could learn lessons form the British, looking at good policy and developing policy. Mr Saunders was very informative and a very experienced parliamentarian.
From that meeting, he suggested that Question Time might be the next step in the tour. I was very fortunate to attend Question Time at Westminster. It was an interesting day we turned up to have our tour and attend Question Time because the debate was around education. It was interesting to watch the new government at Question Time. I learnt about the British system and how it operates very differently from ours.
I will just jump to another interesting part of the trip. It was 10 years since I worked in London at the Southwark Inclusive Learning Support Service, which was a learning centre for children excluded from the mainstream; I worked there for a school year. They were, basically, emotional and behavioural high support needs. I visited the centre, and Mr Krishna Purbhoo, the head of the centre, the Southwark Inclusive Learning Support Service in London Bridge in the UK, made us feel very welcome. We had an incredible meeting discussing what had changed in the British system in dealing with kids with high support emotional and behavioural needs in 10 years. It was interesting politics to discuss how the concerns at the time we were there were relating to the change in policy to a conservative government and the move away from an emphasis on community-based schooling.
It was good to look at tin tacks, programs, behaviour management, and systems that had changed since I worked there. It was also very informative to look at the macro view of how policy was changing, and the concerns of the more disadvantaged boroughs that were quite worried about the way the new conservative government was going with their cuts to funding - their fears about the direction of policy being off, with the disadvantage, so to speak, geared more to the mainstream. That was an incredible day as well, spent in the London Bridge area.
Getting back to Question Time at Westminster, it became very apparent it was a much different style of questioning from the opposition. It was a very much different approach from government in responding. To sum it up, it seemed there was a logical, well-mannered and commonsense agreement that the questioning from the opposition would facilitate the delivering of a report-style response from government. I suppose, after all, it was Great Britain. It seemed very gentlemanly. The women as well used the same style of operation. For just over an hour I sat in Question Time in the House of Commons. I thought of how it was so different to the Northern Territory.
Today, I certainly felt how negative our Question Time has become in the House, and how disappointing it is that government is continually facing this conspiracy-style questioning from the opposition. If you deal with a conspiracy every day in Question Time, then so be it. However, if there is bellowing, roaring, screaming, shouting, and abuse going with that style of questioning, then I really have to question what benefit Territorians are getting out of Question Time.
Madam Speaker does a sterling job in trying to keep the place under control, and regularly reminds members there are Territorians listening to the broadcast who are very interested in what their elected community members are doing in this House.
Today was a good example if we look at child protection and important legislative issues. If we talk about Muckaty and the imposition of Australia’s first nuclear waste facility, in the middle of the bellowing, roaring, and screaming, it has taken me back to London once again on day one with a group of high-support, emotional and behavioural needs students, trying to get some order, which took quite a number of weeks to establish, where we could exist together but, most importantly, where we could learn from each other together. The House today reminded me how we may have lost the essence of the Westminster system. I was definitely comparing to the Westminster Question Time I sat in on, and how the reporting style of information and the targeted and meaningful questions related to a reporting to constituents in a real and sincere way.
Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting experience. It was a fantastic holiday; there were lots of arts and museums involved. I definitely felt that not only did I have a holiday, but there were also many great opportunities for research, which I did. Maybe, just maybe, we might start to consider the nature of our Question Time in the Northern Territory, and challenge ourselves as being fully responsible to our constituents for not only our behaviour but our responsibility in reporting to them.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, western democracies must surely be concerned at the new age consumerism sweeping across the Eastern world. Across the Northern Territory, many sit in awe, witnessing the demands for change against regimes in the pursuit of economic freedom, confused about the salvation of democratic social and economic rights for all.
In Alice Springs, we have our own movement: a resurrection, if you like, that is gathering pace in protest of the Territory government, seeking action against crime and antisocial behaviour. It is a cry for help. Our crime wave, our normal life - which includes bashings, machete attacks, murders, stabbings, along with home invasions, sexual assaults and attempted rape - is bringing citizens and business people to the fore, seeking economic relief and freedom from crime to go about their everyday business.
This Alice Springs movement is currently witnessing another movement, one by visitors from outside of town. Since 2007 and earlier, many Indigenous Territorians have moved from bush to town, seeking to erode themselves of the cultural museum design of Indigenous policy, where the urban left seeks preservation of culture by disallowing policy which encourages people not to enter the real economy - a flawed model that destroys culture and envelopes a life of misery.
While we are not in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya, and Prime Minister Gillard, Indigenous Affairs minister Macklin, and Northern Territory Chief Minister Henderson, are no Mubarak, Ben Ali or Gaddafi, we are still fortunate the Alice Springs street protests have not eventuated, the riots are not current, and the donning of hoods made of sheets are not around.
The tale of two worlds - that is, Alice Springs and right across the Northern Territory - is currently coming to a head. Businesses, Aboriginal leaders, and individuals have reached a precipice in a bleeding point where many Indigenous Central Australians have mobilised into Alice Springs, lost in a generation. It is only a matter of time before the new electronic age virals through the halls of the democracy of the Northern Territory. If they join and fight together for change, for freedom, as one, we will be in a good place.
Last night’s meeting in Alice Springs, held by the group known as Action for Alice, was one such thing. It was not a white versus black meeting; it was a meeting of people who are concerned for our town. It was very positive to see the Chairman of the Central Land Council, Lindsay Bookie, in attendance at the meeting. It was also very positive to see the President of the MacDonnell Shire, Sid Anderson, present in the audience. That was a clear signal that this is not a race-based action group; this is an action group looking for change.
I listened earlier tonight to the member for Casuarina say: ‘Let us not make this about race’. I have heard the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia - the very poor performing Minister for Central Australia - talk about racial divide in this debate. That is racism at its heart; that is sowing the seed of racism. For Karl Hampton, the minister, to talk about race promotes racism. It promotes racism and racist attitudes. People want action.
If the member for Stuart was actually doing his job, he would have been starting to nip this issue in the bud a very long time ago. For it was on 29 April 2009, when I, Adam Giles, member for Braitling, moved that the Assembly establish a sessional committee on Central Australian development, designed to try to improve our economy and to bring forward some change. It was on 24 November 2009 that the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, presented a ministerial statement to this Chamber about the importance of Central Australia, deliberately designed around parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs.
If the Minister for Central Australia - who tells everyone he lives in Alice Springs - had his eye on the ball and was doing his job, he would have known these issues have been boiling away for some time. I think it was in 2008 when I made a speech in this Chamber, and spoke about Alice Springs reaching a boiling point, and people laughed. The member for Macdonnell backed me up at that time. It has been brewing since then.
I am very proud to see that the Indigenous leaders, businesses and concerned citizens of Alice Springs are uniting. It is not a race-based argument, as the Minister for Central Australia puts it; this is an Alice Springs-based argument. So, in the reference to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, it is important to see the correlation. We are not seeing one element of our community unite; we are seeing everyone unite in a fight for change for our town. Some of that fight is for economic freedom; some of it is for social and cultural recognition and freedom. Whatever the fight may be, we have to continue that fight.
Rest assured we need cooperation in this Chamber and from the government to work towards solving some of the problems. Yes, we must take some sting out of the tail of the antagonism of the politics which surrounds us, but we do need action. People in Alice Springs are not stupid. People in Tennant Creek and Katherine are not stupid. When they come up with ideas about how to move forward, we have to listen to those ideas and put them into some sort of prism where we recognise what people are saying and consider the actions those people want. Not everything can be done, but some things that can be done and some of these ideas must be put into action. I raise this as a sensible argument in this debate.
I fear – and this is not scaremongering - that we are potentially at a tipping point, at a precipice, of something which could be so much worse. We are also at the precipice of being able to turn things around and move forward to regain our vibrancy and our positive approach to life in Central Australia, and move forward to something much bigger and better than Central Australia has always been. If we do move to a place of race-based riots, such as in Los Angeles or similar, we will be in a very sad place.
I call on the Northern Territory government to work with me and my colleagues, the good members for Araluen and Greatorex, and come around the table and work together to try to solve these issues. We all have our politics, and politics will continue but, if we can take the sting out of some of our arguments, it will be beneficial for the people of Alice Springs. I thank you for your time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about two soldiers who were killed during the last three weeks. The 1st Combat Engineer Regiment, based at Robertson Barracks in my electorate, has lost two soldiers in the last three weeks. They were 22-year-old Corporal Richard Atkinson, who was killed on 2 February, and Sapper Jamie Larcombe, killed on 19 February. I pay tribute to these brave young men.
Corporal Atkinson was born in Hobart, Tasmania, and joined the Army in 2007. In the same year, he successfully completed his recruit and combat engineer basic training, prior to being posted to the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment based in Darwin. He was promoted to corporal just prior to his section’s deployment to Afghanistan. The Defence department has said he was a dedicated soldier with long career aspirations. Corporal Atkinson was killed in action by an insurgent improvised explosive device while he was the Search Commander leading his combat engineer section.
Corporal Atkinson leaves behind his parents, brother and fiance, who he was planning to start a family with this year. Family and friends have said he was a fun-loving family man close to his relatives, and he shared a strong mateship with those he left behind in Afghanistan and Australia.
Sapper Jamie Larcombe was born on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, and joined the Army soon after his 18th birthday, which was his lifelong ambition. He was on his first tour of Afghanistan. Sapper Larcombe and an Afghan interpreter died during what appeared to be a coordinated insurgent attack employing machine gun and small arms fire. The Defence Chief said Sapper Larcombe was a quiet achiever, a dependable team player, and could be relied on to get the job done.
Sapper Larcombe left behind his parents, three sisters, and a girlfriend. His death has hit the close-knit community of Kangaroo Island, where everyone knows everyone. His dedication to his family and his fun-loving sense of humour has been a common thread through the comments from family and friends.
Corporal Atkinson’s and Sapper Larcombe’s deaths highlight the dangers faced by our soldiers in areas of conflict overseas. I believe we should honour these soldiers each time we have Anzac Day, because these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. There are people who believe we should pull out of Afghanistan, but I believe their memories are short.
I remind people of Bali. The people who drive the insurgencies in Afghanistan are the same sort of people who will bomb and kill Australians in Bali. If we are to protect our freedom then, unfortunately, we will lose some young Australians in that process. We should always remember them, because it is our privilege to stand here today in a free and peaceful country, and it is these soldiers who have committed the ultimate sacrifice to allow us to do that.
My thoughts go out to the family, friends and mates still in Afghanistan. May they rest in peace.
I will comment on a couple of other things in more recent times. I thank the workers in Power and Water over the period of what I call the big storm. There were many consumers without power in the rural area. There were crews, obviously stretched to the limit, trying to put power back on in Darwin and Palmerston, as well as other parts of the rural area. In Howard Springs, the power was off for probably about eight to 10 hours, but there were some parts that were off longer. I refer to Mahaffey Road where, unfortunately, a tree had come down and taken out a high voltage line and a low voltage line, and damaged four of the poles.
Although it was difficult to get the work going in the beginning for various reasons, when the crews came in - and most of the crew was from Katherine, and I thank all those crew members who came up from Katherine to help, with some from our local 19 Mile depot - they got stuck into it. I think it was on the Thursday or the Friday - it might have been the Friday - they were working from about 8 am to 6 pm, non-stop, in pouring rain at times, welding new crossbars, putting up new cables, and repairing lines to individual houses. They worked all day and late into the evening to ensure power was eventually restored to people who had power off for nearly four days. I am pretty sure everyone in that street - because I visited every house – was very grateful that power was on. There were a few little generators which had seen better times that were trying to keep the fridges operating.
I thank them very much for their work; it was a terrific job. Also, the minister mentioned that some of the staff were giving out lunches. When the rain was on, I noticed a car pull up with all these little packages of orange juice, sandwiches, and fruit. I thought that was pretty good; it meant the men could stay on the job, have a break, and get back into providing power. I thank those Power and Water workers, because they did a great job.
Parts of the rural area were flooded. I know there is a lot of talk about it being an extraordinary amount of rain, and there is no doubt it was. However, there are some issues that we still have to look at. It was a good chance to see what parts of the rural area were flooded. If there is one thing that annoys me, is when land is subdivided and that subdivision is not accurate. People buy a block of land and, before they know it, their house goes under water. There are some old areas in the rural area that were subdivided long before planning controls came into place. Unfortunately, there are a couple of places in Howard Springs where, when you get a really big flood, they are going to get wet. This year, the pipes and drains under Whitewood Road could not handle the water, and two houses went under water.
If anyone has any knowledge of the vegetation of wetlands, they would see straightaway that these blocks of land should have never been sold. People have paperbarks in their front lawn. It gives you the impression this might be wet, but people built there and, unfortunately, now they have suffered because water got into the houses. Of course, what comes then is the blame game as to who is going to fix it. That is one of those issues that will be ongoing.
There is also land in the Beddington Road area that I believe should not have been released for subdivision because it did not have the required 1 ha of dry ground, even though there was plenty of water. I do not think someone has done the work properly in establishing what was the wet area. It is not a difficult thing to do these days; vegetation normally tells you where the wet areas are. Unfortunately, the approval for that subdivision was inadequate.
I was not able to get in for the debate on the childcare issue this evening. I would have liked to have said something. I notice this media release from the CLP about ‘Labor gags Ombudsman’. I read through it and rang up Commissioner Bath. Commissioner Bath happened to be going past and dropped in. He had not heard anything about this. Without putting words into his mouth, basically he said this was not correct; that the contents of this particular media release were not true. He believed he had the understanding from the Ombudsman that she was okay with what was to occur. That was, I think, sometime last year. He was surprised this had come out in the way the media release has stated. He also said some of the particular points about his role were not correct either.
I do not mind people having their points of view but, in this case - and knowing Commissioner Howard Bath as a good, decent man who has the protection of children as one of his priorities in life - I would have thought it would be worth the CLP spokesperson, Robyn Lambley, giving him a ring tomorrow just to check up whether this statement is accurate. Commissioner Bath is a good bloke. I do not think he is going to go on the warpath about it, but it is a bit sad this came out when I do not think it is accurate.
I also had a briefing in relation to the bill that is going up before us and, again, this is not my understanding of the situation. Once again, I say this is inaccurate. Commissioner Bath does an excellent job, and I also support the Ombudsman. We do not want to make noises about important issues unless it is accurate, otherwise it creates mischief when it does not need to.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate and acknowledge all the hard work that has gone on over the last week or so with the events of the flooding and the storm associated with Cyclone Carlos.
In the direct Darwin area, the Power and Water crews responded to a huge number of outages, and they did an absolutely tremendous job. Congratulations go to all the staff; not just the linies who were out there in the weather trying to maintain power to houses by rectifying faults, but to the call centre staff, and the support staff for those call centre staff. They did a tremendous job. They were pulling 16-hour shifts. There were volunteers from other sections of the organisation coming into the call centre. We had staff in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs in those call centres receiving calls and working after hours. It went to a 24-hour service over that period of days through until Friday night. On Saturday, they did about 18 hours, and Sunday was back to normal hours. They did an absolutely incredible amount of work. Some of them were working, especially through that first day, from 5 am. As I recounted in the House this week, some of them who were dedicated to providing that service were bringing their children in so they could both look after their children and provide that call service to the people of the Northern Territory.
I congratulate Andrew Macrides for his leadership in this disaster, and also his key staff, Bertram Birk in the networks area and Darryl Day as well, and Steve McKenzie in the water area. To all the staff, congratulations on all the tremendous work done. It all went off without any sort of injuries at all. Well done.
On the Friday of last week, the Adelaide River rose and I happened to be there. I saw where the low pressure system was heading at that time and realised it was going to hit the catchment of the Adelaide River. The Adelaide River township community has, unfortunately in some ways, been through a flooding before, so the Coomalie Shire Council was well into its planning for monitoring, trying to prevent inundation of some properties and other assets, and keeping people informed. John Hughes, the CEO, was there. There was sand and sandbags provided for residents who wanted to use them. There were staff moving around, keeping an eye on the water supply. The townspeople were moving cars if they felt it necessary. Macca, the OIC there, was keeping a good eye on things. Congratulations to everyone. Luckily, it did not get into too many houses. It pulled up at 12.8 m at 8 pm that night. Well done to all the staff and the people who pulled together. At Tommy and Patty Fawcett’s house, there were many people helping them sandbag parts of the house and parts of the block as well.
The cyclone, or low, continued on down towards the Daly, and that became the next big area of concern. We have seen over recent times the flooding there. I congratulate all for the effort there. It was a very unusual system. Usually, the Daly floods from the Katherine River. This time around, it flooded from the Daly River, the Douglas, and the Fish, and those other streams, so it was quite an unusual system, and hard to predict. I guess everyone - the Bureau of Meteorology, the police, a whole range of people - who had witnessed other floods were trying to predict it, and it was becoming very difficult to predict.
There were extensive local meetings where the discussion about when to evacuate took place. People chose to stay. They were given the choice to go if they wanted to. People who had the experience in 1998 where they were taken out to 5 Mile and it was quite uncomfortable, I guess had the belief they could actually ride it out; that the flood waters would drop. Obviously, it kept on going. The decision was made on the Sunday to evacuate, and it was one of the most successful evacuations they have ever had there. At 7 am, the Tactical Response Group was there with their boats, and the police boats had been stationed there earlier over the weekend. Everyone was out by 3 pm, across the water, and the last bus left the Wooliana School at 8 pm that night. It was a massive effort, and congratulations to all the people concerned.
I thank Steve Bott, the Officer-in-Charge at Daly River, for the magnificent job he did. Andy McTaggart was coordinating so much there, working with Power and Water in relation to the sewerage station, and also when the electricity supply should be shut down. Mark Casey, who works with the police there, did a great job with the evacuation. Sadly, he hit something with his boat and he has destroyed his leg on his outboard motor, so that is being fixed at the moment. Barry Fletcher is the Essential Services Officer there - great work with Power and Water and with the shire, and Janet Fletcher with the clinic. All the clinic staff, including Mark Mullins, did a great job. There were no injuries in the movement of people across the river.
Chris Hill, the Shire Services Manager, is still there. He was working to coordinate things. Bev, his wife, works for Nauiyu Nambiyu Inc and they have a number of assets and functions they provide for the community. She is still there trying to coordinate that. In the evacuation, Cookes Tours buses were brought down and Robbie Douglas from Batchelor and his staff were called into action on short notice and did a tremendous job.
Unfortunately, one of the dips near the Tipperary boundary of the Daly River Road blew out - the first time it has ever done that - and they had to try to traverse that. Well done to Robbie and all his staff. I also congratulate all the Transport and Works staff and their contractors. That blowout became quite significant and they had trucks and were hauling rock out of some borrow pits into the night. They had lights down there and were working trying to get a solid base for the buses to get through. They did an absolutely fabulous job.
All the Power and Water staff had been in regular contact - Darryl Day was in regular contact - and the personnel were going backwards and forwards monitoring the situation. They actually had to switch the generators over, and brought a smaller one down because there was not enough load on it. They have been back there over the last couple of days, progressively restoring power.
Also to Telstra - communications is a vital link and the satellite tower in the community was going out. The power was cut to the community because of the possibility of electrocution as boats were going very close to the overhead power lines. They turned that off and, with the battery life of the transmitter being limited, Andy and Telstra got those going again.
Congratulations to Jenny Whyte of Dundee. She is the volunteer with the first aid post there and she did a fabulous job. I also acknowledge the work done by Sue Whatley of the Bushfires Council keeping in contact with that community. They are in the recovery stage now, and I acknowledge that John De Koning has been appointed the coordinator. I have known John for many years and he will do an absolutely fabulous job. The Victoria Daly Shire has appointed Frank Mills to coordinate the centre at Batchelor.
I acknowledge the work done by the Red Cross, Centrelink, Children and Families and the police and the Health department there. They are all working very well and everyone is getting the services they need. I congratulate everyone on a magnificent effort over the last week.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I provide some good news stories from my electorate in the northern suburbs. I was out and about last Saturday afternoon, 19 February. I spoke to a number of people who were cleaning up cyclone damage. I was trying to find out how they endured what was, in Darwin, probably minor damage when you compare it to previous catastrophes and natural disasters which have occurred in this part of the world and others. All the same, there was a great deal of damage around the place with many trees down.
Whilst I was out two people who recognised me stopped and made comments about the great job the prisoners, who were out with their prison officer supervisors, were doing. I thought that was great because usually people are quick to criticise all sorts of people for all sorts of things, but very slow to make an effort to convey praise to people in the community. It was with great pleasure that I approached the prisoners and prison officers and conveyed the sentiments to them. I do not know who they were - I did not choose to find out who they were - they were just working on the side of the road. In my capacity as a member of the public, I approached them and said that great things had been said. They were extremely grateful and they brought to my attention that they do not normally get much positive feedback from the community.
When I eventually got back to my office, under the door was a note signed by a lady who lives in Malak by the name of Heather Beale:
- I would like to thank the prisoners who helped remove trees after the cyclone. They have done a great job.
That lady was very appreciative of the work done by those people. I commend the Correctional Services staff for doing such a great job taking these people out, giving them skills and training them in relation to horticultural work so they can, perhaps, start a new life upon their release.
I move on now to the Bombing of Darwin commemoration at the Darwin Entertainment Centre on Saturday, 19 February. It was with great pride that I sat in the audience and watched four students from a school in my electorate, Sanderson Middle School, take up some folded paper cranes that they and other students had made. These young people were: Jessica Murdoch, Zakiyah Al Jonaedi, Mopune Beaton and Roechelle Attwood. These young students from Sanderson Middle School were accompanied by Kylie Smith, the teacher of Japanese language and culture at the school, and Yuki Ito, a Japanese teacher at Sanderson. The young ladies were accompanied by the Consul-General of Japan, Dr Masahiro Kohara, and his assistant.
I would like to read into the record the article that will appear in the Sanderson Middle School newsletter. I put it on the public record because it encapsulates exactly what occurred there and the symbolic nature of what these young people did with the Consul-General. I quote from the article that is going to go in to their newsletter:
- A group of students representing Sanderson Middle School attended the commemoration of the 69th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin on Saturday, 19 February 2011 at the Darwin Entertainment Centre - the original cenotaph venue had to be abandoned due to damage from Cyclone Carlos and the inclement weather. During the wreath laying ceremony Sanderson Middle School students presented a chain of paper cranes at the ceremony as a symbol of peace, and to remember those who had lost their lives during the war.
The paper cranes had been made by many Sanderson Middle School students during lunchtime and in PCG groups under the instructions of Yuki Sensei (Sanderson’s assistant Japanese teacher) and Sumisu Sensei (Sanderson’s teacher of Japanese language and culture). Since the end of World War II, the custom of folding 1000 paper cranes has been a symbol of good luck, hope and peace. On this occasion, Sanderson students folded 243 paper cranes, one for each person who is believed to have lost their lives during the initial bombing of Darwin.
- During the ceremony, the Japanese Consul-General, Dr Masahiro Kohara, also presented a wreath and, after the ceremony, met with students, talking with them about their studies.
The other item that goes in conjunction with this in the newsletter is titled ‘Japanese at Sanderson’. It is a great program at Sanderson Middle School with a great deal of interest from students there. Each year, they organise to take these students to Japan to understand the language and culture they have been learning. I will quote a little about that:
- Yuki Sensei is from Seto city in Japan and has come to Sanderson for one year as part of the JENYSYS ...
- This program aims to deepen the understanding of and interests for Japan by teaching the Japanese language in cooperation with local teachers and by introducing Japanese culture. Sanderson is the only school in the Northern Territory to welcome an assistant teacher such as Yuki Sensei, so we are very lucky!
More than 6 billion people in the world speak a language other than English with Japanese being just one of them. Learning other languages gives you more skills, more options and more understanding of yourself and others. Yuki Sensei and Sumisu Sensei provide varied learning opportunities in the Japanese language and culture classroom through quizzes, games, songs, videos and craft, so please see either of them if you’re interested in learning Japanese!
That gives a little explanation of what is going on in some of the innovative programs Sanderson Middle School runs. They are a fantastic group of people. You would not find another school in the Northern Territory with more enthusiasm than that of the staff, the leadership team, and the students at Sanderson Middle School. Again, given we have heard figures in this House recently in relation to Japan being our biggest trading partner, it is essential people of the Northern Territory who are looking for an opportunity to create business, to find jobs, or to move into a thriving workplace, need the skills and opportunities Sanderson Middle School can supply to them. I encourage all schools and the government to continue the foreign language programs in our schools and support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these young people did a fabulous job representing their school. They can be very proud of themselves for their efforts and the way they presented themselves at the service. They conducted themselves very well, did a fabulous job, and comment was made by a number of people of just how well they did and the type of sentiments they displayed in the ceremony. So, I commend those young people from Sanderson Middle School and the leadership team at Sanderson for encouraging these young people to do it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I deal with a couple of issues tonight. The first issue I raise is a matter of a fellow I had a conversation with some time ago. Finally, I am in parliament to be able to deal with the issue. It has also come to the attention of other organisations. It is the matter of a fellow who has fallen into an unfortunate hole in the law; a gentleman by the name of Gary Alp. Mr Alp chose to keep his life savings in a safe in his own home and, unfortunately, as is the trend with crimes in the Northern Territory, he was the victim of a house break-in in which about $20 000 of his life savings was taken from a safe in his home. I am advised his insurance company will not help him because the cash was stolen.
The offender in relation to the matter, in the next few days or the day after, purchased a car for $20 000. It is my understanding the suspect in the matter was a person of generally limited means. As a consequence of that, police were called and searched the house of the fellow who purchased the car, and the car was seized as well. Items belonging to Mr Alp were found in his possession in the home. It is pretty obvious the $20000 that was taken from Mr Alp’s safe was actually the $20 000 used to purchase the vehicle. However, it appears the court was unable to be satisfied and the car buyer was not convicted; it was not provable that the money was not his. As the gentleman concerned could not explain where he obtained the cash, the matter was then dealt with by the court, which ordered the car be relinquished to the Department of Justice and seized as property under the Forfeiture of Crimes Act, and is being held by the property forfeiture unit.
Mr Alp has gone to the Justice Department and asked for the car back so he can sell it and recover his cash. He has been told that because he cannot prove the money was the proceeds of the crime of which he was the victim, he cannot demonstrate a close enough link with the vehicle itself. Consequently, the only option for Mr Alp is to pursue legal action. As I understand it, at the moment he is applying for legal aid to get assistance.
My understanding of this situation, and as it has been explained to me, it is not rocket science to make the links. Whilst I appreciate the courts struggled with it, Mr Alp has been the victim of the happenstance of the legal system. I urge the Attorney-General to at least inquire into the matter, pick up the phone and contact Mr Alp - or have one of the staff pick up the phone and contact Mr Alp - to see what can be done to assist Mr Alp.
Of course, I would not recommend the Attorney-General, in any way, sidesteps or attempts to sidestep the order of a court. However, the Attorney-General’s attention to this matter would be welcomed. If the ultimate situation is that Mr Alp cannot be helped because of the circumstances of this case, at least the government can demonstrate an interest in his matter. This is a matter of making a phone call and getting someone to check into it, to see if there is anything that can be done to help Mr Alp.
I certainly hope Mr Alp does not have to go through the process of making legal applications to recover property which, in every likelihood, is his own. We will see what the government’s response is in relation to this matter. I urge the government to involve itself.
Whilst talking about matters justice, I am surprised to repeatedly hear from people that police criminal history checks for the purposes of employment in the Northern Territory are a source of great irritation. People who are currently applying for police criminal history checks so they can go about their businesses - real estate agents, security guards, taxi drivers, just to name a few - have been told they will not be able to earn money in their chosen vocations by virtue of the fact that their police criminal history checks will take a long time to process. Sometimes, these criminal history checks come in less time, but it is clear that, in many instances, the 10-week period is being applied, which is, basically, two-and-a-half months without income because of the process of processing these applications. I understand the roadblock is largely caused by the government’s introduction of the Ochre Card, which also requires a criminal history check and has created an enormous backlog in the issuing of criminal history checks.
I have received inquiries from a taxi driver in town in relation to why it is taking so long. Also, the other question the taxi driver asked me, I was not able to answer. I have not checked the regulations at this stage, but I am hoping the minister can advise me: what is the minimum age for a person who is the subject of protection under the Ochre Card? These taxi drivers regularly transport people and, apparently, they will now need this Ochre Card to transport young people under the age of 18. If a taxi driver is unable to earn their income by virtue of the fact that they are waiting for an Ochre Card to transport people who are teenagers and the like, it is a pretty onerous outcome.
The other issue I raise in relation to this matter is that there are several professions which require a criminal history check to enter the profession. When that is done, they then require further criminal history checks for renewals. Then, they will require a further criminal history check for the issuing of the Ochre Card. Surely, the system can be streamlined so one criminal history check will suffice? I urge the Northern Territory government to consider that.
Tonight, I also raise the issue, again, of traffic in the area of Gardens Hill Crescent. The traffic flow problems, particularly at the end near Gardens Road, continue. Whilst I realise it is a council street, I have raised that issue with both the Lord Mayor and the Northern Territory government with a view to having some traffic abatement put into that road.
Some traffic islands have been created; unfortunately, they have been placed in the wrong spots. I have received advice from a former engineer who used to do traffic calming for the Brisbane City Council, and I have passed his details on to the Lord Mayor. Hopefully, the mayor will get back to that individual - I gave him those details some time ago - so traffic calming in those areas can be improved. I have travelled with this engineer, who pointed out some pretty simple things which could be done to improve traffic flow there to have a traffic calming effect. They would not be expensive; they would not require a great deal of effort to put in place. I urge the Northern Territory government and the mayor to do something about it.
I am particularly concerned because, as you come down the hill towards what is Barramundi Lodge, you will find the fence between Barramundi Lodge and Mr England’s place has been repaired on several occasions because cars have left the road and ploughed into the fence. I am concerned that, at some point in the not so distant future, a person will be injured or, worse, killed as a result of the failure to effectively manage traffic, particularly at that end of Gardens Hill Crescent.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016