2011-08-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have two documents relating to pairs. One is for the entire sitting day for the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, with the member for Katherine. It is signed by both Whips.
The second document relates to the period 4.30 pm to 8 pm and is for the member for Daly with the member for Blain; the member for Arnhem from 4.30 pm until 6 pm with the member for Goyder; and also the member for Stuart from 10.30 am until 6 pm with the member for Sanderson. That is signed by both Whips.
I table those documents.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Bakewell Primary School students accompanied by Mr Mark Williams and Ms Catherine Nunn. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, at the request of, and on behalf of, the Chief Minister, I present a bill titled Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175).
Bill read a first time.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Kenbi Land Trust Bill is an important step in implementing the in-principle agreement between this government and the Northern Land Council for resolution of detriment issues arising from the Kenbi Land Claim.
On 30 January 2009, the Chief Minister was pleased to jointly announce with the Northern Land Council and senior traditional owners that agreement had been reached on resolution of the detriment issues arising from this long-running land claim. The agreement secured a significant part of the Cox Peninsula for the future development of Darwin, while at the same time meeting traditional owners’ aspirations for the protection of their traditional lands and the creation of economic development opportunities for Indigenous landowners.
Recently, the Commonwealth decided on areas it wishes to continue to occupy, and commenced research and remediation of land to be granted, including its former Quail Island bombing range.
On 29 June 2011, the Commonwealth government entered into a Heads of Agreement in support of the in-principle agreement between the Northern Territory and the NLC setting out time lines for grant of Kenbi which parties will use their best endeavours to meet. The arrangement will see part of the land recommended for grant by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in 2000 granted as Aboriginal land under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and part of it granted as freehold for development.
This bill facilitates the grant of a third category of land to a newly-established land trust, the Kenbi Land Trust. It enables land in the north west of the Cox Peninsula to be held by the Kenbi Land Trust without extinguishment of native title until such time as the land is required for development. The bill also provides for the granting of land to the Kenbi Land Trust under the provisions of the Crown Lands Act by the minister with responsibility for that act, and provides for some restrictions on dealing with the land.
Because survey of the precise boundaries of the land to be granted to the Kenbi Land Trust has yet to be finalised, the bill describes the land to be granted to the Kenbi Land Trust as within the area recommended for grant by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and is more fully described in the regulations.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think I understand what has happened here, and we will not make a major issue of it. However, Standing Order 177 says ‘when a bill is being read the first time the member in charge of the bill may move …’, and it reads on. The minister has not sought leave or informed the House that he is the member in charge of the bill. I am wondering if the minister has a script or a set of words in front of him which would give him that operational facility. If he does not do it, he is in breach of standing orders.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, at the outset I said at the request of, and on behalf of, the Chief Minister I present a bill titled the Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175). Hopefully, that fulfils the requirements, and answers the question asked by the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: It is clear now that that is the case, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a bill that significantly revises the Mining Management Act, which will deliver a range of improvements to the enforcement and accountability of environmental regulation of mining. The amendments also implement the government’s policy of ensuring that large mining developments deliver lasting benefits to the communities in which they are based.
The act was revised in 2008 to implement the government’s decision to separate the administration of environmental compliance and occupational health and safety. This bill represents the first systematic division of the way in which the legislation applies and regulates mining operations in the Northern Territory.
The primary issues of significance are:
the tightening up of the compliance requirements of the act with the introduction of compulsory reporting and the ability to direct investigations of environmental incidents at any level;
The Mining Management Act came into effect on 1 January 2002. It was based on objective-based regulation rather than prescription, and focused on achieving strong environmental management of mining operations. The act makes it clear there is an onus on mining companies to demonstrate best practice and appropriate management of risk.
The act recognises that mining, by its nature, has an impact on the environment. Soil and rocks are removed, sometimes in large quantities, and chemicals are used in refinement of metals. The act recognises there will be environmental disturbance associated with this. Whilst such disturbance may be approved, the act clearly requires operators to put in place an environmental protection management system and operate within its parameters. Several changes proposed in the bill are to provide greater clarity on the obligations of operators to protect the environment and ensure they stay within the scope of the approved works.
There are three broad classes of activities that are covered by the existing act: exploration, extractive mining, and large-scale mining. All require authorisation under the act, including the submission of mine management plans, MMPs, that are suitable to the level of the impact they will have.
Exploration covers a wide range of techniques used to indentify marketable deposits including drilling holes, drenching, and taking samples for processing. Where operators use non-invasive techniques, such as rock chip sampling or airborne surveys, they are not required to have an authorisation.
Extractive mining covers sand and gravel mining as well as quarrying. These activities provide materials for construction and landscaping activities and do not use chemicals in processing.
Large-scale mining refers to operations that have a significant environmental footprint, ranging from the extraction of minerals such as manganese and phosphate, to processes that use acids or alkalis to extract metals from ore and produce chemically-active waste.
Activities that cause substantial disturbance of the land, which includes Territory waters, must be authorised under the act. The act requires the submission and approval of an appropriate MMP that includes details of the environmental management of the proposed activity. An authorisation also requires the submission of an appropriate level of financial security that covers 100% of the rehabilitation liability of the activities specified in the MMP. As these activities differ in scale, so too does the level of planning required and regulation. Whilst exploration and extractive mining are inspected and submit securities, the highest level of risk relates to large mining activities.
Over the past eight years, a number of issues have arisen that indicate there are areas where improvements should be made to the act. These include improving the public transparency of environmental reporting of mining activities, improvements to reporting of incidents and offences, and delivering long-term benefits to communities.
In arriving at those changes, my department consulted a range of industry, government, and non-government groups, including the Minerals Council of Australia, NT Division; the Extractive Industry Association of the Northern Territory; the Mining Board appointed under the act; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport; EPA; the Environment Centre NT; the Environmental Defender’s Office; and the Northern, Central, Anindilyakwa, and Tiwi Land Councils. Proposed changes were also presented to the Australian Geologists and Exploration Seminar in Alice Springs, and I have also been speaking with stakeholders on a number of the changes. It is fair to say there is considerable division between the perspectives of stakeholders on a number of the proposed amendments. In arriving at a decision, the government must balance the views and interests of particular groups with that of the wider benefit the proposed amendments will bring to the Northern Territory.
The government acknowledges the importance of the mining industry to the Territory, particularly regional communities. These amendments are in no way intended to be anti-mining, but are very clearly intended to be pro-accountability. These amendments demonstrate a clear will on the part of this government to ensure high standards of environmental management of the mining industry.
I will now outline the major changes to the act to honourable members.
Community benefits: the long title of the act is to be amended to clarify that it covers the provision of economic and social benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to environmental regulation. Section 37, Conditions of Authorisation, is consequently amended to make it clear that the minister may require an operator to address the provision of social and economic benefits. New section 82A is also added to give effect to this requirement. This is a consequence of the government’s belief that large mines have a long-term impact on the communities where they operate and miners need to demonstrate how they will address this. I will clarify that this provision would only come into effect at the point where actual mining commences, that is, after the exploration has proved up a minable deposit, a mineral lease has been applied for, and an authorisation for mining has been sought.
The government’s view is that miners need to be involved in conversation with the community over a period of time. In the lead-up to a decision on whether to proceed with developing a mine, the proponents should be identifying opportunities to support local communities, and planning how this will occur. The government does not seek to be prescriptive in this regard. Mining operators might deliver benefits to the local community in many ways, ranging from increased employment and supply of goods to the establishment of Community Benefit trusts. Some of these will occur as a matter of course, and I note companies are generally placing a much higher focus on local employment, especially Indigenous employment. The government’s view is that community benefits should simply become part of the developmental planning process.
In short, a mining company spends an amount of money on jobs, services, and business as a matter of course. Through these amendments, government is endeavouring to improve the channelling of that expenditure into the local area. In due course, guidelines will be issued under the amended act to assist operators to identify the scope and nature that community benefits may take.
Changes to language: honourable members will note the bill includes a variety of proposed changes to the language of the act. These primarily relate to two issues. The first is the removal of some terms that relate to the previous iteration of the act when it covered occupational health and safety. For example, the term ‘serious accident’ will be removed from the definitions and section 29. The second significant change to language relates to the inclusion of the principles of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act in all offences against the act. Part IIAA states the general principles of criminal responsibility, establishes general defences, and deals with the burden of proof.
There are a number of areas where penalties have been simplified by removal of a separate penalty for a body corporate. This is because the penalty for a body corporate is specified by the Interpretation Act to be five times the penalty for a natural person. It is therefore only required to include the penalty that would apply to a natural person.
Obligations of Operator: the government proposes to expand the sections dealing with the obligations of the operator to protect the environment. A new section 16A will be added to the obligations of the operator, replacing section 33 of the current act. This new section makes it clear the operator has responsibility for ensuring all those working on the mine site, including contractors, are involved in developing and implementing environmental protection measures.
Environmental Offences: as discussed, the environmental offences have been rewritten to take into account the principles of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. These offences are to make clear the environmental obligations of the operator which will include the additional obligations specified in new section 16A. The government initially proposed to include an additional offence of failing to comply with an approved mining management plan. This was one of the recommendations of the EPA investigation into the unleaded petrol incident at Alcan Gove. However, the view of the Parliamentary Counsel was that this should not be included because there is already an offence under section 39 for failing to comply with an authorisation. The conditions of authorisation are specified in section 37 of the current act and include:
Under section 64 of the current act, it is an offence to fail to comply with a direction of a mining officer which could include circumstances where the operator is not working within the limits of the authorisation or MMP. Also supporting the enforcement of environmental compliance will be the addition of a general offence as a new section 33 under the act. This section creates an offence of releasing a waste or contaminant from a mining site where the release is not authorised under the MMP. This will apply whether or not the release is on or outside of the mining site. The government believes this offence will cover most foreseeable situations involving an act that impacts on the environment but does not necessarily trigger the existing environmental offences where it is necessary for some degree of environmental harm to have occurred. As this offence is one of strict liability, it will capture situations where there is a lesser degree of harm to the environment and where an operator has failed to report an incident to the regulator resulting in an inability to investigate whether there was an immediate or short-term environmental harm.
It should be noted that the offence applies to incidents inside and outside the mine site, in support of the government’s intention to harmonise environmental legislation on and off mining tenure. It adds to the existing power under section 83 of the act for the minister to direct action to be taken on or outside the mining site to prevent, minimise, or rectify a hazardous situation or environmental harm.
Reporting and investigation: the government proposes to make significant changes to the reporting and investigation powers under the act. Section 29 currently requires an operator to report ‘a serious accident or critical incident’ on a mine site. A critical incident is defined as an event that has ‘… the potential to cause significant adverse effect on the environment’. A serious accident is defined as an event that causes material environmental harm. Material and environmental harm is in turn defined as environmental harm that requires up to $50 000 being spent to minimise the harm or rehabilitate the environment.
Under section 31, if a serious accident occurs on a mine site, the operator is required to investigate the event and provide a written report to the Chief Executive within 14 days. In practical terms, this has resulted in mining companies self-assessing the impacts of an environmental incident and determining whether they should report it or not. The government proposes to address this by amending section 29 to require operators to report all environmental incidents to the Chief Executive. Under an amended section 31, the Chief Executive will have the power to direct the operator to investigate such an incident and provide a report within 14 days.
The existing term ‘serious accident’ will become ‘serious environmental incident’. It will have the same definition as an event that causes material environmental harm and therefore automatically requires an investigation to be undertaken and a report provided.
The government notes that these changes may have the effect of capturing a large number of trivial incidents that are inevitable on an industrial site and which may already have been effectively cleaned up. There will be guidelines to indicate what constitutes a trivial incident, however, the legal responsibility lies with the industry to report incidents that the community would be expect to be reported and investigated. The government believes it is important to be clear in its message to operators that environmental incidents should be taken seriously and there is an obligation to inform the regulators. Where a series of incidents occurs, it would provide a clear indicator for my department that further scrutiny might be required in relation to inspections and/or approvals of MMPs.
In addition, a new section 31A will be added to allow the Chief Executive to publish reports prepared by either the operator or the department where publication is in the public interest. This is one of a number of amendments that will improve public transparency in the regulation of mining.
Public reporting on environmental incidents is handled in a variety of ways in other jurisdictions. An environmental incident may be made public in Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania. In South Australia, they are reported annually; whilst Queensland and Western Australia do not routinely report incidents.
Substantial Disturbance: the requirement to have an authorisation for a mining operation relies on there being substantial disturbance to the land. This allows operators undertaking non-intrusive activities on exploration licences to do so without having an authorisation. Examples include airborne sensing and rock chip sampling where there is no measurable impact on the environment. However, there was a case recently where an operator proposed to undertake seismic surveys in water with the potential to impact on wildlife, but which was not ‘substantial disturbance’ of the land. In order to clarify this, section 35 is amended to include a more detailed definition of what constitutes substantial disturbance and an offence for undertaking such work without authorisation.
Access Areas: while on the matter of definitions, it is proposed to broaden the definition of ‘mining activity’ under section 4 of the current act to include the construction, maintenance, and use of infrastructure in an access area, as defined in section 8 of the Mineral Titles Act. This will have the effect of allowing for the imposition of a rehabilitation security over associated mining activities not located on mining tenure, for example, transportation corridors between sites, and/or access roads to sites.
Granting the Authorisation: the provisions relating to granting an authorisation from section 35, 36, and 37 are combined in a revised section 36. The section now clearly specifies that approval of the MMP is critical to the approval of the authorisation. This reflects the government’s intention that the MMP will be the operational plan for the site. Under the proposed bill, the maximum penalty for undertaking unauthorised mining activities for an individual has been significantly increased from 1250 to 5000 penalty units, which reflects the seriousness of such an offence. If the offence was committed by a body corporate, the penalty applied would be five times that applying to an individual. Thus, under the current penalty unit structure, the maximum penalty that could be applied to a company for undertaking mining without an authorisation is $3.4m to $5m. The new monetary penalty is in line with a similar type of offence under section 148 of the new Mineral Titles Act of conducting mining and/or related activities without a granted mineral title.
Section 37 under the proposed bill importantly includes a new requirement for those operators mining for minerals to submit an annual report on the status of conditions imposed through the environmental assessment of a project, and the environmental performance of the operation. Further, these reports are to be made public.
In proposing this amendment, the government is aware there may be some concerns in the mining industry. It is the government’s view that mining operations have a significant impact on the environment and there is a public interest in demonstrating the management of those sites. In addition, the conditions of approval for environmental assessment are the result of a public process and it is reasonable to expect public reporting of how these conditions are being implemented. The government acknowledges that mining operations change over time, as do management practices. These changes should be identified. New section 45A will allow the minister to publish the report if the operator fails to do so.
The focus of the new requirement is specifically on mining activities being undertaken on a mining lease which, due to the nature of operations conducted, represent a higher environmental risk than that posed by lower impact exploration or extractive operations. The government is aware that mining documents can contain information of a commercially-sensitive nature. It is not expecting such information to be released, but I foreshadow that the onus will be on the operators to demonstrate the case for information to be excluded.
It should be noted that new section 37(5) will allow a range of conditions to be imposed on authorisations, including the outcomes of environmental assessment and public reporting. It should also be noted that section 90, the confidentiality clause, is also to be amended to allow the release of information if directed by the minister or Chief Executive.
In making these changes, I note these matters are all handled differently from state to state. South Australia is considering the public release of mining plans for large operations. In New South Wales and Queensland, reports may be made available on request, subject to dealing with issues of privacy, and commercial and legal sensitivity. Other states do not publish such reports.
Section 38 is also varied to allow for the variation for an authorisation. In practical terms, the existing phrase ‘improving the protection of the environment’ in section 38(3) acts as an impediment to amending an authorisation. Many changes to authorisations relate to expanded activities which have a consequently greater impact on the environment. While the expanded activities must be proposed in accordance with an approved environmental management plan, it is still difficult to satisfy the requirement to improve the protection of the environment. As a result, the practice has been to issue a new authorisation instead of varying the existing authorisation. This can present significant difficulties for most small operators because it requires the submission of a new rehabilitation security for the new authorisation. The period of overlap between issuing a new authorisation and revoking the previous authorisation and refunding the security effectively requires two securities to be in place over the one site for a period of time. The section as it currently stands would also limit the ability of the government to vary the authorisation to include provisions for public reporting and community benefits.
The proposed amendment will allow authorisation to be varied with the existing security in place, whilst still ensuring appropriate standards of environmental management are met. I emphasise there is no intention to reduce the level of environmental management; it is simply a mechanism to improve a process that is currently unusable.
Mining management plans: sections 40 and 41 are amended to clarify the relationship between the MMP and the authorisation, and the requirement to ensure MMPs are reviewed and updated. It should be noted that section 65 is also to be amended to allow for a review of a decision not to approve an MMP and/or grant an authorisation.
Mining officers: section 62 is to be amended with the addition of a penalty clause to make the offence of failing to comply with the direction of a mining officer more explicit. Section 64 will clarify there is an offence of obstructing a mining officer. An additional section 64A will be added to introduce the offence of falsely representing a mining officer. It is intended to introduce an infringement notice system consistent with section 62 through regulation.
Offences, liability and criminal proceedings: Part 9 of the act is proposed to be replaced. The intention is to update this section so it complies with the evidentiary and liability provisions of the Criminal Code Act and modern legislation.
Service of documents: section 91 is to be repealed. The service of documents is already covered under the Interpretation Act.
I noted earlier there were some conflicting views on these proposed amendments. Some would argue they go too far, others would argue they should go further. The government believes these represent a reasonable balance which will allow for improved regulation of the mining industry.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just one thing before we go any further. I raise the point of order of Standing Order 173. This bill was not given notice of at the appropriate time yesterday. I draw your attention to that standing order which says:
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, I agree with you, member for Port Darwin. In fact, I did advise the minister of that. That being the case, he actually sought leave of the Assembly to do it. If, of course, leave had not been granted, he would not have been able to do it. I agree with you, member for Port Darwin, it certainly needs to be an exception rather than the rule.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Wanguri
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Chief Minister due to his attendance at COAG.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, over the last few months, in negotiations and discussions with the member for Nelson and, indeed, in the briefings with the minister’s department, we expressed our concerns about special measures, merit, diversity, and diversity over merit, and it does not sit comfortably with the opposition at all. After lengthy discussions with the member for Nelson, we agreed we would not support a bill that had diversity over merit principles and, with the support of the member for Nelson - we all know the influence he holds over the government - the government decided to withdraw that particular part of the bill, to draw that out of the bill.
We also have concerns about the special measures clauses that remain. We have amendments here; we have tabled some amendments. The member for Nelson has indicated he will not support those amendments, so we will move to withdraw those amendments and oppose the bill.
There are parts of this bill which we support, and they are important to bring things up to speed. However, when it comes to diversity over merit, when it comes to special measures, it just does not sit well with the opposition at all. This government has a history, or they preside over, separate development policies, especially when it comes to Aboriginal people. It is like we are going to hark back to the old days of affirmative action policies.
The member for Port Darwin made a good point. He may get to his feet today during this debate. If you can indulge me, member for Port Darwin, to lift some of your comments raised throughout a series of briefings about these issues, which were fought long and hard throughout the 1970s. The equality, equal opportunities, equal pay, equal rights, suffrage, the whole bit, was fought long and hard. Now we see a situation where we are going to diminish that by allowing these special measures to be put in place to allow certain disadvantaged groups, you might say, a leg up.
I use the example of someone who has spent a lifetime in the public service, 30 to 40 years in the public service, highly qualified, has ticked all the right boxes for a particular job or promotion, but is overlooked by an underqualified black woman. That is a real possibility, and the sort of thing that happened in the past. There is nothing here to prevent that from happening again. I know the diversity stuff, the diversity over merit, directed the government to actively promote these sorts of affirmative action policies, but now that has gone, the government still has an out through these special measures. It has gone a long way to assure the member for Nelson that it is not about quotas, but how do we know? How do we know that it is …
A member: Ten per cent Aboriginal people.
Mr CONLAN: That is right; there is a quota in place to employ 10% Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory Public Service. Where does it end? Does it just end there? If you want to lift those quotas, for example, there is nothing stopping the Northern Territory government from doing just that. These special measures open a door; a door that does not sit comfortably with the opposition.
These rights were fought for long and hard, and here we are in the 21st century harking back to those sorts of days. The member for Nelson spoke to me about a second reading speech, which was the special measures provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act which have been in force for nearly 19 years. It says that since it was passed in 1992 without any objection raised in debate in the second reading speech presided on 1 October 1992, the then Chief Minister Shane Stone stated the following in relation to special measures, and he goes on to talk about clause 57. That is well and good but I say to the member for Nelson, that was 20 years ago. We have moved on. Twenty years was a long time ago. Does that mean something that was common in the 1970s, and we go 20 years prior to 1992, say 1972, and the policies that were in place at the time in 1972, and people’s expectations and what was considered appropriate in 1972, is a far cry from what was considered appropriate in 1992. Therefore, in 2011 or 2012, just because it was introduced in 1992 without any objection, does that necessarily mean that it is appropriate in 2012? I do not think so.
We have moved on, and we need to move on. We need to stop separate development, allowing people who do not have the appropriate qualifications to step up and climb the ladder in the Northern Territory Public Service over those who are highly qualified, do have the appropriate qualifications, and therefore will deliver a better public service for all Territorians and deliver the best value for the taxpayer. The situation where section 57 does not apply to the Northern Territory public service act - why can’t that be amended?
The government has sought legal advice so I am interested to see this legal advice - the advice was as to why the Anti-Discrimination Act does not apply to the PSEMA in section 57. Will the minister table that advice or make that advice available to the opposition? Why can’t that be amended? In discussions with the member for Nelson just five minutes ago about the act mentioning merit and there being no allowance for merit in the Anti-Discrimination Act or vice versa, to me, it is a vehicle for this government to pursue its separate development policies. In 2012, we should be moving on. We should be allowing those people who are qualified to achieve the jobs and the aspirations they want and not be overlooked because someone from a particular disadvantage group needs to fulfil a government quota or the government needs to fill their quota.
If you appointed an Aboriginal woman to a job because she was an Aboriginal woman, that would be highly insulting. I do not know how Aboriginal women would feel about that, but I would be highly insulted and offended if I was promoted purely because of my sex or my colour. The best thing women can do for themselves is to do a good job. The best thing anyone can do for themselves is to do a good job in the job you are doing. People say: ‘Prime Minister Gillard has broken the glass ceiling’. The best thing she can do for the cause, for women, is do a good job as Prime Minister. If she fails, she is pushing the whole cause back.
I find it personally offensive and I am the furthest from that disadvantaged group. I am a white male, so we are not in a disadvantaged group, but who is. Who is in a disadvantaged group? Where does it end? Where does it end with, say, homosexuals? Alice Springs is touted as the lesbian capital of the country. Are we going to make an equal representation or represent the public service to reflect that group of people in Central Australia, or indeed the Territory, or Australia, or wherever it might be? Are we going to move towards that? Do we need to appoint homosexuals to positions?
What about people who might be colour blind - 10% of the male population is colour blind - it can be a severe disadvantage. It means at least two-and-a-half people in this building are colour blind. The member for Nelson thinks it is funny but it is quite a serious ailment for many people. So, where does it end? You cannot join the Northern Territory Police Force if you are colour blind. Does that mean we will now move to allow people with colour deficiency to enter public service jobs because they are a disadvantaged group and we need to have a representation of a large group of people in the Northern Territory? I would suggest probably not.
If you cannot do the job, why be there? Surely it has to be about doing the job and fulfilling the position to the best of your ability. It is lost on me why someone would want to promote people who are underqualified and unable to fulfil a task for the sake of fulfilling a quota.
In some of these briefings we mentioned representation across certain disadvantaged groups, representing them in the public service, and I suggested we have elected representatives for that. Elected representatives play a vital role in local councils and parliaments across the country. We have quite a diverse parliament here and quite diverse local councils - municipal councils. Aboriginal people, and women, on the councils are able to make policies, make legislation, and direct policy towards certain disadvantaged groups. It does not sit comfortably with me for us to be enshrining into law this type of thing. It even says here that the strategy itself is not a special measure. It is a plan of action by the agencies, and all agencies will have one, to put in place a range of initiatives to assist Indigenous persons to gain employment and to further their careers. That is right. It is a strategy and a policy. Why can’t it stay as a strategy and policy? Why does it have to be enshrined into law? That is where it does not sit well with the opposition.
This can seriously impede someone’s ability to aspire to something. If someone knew they did not have to achieve, did not have to reach a certain qualification or a certain benchmark, they may not aspire to that. They may not further their education or they may not further any professional development as a result of these policies. Again, it does not sit well.
I find it offensive - not personally offensive, because I am not in that disadvantaged group, but for women or Aboriginal people to be promoted purely because they are an Aboriginal person or because they are a woman - I do not know. That is more offensive to people than not getting the job. You would be hard pressed to find someone who would not want to get a job on their merits, and that is what it is all about. That is what women and Aboriginal people are fighting for and have fought so hard for - to be recognised on their merits and on what they have achieved.
Women do not want to be judged as a disadvantaged group. Women do not want to be disadvantaged; they do not want to be seen to be a disadvantaged group. I do not see women as a disadvantaged group or a lesser sex. For goodness sake! There are several women in this Chamber who have achieved great things. The Labor Party had the first female Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We have a female Prime Minister, a female Speaker, a female Governor-General, and there have been several female Premiers in recent times.
I grew up with a number of women in my household. My mother grew up with Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer and it was hard going in that household as a young boy growing up in the 1970s. With Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer hanging around, it was hard yakka. I learnt quickly that women are capable of doing just about anything they want. The only thing that holds women back from achieving anything is their qualifications. If they are not qualified, they should not get the job, and if Aboriginal people are not qualified for something, they should not be getting the job.
I am sure if you found an Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory and said: ‘I am just going to promote you because you are a blackfella, an Aboriginal, and we have to bolster this up a bit and it makes us look good’, how do you think that person would feel? How do you think that person would feel if they were promoted purely on the fact of their race and the colour of their skin, their sex, or even their disability? Essentially, we are setting people up to fail. We cannot put too much of a fine point on that. Potentially, it could seriously impede a person’s aspiration to further their education, or embark on professional development to get them to a level where they are qualified and can apply for a position knowing they have done everything they possibly can.
We also have to look at the best value for money and the best delivery of service. We are talking about the Northern Territory Public Service. We do not want a public service full of underqualified people, or people who are not able to deliver because they do not have the qualifications or the skills. We see it in remote parts of the Northern Territory. We see teachers in remote communities who are there because they fit a particular type of disadvantaged group. In many cases, they are largely underqualified and they are leading the charge on our kids. It is happening and it is out there.
We are setting these people up to fail, and the same goes for those with disabilities. I mentioned colour deficiency. If there was ever something discriminatory in our modern society, it is probably that. We have ramps for wheelchairs and we have all sorts of things for disabilities in our modern society and they are enshrined in law. However, 10% of men have some form of colour deficiency, but that tends to be seriously overlooked. The reason for that is, probably, half the blokes do not know they are and the other half probably do but they are too ashamed to admit it. That is a bigger issue and another problem, and something that is a bit close to my heart.
As I said, where does it end? What is to say the government will not use these special measures to apply quotas? We already have quotas in place in the public service when it comes to Aboriginal people. The best way to get the best out of someone and the best out of the public service is to get the right person into the job, not because that person fits a particular disadvantaged group. The best thing any person from a disadvantaged group - whether they are someone with a disability, someone of Aboriginal descent, someone of Asian descent, someone of the female sex; whatever it is – can do is seriously achieve. That is the role model and the way to get people into these jobs; to set the standard, set an example, and be a role model for those people of particular disadvantaged groups.
This whole thing does not sit well with us so, essentially, we will withdraw our amendments and will be opposing the bill. We are happy with the removal of diversity over merit, but not retaining the special measures, Madam Speaker. We will, once we get to the committee stage, withdraw those amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I had a bit to do with this bill when I had the shadow ministry of the public sector. I began with the same reservations expressed by the member for Greatorex. The member for Nelson had similar concerns, and I well understand his concerns. That is why this bill, which was introduced some time ago, has been languishing at the bottom of our agenda whilst the structure of this bill, or the particular sticking point in this bill, was dealt with.
The current Public Sector Employment and Management Act does the job adequately. I would go so far as to say it does the job well. The former Public Service Commissioner, Ken Simpson, articulated that thought; however, they have seen fit to review the act. The review has been going on for several years, or several years prior to the bill finding its way into this place. The review was delayed and delayed and delayed. I suspect one of the reasons for the delays behind the scenes was this sticking point. Ken Simpson drove this because he particularly wanted the capacity structured into the bill to pursue the advancement of particular groups in the public sector. He assured me during a briefing that the bill was not aimed or designed to fulfil quotas.
The problem I had with that assertion is there is a quota, as the member for Greatorex correctly pointed out, operating in the Northern Territory Public Service right now, and that is a quota that says 10% of the public service will be Aboriginal people. We heard the minister in this House the other day waxing lyrical about how close they are to achieving that benchmark. Those sorts of benchmarks have odium of artificiality to them that I am not particularly comfortable with, and I share the reservations expressed by the member for Greatorex.
I was advised that the structure of the legislative instrument, as it was originally proposed, was going to be changed to deal with some of those issues pertaining to merit. Ken Simpson described the capacity as membership of a particular cultural group, as being meritorious, not as a way of fulfilling quotas, but enabling certain outcomes to be achieved in certain circumstances. There is, to some degree, a cogent argument to support the assertion that we need to be able to employ based on race and those sorts of things because of Aboriginal Health Workers and such matters. I will return to that issue shortly.
The idea of creating someone’s race as a meritorious principle is confounding to members on this side of the House, and equally confounding to the member for Nelson. It was his sticking point. My concern now is that, whilst the language of the proposed changes has changed, I suspect the intent has not.
During a briefing the other day, I was speaking to the Acting Public Service Commissioner, and the first question I asked, and the real question that lies at the bottom of this is: what is the mischief you are attempting to remedy by making these changes? The Acting Public Service Commissioner was kind to give me a fulsome answer but, in essence, the mischief that is attempting to be remedied is the hamstringing, if you like, that the current act has in place to prevent the advancement of these sorts of principles. For the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to them as the affirmative action principles, because that is, in essence, what they are.
Nothing I have seen so far gives me any comfort that this cannot be used for the satisfaction of quotas so the principles of merit as described and contemplated by government still may be pursued under the legislative instrument. It is not what the instrument advances that particularly concerns me, it is what it fails to prevent that concerns me. The mischief it sought to remedy was its inability to introduce some of the concepts it had been pursuing for some time and is not, in my opinion, a mischief, and, consequently does not require the remedy that the government brings into this bill today.
It is a shame that, unfortunately, because of the structure of the bill, the opposition, which would fully support the vast majority of the bill, is now forced to vote against the whole bill because of the inclusion of these elements.
I ask members to think about the consequences of the affirmative action approach being promoted by this government. Whilst I understand affirmative action - it has a long and cherished history, particularly amongst those who are inclined towards the left - it resonates a certain quality of unfairness to the very people it seeks to advance. When a person walks into the Motor Vehicle Registry to register their car, they may well find themselves, under current government policies, being served at the counter by an Aboriginal person, a woman, a Muslim, a Sikh, any number of potential and various minority groups. At the moment, I have full confidence - except for Aboriginal people, and I will come back to that shortly - that the person serving me is there because they are capable of doing the job in an efficient and effective manner.
I could be forgiven for thinking less so about an Aboriginal person because I would immediately ask myself, as many Territorians do, is that person behind the counter because they are capable and doing the job; they may well be and I hope they are. But the question lingers - because there is a quota in place, is that person there because they are Aboriginal, or because they are the best person for the job?
The public service should not be used as a Petrie dish for the Northern Territory government to fulfil its social experiments. It should be exactly as is described in its title – a public service – an organisation that provides services to the public. For that, you do not need a person who is of a particular gender, group, sexual orientation, or religion. What you need is a person who can do the job. If a person who happens to be Aboriginal works in the Motor Vehicle Registry, I hope they would be proud of the fact they got the job, not because of their Aboriginality, but because they could do the job.
What you eventually achieve is a disservice to those people. If a person who happens to be an Aboriginal person who got the job on merit is dealing with a member of the public, that employee is disadvantaged because the member of the public is standing there thinking to themselves: ‘He got the job because he is black’; and that is a disservice to that particular racial group.
Furthermore, the principles espoused in this process have percolated their way into other areas of government service delivery. Batchelor College produces university graduates who, I am well-advised, often are flat out writing their own names. We hear so often about the government’s successes in encouraging Aboriginal people in remote Aboriginal communities to achieve their Year 12 certificate. Imagine my disappointment when I speak to an organisation at Wadeye seeking to employ these people, and am told: ‘We cannot employ these Year 12 graduates – they cannot read’.
The decision is to advance people, to give them degrees and higher school certificates, without having an expectation upon them to better themselves. Why? When you distil the logic of this whole process, it is to make them feel better about themselves and more confident. Surely, you are doing a person a disservice when you say you are qualified to do something, push them into a workplace, and they demonstrate they are not qualified to do something. How will that make a person feel good about themself? Surely benchmarks are designed to lift levels of service, education, and understanding, rather than depress them to a point where anyone can step over them. Surely we would not issue university degrees to illiterates. We would issue university degrees to people who have reached the qualification standards of the institution at which they studied because the professions they enter into expect those standards to be met. Surely that is the standard. And the same applies to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I am certain there is no shortage of statistical information which will tell me Aboriginal people are under-employed in the Northern Territory. That is a given. There is no shortage of statistical information to tell me women are at lower paid jobs throughout the community, and I do not suggest for one second that is not the case. I believe the avenues are now in existence and available for Aboriginal people, people of different religions, and people of different genders, to advance themselves irrespective of their gender. It was not such a long time ago where I heard Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, standing in this House talking to Loraine Braham, the Speaker of the House of the Legislative Assembly, being wholesomely agreed with by Jodeen Carney, Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, that women did not have opportunities in the workplace. They were all sagely agreeing with each other saying that was the case. It struck me as somewhat ironic.
This approach to advancement has the potential to diminish people as I described before. I mentioned before the idea of Aboriginal Health Workers, culturally appropriate health workers and such things, and I do not mind the fact that in certain communities you will require certain skills. I put this to the Acting Public Service Commissioner recently during a briefing. I said: ‘If your issue is having culturally appropriate people on the ground, then write the job description in a fashion which does not necessarily have to be racist’.
For example, a health worker in Yuendumu would have to speak Luritja, Pintubi, and Warlpiri and would have some Arrernte in their language base. Make that part of the job description so people are urged to apply who can speak those three languages, as well as English’. I suspect, through that process, you will have the effect of excluding most European people. However, in Yuendumu there are European people who have those language skills because they were born, bred, and grew up there. Under the proposal suggested by this government, those people will be excluded from applying for a health worker’s job on the grounds that they are white. If they can meet the required benchmarks of being able to deliver the service to the local community, and those benchmarks include the capacity to speak certain languages, then make the capacity to speak those languages the benchmark and not the person’s colour.
It is merely a tool of convenience which the government is seeking in those instances, and I do not agree that it is an appropriate way to go. If you want a job filled where certain things have to be done to a certain standard, then make the job description reflect the standard, not the applicant who may or may not apply for the job.
I have also heard there is a presumption or an expectation in Aboriginal communities that we allow our employment structures to be facilitated by the motive that we have to look after the cultural mores of that community. This, whilst not immediately apparent and seemingly logical, throws up an important issue, which we talk about in this House in other ways.
The issue is best illustrated by going back to the 1970s. If we look at European culture in the 1960s and 1970s – the time of the great social upheavals - many of the attitudes being railed against were cultural issues, such as equal pay for women. We had a standard system throughout Australia where women were paid less because they were women. We had a system where we did not employ Aboriginal people because they were Aboriginal. All manner of sectors fought hard to have those attitudes and cultures changed because of a growing expectation in the general community that a person would be paid and advanced to a position based on their ability to do the job.
If one walks through the three major themes of feminism which were percolating through the arguments at that time, all of them came to a similar conclusion: that there was no right to discriminate against a person because of their gender. The three major themes, for members’ information, were radical feminism, Marxist feminism, and liberal feminism.
Radical feminists believed that, basically, what was between their legs was the cause of their oppression. Women were sexually oppressed by their male counterparts, and all structures created in our community were designed to enhance that sexual oppression.
Marxist feminism saw women as a product of cheap labour, a form of slave labour if you like. There was a large body of Marxist feminist writing that railed against women being used as cheap labour for the advancement of the patriarchy.
The third theme of feminism through that period was liberal feminism, where the argument was simply an economic one: that women should not be oppressed on the grounds of their gender and they should be liberated, if you like, to enable them to gain jobs and positions, not based on their gender, but on their abilities.
Without going into the pros and cons of each theme, what was consistent in all of those themes was that gender was not a ground for discrimination. Yet, what the government seeks to introduce here is that race, perhaps gender, or membership of a particular group, is important to the point where, if you have two candidates of a particular standard, you will discriminate - positively discriminate - in favour of a minority group. If you are pushing quotas, that business of finding the candidate of the right standard means it gets pushed aside because the pressure will be on from the government of the day - as it has been from this government - to find 10% Aboriginal workers in our workforce.
I do not believe we should lower our standards anymore because I do not believe these issues are as entrenched as they were in the past. Moreover, I do not believe that just because we have a cultural issue to deal with, we should set aside the wars and battles that were fought by many intellectuals, and women, and Aboriginal people, in the 1970s. That is what this approach and this policy would have us do.
Surely the time has come for us to say we should be gender blind, colour blind, religion blind, sexuality blind, and blind to anything but capacity, capability, and sufficiency ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Merit.
Mr ELFERINK: Merit. I thank the member for Katherine for his interjection. Indeed, merit. This is about getting the right person for the job. If the issue is getting the right person in a remote Aboriginal community, for example, then make the job description fit the job, but do not argue that an Aboriginal person is automatically in a better position to fulfil the job because they happen to be attached to the Aboriginal race of Australia. It will not always be the case. For that reason, it should not become a priority in thinking. In every likelihood, it would be the case because they are culturally bound to that community and they do speak the languages. I do not doubt that that will give them an advantage, but it should not become the test. If it is the test, then any person they are dealing with will have that doubt in their mind.
I will give honourable members an example. Some years ago, when I was still the member for Macdonnell, I went to Titjikala, a community just south of Alice Springs, and I saw a part-Aboriginal person there in an ACPO uniform.
That person was looking about as awkward as most Europeans do when they first go to an Aboriginal community, particularly during a football carnival, as was the case on this day. I engaged this person in conversation, and I discovered, yes, they were Aboriginal, and had joined the police force and become an Aboriginal Community Police Officer from the Gold Coast six weeks earlier. This was the first time they had actually been sent out, so they were standing there looking completely out of place in this community. Why was that person there? Were they the best person for the job? I suspect not, and I do not wish to diminish them, but if they came from the Gold Coast and had never lived in the Northern Territory, they were probably not as well versed as they should have been in some of the norms and mores of the community.
Dr Burns: What about the member for Braitling?
Mr ELFERINK: Nevertheless … I pick up on that interjection. What about him?
Dr Burns: You are making comparisons about Indigenous people who come from elsewhere in Australia that are not flattering.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, no. That is actually a racist thing you have just said.
Dr Burns: I am just repeating what you have said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: No, the member for Braitling happens to be the best person for the job because the people of Braitling elected him, not because of who he is or his cultural background. That is my point. He is the best person for the job because the job interview he had with the electorate advanced his cause. That is typical racism we, on this side of the House, are railing against and it is a disgusting stunt you have just pulled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Burns: Do not work yourself into a tizz.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of The Essington School students, accompanied by Miss Neisha Dumesny, Miss Donna Morvant and Mr Edmund Connor, and the member for Nhulunbuy has advised me that Miss Lisa Mare, a former resident of Nhulunbuy, is also there. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point I was going to make before that racist comment from the Leader of Government Business was that this person was employed because they were Aboriginal, tick. Some public servant somewhere wanted to fill out a form and make sure they got the right number of Aboriginal people. To hell, as far as that employer was concerned, with where that person came from, so long as they were Aboriginal, tick.
Dr Burns: Did they not go for a job interview, too? Didn’t they?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Burns: Is that what you are saying?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is precisely what I am saying, because you guys are running the quotas. You are the government of quota based on race.
Dr Burns: That was your inference.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I also point out that the racism inherent in this government is not inherent in the overall community of the Northern Territory, including Aboriginal people. If it were, I would never have been the member for Macdonnell. Moreover, when they had the option to choose between an Aboriginal person and a non-Aboriginal person in the 2001 election, they still chose a non-Aboriginal person because they believed I was the best person for the job. That is the standard I ask this government to apply - the same standard applied by the people for Macdonnell.
The people considered the new member for Macdonnell, who happens to be Aboriginal, as the best person for the job - why - because she had the language, the cultural ties, and those sorts of things. I have said this before and I will say it again, perhaps she was the best person qualified for the job …
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: She was the best person qualified. Are you happy? It was not because she was Aboriginal, but because she had the ties, the language, and all the other requisites the people from Macdonnell required …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr ELFERINK: That sordid little interjection from the Leader of Government Business suggesting the member for Braitling is in some way a token member on this side of the House, is a disgusting suggestion and that is the attitude which has percolated its way through this legislative instrument. That is the way this government thinks and it is for those reasons, and those reasons alone, we will resist this government in its condescending approach to employment in the Northern Territory. For that reason, we resist this bill, and that comment by the minister is an embarrassment and he should apologise …
Mr Knight: That is why they are going to dump you as Whip.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, I ask you to cease interjecting please.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. In the dictionary, there is a difference between a quota and a target. I have had a look at that and at no stage in this bill are they talking about a target. It is talking about a quota, which gives the public service an ability to do something.
I spoke to my colleague, the member for Nelson, and we had a couple of hours of discussion in the member for Nelson’s room on this bill yesterday. The member for Nelson has had e-mails coming backwards and forwards with the public service and the minister clarifying some of the doubts we had in our minds yesterday. The private sector already has this public measure, which is not scrutinised by the Public Service Commissioner. This is an ability and it is asking for a quota which gives them something just in the public service act, but it is administered and monitored by the Public Service Commissioner, which the private sector does not have.
I have stood in this parliament many times, and the minister knows that, and spoken about not having a black way or a white way to do things, but this gives ability as a quota to give people a helping hand. It is a stepping stone for people who are just leaving school, might have low self-esteem, and are in the public service. We use the public service as a way for people to gain confidence, confidence in their ability to work in the public service, be a bureaucrat, and have the ability, because they have other people working inside the sector who can give them a hand. I see this bill as a stepping stone that gives young Territorians, black Territorians, Asian Territorians, Greek Territorians, and Territorians with a disability, a stepping stone, a lending hand.
That is what the Territory is about; it is about that lending hand. We have always been like that and the whole history of the Territory goes back to the lending hand, giving someone a go when it is hard. That is what I have seen through the stream of the introduction of this bill and I am quite happy to support the government’s bill on this amendment. It is a fantastic opportunity for the future generation of our children, future generation in the growth, because the Territory is becoming a multicultural society. If you have a look at the Indigenous population and it is not at any stage designed just for one group of people, it is for the multitude of people we have living in the Territory.
If it is a specification for a group of Indigenous people who are struggling, as long as those people are not put into jobs where they will fail, and I cannot see this anywhere inside this bill, this bill gives them the opportunity to grow as a great Territorian. It puts together in the bill and in the public service, they have other people they can pull on, resources, people who can talk to them about their low self-esteem and give them the ability to grow. We do not just plant trees; we have to water and nurture the trees. That is what I see in this bill and I am supporting the government’s bill and these amendments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am also supporting this bill. It has taken a long time for me to come to that decision. I have had many briefings, many discussions, read many articles and, as people know, I opposed the diversity amendments which were in this bill and are being omitted today under section 5D of the bill. Many of the reasons the members for Greatorex and Port Darwin mentioned - not all of them, but many of those reasons – are exactly the reasons I opposed the diversity clause in that section of the act.
I do not want to see people get a job based on whether they are people who are put into this equal opportunity target group, just because they are part of that equal opportunity target group. I was concerned that many of the issues the member for Greatorex spoke about would have been encouraged by that clause. Other people may disagree. I was glad to see the government withdraw that. It was obvious the reason it has not come before parliament is because the government wanted me to support that section, and I had concerns from day one that it was not a good clause; it did not promote equality in employment. However, you have to take a step slightly sideways in relation to the proposed special measures clause.
As the member for Macdonnell said, the merit principle already exists. The special measures section already applies to private industry in the Northern Territory and to all other public service employees in Australia. One could argue we do not need to be the same, but I have not heard people complaining that this enforces racism in employment in the private industry. Companies like INPEX will have targets to employ Aboriginal people and are able to do that because of special measures within the existing Anti-Discrimination Act. Many big companies have targets for women and for whatever.
As an aside, the question about Aboriginal Health Workers was clarified in some of the discussions we had. The jobs are not advertised for Aboriginal Health Workers - the position should read ‘a health worker in an Aboriginal community’ so anyone can apply for the job. I make that clear as an aside.
This special measures section arises from the Anti-Discrimination Act which was brought into this parliament by Mr Shane Stone, as the minister for Public Employment. He said during that debate:
He goes on:
That does not mean whether you are black, white, homosexual, colour-blind:
The principle of not discriminating in the workforce is important. However, we do not live in a totally black and white society. There are people in society who, for whatever reasons …
Ms Anderson: Grey.
Mr WOOD: There are grey areas; that is right. There are areas where, for whatever reason - for instance, as mentioned by Mr Stone, people who are homeless, or itinerant. A reasonable case for special measures is young people leaving school. There is an opportunity for the NT Public Service to encourage young people to come into the public service. I see that as a stepping stone, as the member for Macdonnell said, to become equal partners in the public service - not based on their race, but it enables them to get over that initial bump and, from then on, they will not be judged on whether they are homeless or come from a non-English speaking background.
You have to remember that this is not mandatory, as the diversity value was. This does not have to happen. It just gives the public service, in certain circumstances, the ability to use it. I do not see it as a broad scale breakdown of equal opportunities in the public service. In certain circumstances only, will this be allowed to be used. In the briefings I have had - and I have had many of them - the Commissioner for Public Employment said permitting special measures does not require that special measures must be implemented. Special measures and programs are optional, not mandatory, and do not require or imply quotas or achieving percentage targets. Special measures programs for a particular group can only continue so long as the group remains disadvantaged.
I use the example of young people trying to get a job in the workforce. Many of us know kids coming out of school can lack confidence. Their skills might not be quite up to the standard yet, partly because of the lack of confidence. It enables, in certain circumstances, for assistance or special measures to be used to help these people. It seems strange to me that we have special measures in private industries, such as INPEX, McArthur River mining company, and Toll. They can all set targets using this particular clause to help people yet, for some reason, it is not available to the Northern Territory Public Service. As I said, it is available to all other public service systems throughout Australia; so it seems very strange.
I should also say there are checks and balances, because if you read new section 38B(2) it says:
This approach was brought forward by the then CLP government at a time when these types of measures were groundbreaking - the member for Greatorex said we have moved 20 years on – but at that stage it was groundbreaking. The CLP brought in legislation which said you cannot discriminate on all these things, but Mr Stone deliberately allowed some exemptions, and the problem we have is, because of the way the act is written, those special measures do not apply to the Northern Territory Public Service. One would have to ask, if it is good enough for INPEX, if it is good enough for McArthur River, if it is good enough for those big companies to be allowed to use special measures, why is it not good enough for the Northern Territory Public Service?
I am on record saying I do not believe, in general, you should discriminate against people when applying for a job. However, this allows the ability to help people who need assistance to become equal, not to become better than anyone else is. I would not expect this to be used for people in high levels of government; I would expect this to be used in positions where people can get a start in the public service. I am certain, when I was a young fellow in Victoria, that the governments used to give a certain number of positions in the public service to young people. They used to make people retire so young people could move into the job. The reason was simply to enable young people to get a start.
The idea of merit is that if you have five or six young people applying for a job, they will not get the job unless they fit the criteria for the job, and they will be selected on merit within that group of young people. Merit still applies, qualifications still applies but, in this case, we are targeting a group of young people who may not have had the opportunity otherwise to get a start. I need to clarify that I do not support, in general, discrimination in the workforce based on whatever, there is a range of things.
I do believe you have to have a system that allows for the ability, as it does in the private sector, and I do not hear anyone complaining that the private sector should not have this. If it is good enough for the private sector, surely it is good enough for the public sector. I understand where people are coming from on this side, and I support a fair bit of what they say, but I think there is a misunderstanding that that is the reason I asked that the diversity factor not be included in this act. I thought it did go that far, the way the members have been speaking today, and that is why I did not agree with that section being left in the bill.
This section is a reasonable section that a CLP government, in their legislation, when they introduced the Anti-Discrimination Act, did say should be permitted in certain circumstances. The argument is whether the government will try to use this in circumstances which are not necessarily appropriate. That is something we have to keep an eye on. You also have the Public Service Commissioner on record saying this is optional and will only continue as long as the group remains disadvantaged. We do have to keep an eye on it to ensure this is exactly what this change will do.
I would be concerned if it was being used to circumvent the deleted diversity clause, but I recognise that we have to have some ability, just as private industry does. In this debate, we should be recognising that the private industry does this. If someone is saying in this parliament that this is racially discriminating and the same measures are allowed in private industry, are we saying private industry is also racially discriminating when they set a target for certain groups using this special measures clause?
The special measures clause was deliberately put in, not to be used any which way you can, but to allow some flexibility, for good reason, to employ people who may not have otherwise had a chance to get a leg up and gain employment. We know there are many groups in the Northern Territory who have trouble trying to get a job.
Aboriginal people - my wife, much as she has been around the blocks many years, can be very shy when she goes into a situation where she has to talk publicly or if she was asked to get a job where she did not know anyone. Sometimes there is difficulty; it is not that they do not have the skills, but there are cultural reasons, or simply the way people have been brought up. Sometimes you need the ability to give those people a lift, give them the confidence, and once they have that confidence, I expect they would be able to take those jobs standing up equally with anyone else, and this clause would not need to be used anymore.
I want to stress that the reason I asked for the diversity value to be taken out is for the very reason the opposition members have opposed it, but I am saying there needs to be some flexibility. This change not only keeps us in line with existing Northern Territory private industry, but allows the public service to do exactly what the private industry is allowed to do presently – but with checks and balances. That is, the commissioner must give approval and ensure these things fit within the guidelines. Sometimes this debate goes off on tangents and people are accused of saying things they did not say. I need to ensure that the reasons why I am doing one thing and not doing the other thing are clearly articulated, so there is no misunderstanding about where we are coming from.
Clause 7, you might say is a fairly harmless inclusion into this bill. The Human Resource Management Principle, 5C says:
We also have a case of one person who has been on three-month contracts for five years. You would think after being on three-monthly contracts for five years, that person surely must be doing a reasonable job, but now that person has been put on casual. If people are not performing, there is a process in the public service - and I am no expert on the public service - which allows management to address issues of underperformance and allow a person to achieve the goals they would expect that person to do in that particular job.
I am concerned about these people. I have other issues about some of them having their jobs replaced by private industry. There tends to be in the public service, especially what I have heard from this department, a belief that if they complain, not only will they not be heard, they will be picked on and life will become very uncomfortable. When people have to work in those situations, they become stressed and when they are stressed, they feel like giving up the job altogether, even though they are good workers.
I am not going to say where those people are because I am concerned about their future. I ask the Public Service Commissioner for a confidential discussion which went no further than he or I until I have some advice. I said at this briefing that Labor says part of its philosophy is sticking up for the worker. These people are what I call genuine workers. A number of them have left the union because they think the union is a waste of space and that sometimes the union is too close to management. When I thought about this and having had the discussion, because unions are attached to the Labor Party, do they have a conflict of interest when there is embarrassment with workers saying they have not been treated fairly in the workplace. I would say to the union movement: ‘Should you be completely independent of the Labor government or Labor Party?’ Not because I do not think you can have those ideals, but because do you have a conflict of interest by belonging to the Labor Party and paying subscription fees to help the Labor Party run. When I sat at that table with a group of people who felt they were not being heard, and when they went to their union, that somehow got to the management and they got into trouble again because the two are too close together.
You would hope a union would stand up for the workers regardless of who is the boss. Unfortunately, the boss is a Labor government and the union also pays fees to the Labor Party. Perhaps that is an issue that does not help these people. Perhaps there needs to be an independent public service union with no affiliation to any political party so people feel they are looked after.
They also had a complaint and felt they got nowhere with the Public Service Commissioner. I am not pointing my finger at any particular person in this parliament; however, I was left with a feeling these people were not treated fairly, reasonably, and in a non-discriminatory way. I did not feel they had reasonable access to redress when adversely affected by improper or unreasonable decisions. To me, these people were genuine, ordinary, hard-working Territorians who had worked for many years in a particular department and gone no further than AO1. I am not saying because you are an AO1 you are not necessarily going to go further - you can apply for higher positions. All governments have certain numbers of job categories, but we also want to ensure people are encouraged to take up higher duties. Sometimes in the public service, people may not know, even though they have been there a long time, the mechanisms to apply for a higher job.
The human resource management principle government has put in here is important, but actions speak louder than words. If you put this in as a nice piece of writing in the act and do not carry it out, people are going to have less faith that when they are unfairly treated they will be heard and given proper and reasonable access to management, the Public Service Commissioner, or the union so their complaints can be taken on fairly.
This bill has taken a long time to come through. I have had discussions with members of the public as well. I have tried to look at this as fairly as possible. To some extent, we say we are concerned about discrimination but, the reason special measures were bought in is because you can also have discrimination against people who have no chance. In other words, the weaker in our society do not always get a chance. I certainly do not support across the board - I do not believe people should generally be discriminated against. However, human beings, their position in life, where they come from - all those things need to be taken into account. As long as things are kept in perspective, as long as we have a valid reason for what we are trying to do, you can allow special measures to occur.
Shane Stone would not have brought this forward if he felt it would bring in rampant discrimination of different categories of people in our society. In fact, when you read the Anti-Discrimination Act; that is exactly what he was trying not to do. This was coming from a conservative government in 1992 and was revolutionary for its time. We have probably advanced even further than that today. However, he deliberately inserted a section that allowed what we are talking about today to happen. To put it in blunt terms, I am supporting what he put in that legislation. I am saying he put it in for all people in the Northern Territory, for it to be available to them, if necessary. I am supporting that clause the Chief Minister - I do not know if he was the Chief Minister at the time or the minister for Public Employment - I am supporting the clause he put in that act, which is backed up by what we are saying today.
This whole idea of special measures has not come originally from a Labor government; it has come from a conservative government. That is important to understand. It is not only from a conservative government, but also private industry is able to use that particular clause.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Greatorex, and I appreciate him coming along to our briefings. We had a number of briefings. He said good things that I support, and some things that were slightly exaggerated, but that is fine. I appreciate him giving up his time to have briefings with the government. I also thank the government for their patience. I actually made up my mind at 9 pm last night, if people think I have just been diddling around out the back there. This has taken a great deal of thought. I have had to get my head around ‘public service speak’ and that is not always easy. If you have not been in the public service, some of the gobbledegook is hard to understand. I was not going to stand up here today until I had a good understanding of what was being put forward.
Madam Speaker, I am genuinely against discrimination in the workforce, but I am also realistic enough to know there are people, at certain times in certain places in the Northern Territory, who need a hand. This special measures gives them that hand without breaking down the principle I am standing for here; that we should not have discrimination in the workforce.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the ministerial officers’ gallery of Mr Michael Pengilly MP, member for Finniss in the South Australian House of Assembly. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Essington School students accompanied by Mrs Rebecca Dearden, Mr Edmund Connor and Mrs Sara Materazzo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, today I talk a little about quotas in relation to this act. I start by saying that I am not going to dignify the racial slurs of the members for Johnston and Daly by responding. These people represent a party that, in the history of federal parliament, have never had an Indigenous member of parliament, and have a policy or philosophy of positive discrimination within their federal parliament of 40% men, 40% women, and 20% merit. When you look across the bows over there, it is difficult to find where the 20% merit is. It is very difficult to find 20% of positive performance. The slur made by the member for Johnston and supported by the member for Daly was about, not just my ethnicity, but also the fact that I was born interstate. I have worked in a number of states, have been fortunate to travel the world and learn a few different things, and bring much expertise and experience to this place, but they think it is a good point to slur. The fact remains, I am here on merit and I am very proud of it.
Getting back to the point of the bill, previously, when I worked in Canberra, I had a lot to do with the Australian Public Service Commission and the positive and negative discriminatory practices in trying to get people into employment. I was on a working committee - I cannot recall now what it was - but a working committee to increase particularly Indigenous Australians within the Australian Public Service Commission, but also people from non-English speaking backgrounds, or NESB as we called it back then, and people with a disability, and other categories, or groups of people, or populations of people.
At the time, I used to go through what is called the federal State of the Service Report, and I understand the Territory one as well. I am guiding my experience here based on the slur from the member for Johnston, so I will use my previous experience …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If there was a slur, it emanated from the member from Port Darwin, and the Hansard record will show that very clearly.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr GILES: Thank you. I used to do a fair bit of analysis with the public service on a working committee. At the time, I was working for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations heading up Indigenous Economic Development. I had concerns about the retention rate and movement of Indigenous Australians, amongst other populations, outside the public service. This was back in the days when I was still coming to the reality of moving from Labor to Liberal and understanding the principles of both parties. I came to a point where I recognised that just because Indigenous Australians were leaving the federal public service; it was not a bad thing. I was a person who used to support quotas and a targeted approached, but I have come to the realisation that merit-based selection is the way to go, particularly with the retention of staff in the public service.
I now have a philosophical belief that the public service, like Indigenous organisations around Australia and in the Northern Territory, represents an opportunity to engage and employ young and unskilled Indigenous Australians, and I am specifically now talking about Indigenous Australians from my portfolio. I recognise that it represents an opportunity to get people in during a recruitment drive, people who may not have the educational experience or ability, the work experience, or the productivity levels that would be expected in the private sector. What Indigenous organisations provide as an opportunity, and what the public service at the lower level can provide, is an opportunity for people to get in, harness skills, learn work lifestyle, increase productivity levels; for some people that may take longer than others.
These days, the job of the public service is to get Aboriginal people and people from other diversity groups out of the public service. If it is a good training ground, which I believe the public service is, particularly if it is accepting of lower productivity and lesser skilled people in the cohort we are talking about. To provide those skills and opportunity from workplace experience, and then farm them out to the private sector.
We had a conversation here the other day when we spoke about reconciliation. For reconciliation to be broader in the mainstream, that includes getting people, Indigenous people, as well as people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and people from other diversity areas, into the private sector. If we continue to just park them in the public service that is a bad outcome. That is what we see in many of our private enterprises in Australia - a lack of diversity at the higher echelons within those organisations.
The member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell spoke about targets in the private sector and that is not such a bad thing. It is slightly different from the public service in that the private sector is still moving to a reconciled model, where the public service has been there for a long time and has many Indigenous employees in varying departments and agencies. We should be fully supporting the engagement and development of diversity groups within the public service, but then move to a model of trying to farm people out. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. I mean that we should be creating partnerships with the private sector – the public sector to the private sector – in advancing people’s careers in the big, open world.
There is nothing better than seeing corporate Australia represented by all walks of life and it is particularly good to see people with a disability, or from a non-English speaking background, or an Indigenous Australian, at the top of an organisation. I can think of a few organisations headed up by people who have broken the mould. Too many Indigenous Australians work, or are represented, through that paradigm of public service. It is fantastic when people are out in the private sector, on their own, without the shackles of the public service, which hold them back and hold them in that negative position.
I had a look at the federal State of the Service Report 2009-10 and looked at the agencies that employ Indigenous Australians and, as I said before, Indigenous organisations are very good at taking people at the lower level. I note the agencies with the highest proportion of ongoing Indigenous employees at June 2010 include Aboriginal Hostels, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the National Native Title Tribunal, and FaHCSIA. Indigenous Australians are often involved in the service level area in organisations and, hence, you will find a greater proportion of Indigenous employees at that level than, say, in fields of high technical expertise in Treasury or other technical areas. FaHCSIA, which has control of Indigenous affairs at the federal level, has a percentage of 8.7% Indigenous, DEWR at 6%, the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts at 4.6%, Centrelink at 4%, and Department of Health and Ageing at 2.4%.
Centrelink, as you would understand, has a high number of Indigenous field staff trying to provide services, and it is good that the interface of service is more culturally appropriate, culturally friendly with people; but that is not say that we need to set a target. A smart organisation ensures their customer service operatives meet the needs of their customers, and that is not target based. There are arguments run which say: ‘Why are you setting a target of 10% when the population is 30%; why would you not set a 30% target?’ That is an obvious question if you were interested in setting targets, which I do not support.
The point of me standing here today was to say that I do not support quotas because I believe we should be utilising the public service to get people in, develop them up, and get them out. That is the model we should be going for; that is all my experience interstate, that is my experience from the past, and that is where we should be going.
When we talk about the development of the Northern Territory, you recognise there are 18 000 approximate full-time equivalents, 22 000 employees, roughly, in all. Out of a population in the Northern Territory of some 220 000, where around 105 000 people are working, you would think we would be trying to get more people in the private sector. On top of that 22 000, we also have the Defence Forces and other federal government employees, people at Pine Gap, and a number of other people in the Northern Territory who are working in some type of government administrative role. I have not even spoken about the number of Indigenous organisations and people who work there. It is important that we further develop our private sector. This quota will take people away from the opportunity of working in the private sector, and that is what we have to develop if the Northern Territory is going grow.
Madam Speaker, I commend the points made by the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin; I support their approach. I do not support quotas – and that is not some philosophical bent - but for the development of the Northern Territory, we have to get people in the private sector, and the public service can be much smarter in the way it moves forward. If it just seeks to hold and retain Indigenous, non-English speaking background people, people with a disability, it is doing those people a disservice, it is running a discriminatory model, and it is not supporting the growth and development of the Northern Territory and the principles of reconciliation across all diversity backgrounds in the Northern Territory.
Debate suspended.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move, in relation to the Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory, additional terms of reference:
Madam SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I indicate I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition nominating the member for Goyder and the member for Sanderson. I table those two letters as well.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, a small technical issue I have noticed, probably in the way the motion was drafted. The Leader of the Opposition moved a disallowance motion which has certain rules surrounding it; however, the text has been drafted that it be heard on the next General Business Day. I refer the matter to you now so it is brought to your attention. I point out that this is a disallowance motion and would expect the rules attending to that would be accordingly applied.
Madam SPEAKER: That is relating to the notice of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I just refer it to you.
Madam SPEAKER: I will put this question first.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will take that on.
Mr ELFERINK: I merely refer the matter to you at this point so you are aware of the issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I do not want to speak for long but I do want to say a couple of things. This bill, in so many ways, reflects Labor Party policy. They believe in affirmative action, believe in giving - it is a good question what they believe in, in that regard. However, for the benefit of members of the House, the Labor Party’s affirmative action policy for the preselection of their own candidates is probably not known by many people. For the benefit of everyone here, I thought I might explain it.
The Labor Party in Australia has a policy of affirmative action when preselecting candidates, and the way it works is 40% of candidates will be men, 40% of candidates will be women, and the other 20% are preselected on merit. You have to ask the question, when 20% of candidates of the Labor Party are preselected on merit, who are that 20%. I look around this Chamber and do not see too many people on the other side with any merit …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Obviously, the candidates preselected by the Labor Party on merit are not elected, because we can see they have a certain number of men, a certain number of women, but none would be here on merit. It is a shame, but this is the way the Labor Party tries to dumb down the electorate and our economy. One of the problems we have in the Northern Territory is we are rewarding mediocrity. It does not take much to recognise how this has infiltrated our community when you look at the ranks of the Labor Party members in the Northern Territory. Quite frankly, the members of the Labor Party in this Legislative Assembly have been preselected because they are either men or women. They were not preselected on merit, which is in stark contrast to the way the Country Liberals have always done their preselection.
Quite frankly, within the Country Liberal Party, the preselection process is quite simple: the best person gets the job …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: And that is the way it should be – the best person gets the job. We believe in rewarding excellence. We are not rewarding mediocrity. The fact that someone is merely a male or a female does not come into the equation. We believe in merit across the board. We believe in supporting excellence, rewarding excellence, and ensuring the best people get the job.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. It is good to see a lively debate about the amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I flag that I have an amendment which I will be moving during committee regarding protection from liability, as well as another motion in relation to removal of the diversity clauses within the act. I will talk a little about that towards the end of my wrap up speech, but I just wanted to flag those.
We had a number of speakers and the most constructive speakers were the members for Macdonnell and Nelson. The member for Nelson certainly went through the issues he had, and clarified the issues around the special measures provisions. I will turn specifically to that shortly. The member for Macdonnell talked about giving confidence and opportunity to people in specific groups, and linked that to a Territorian outlook. The member for Nelson also said he took a long time to come to his decision, and repeatedly made the strong point that these special measures or provisions apply in every jurisdiction in Australia to both the public and the private sector and, in the Northern Territory for a number of years, have applied exclusively to the private sector.
A specific issue raised by both Independent members and members opposite was in relation to legal advice as to why these provisions we are incorporating into the PSEMA could not be achieved through the Anti-Discrimination Act. I have the legal advice, which I will read, and I am prepared to table from Clayton Utz. They canvas the issues and then come to their conclusions. In paragraph 57, they say:
In paragraph 58:
I am not a lawyer. I know the member for Port Darwin is a lawyer, and I am sure he will read this legal advice carefully. That indicates …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister indicated he would table the document. I ask that he do so.
Dr BURNS: I will table it. This is the only copy I have, so could Tabled Papers return a copy to my desk, please. I am more than happy to distribute that advice, particularly to the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex, the member for Nelson, and the member for Macdonnell in particular.
As a layman, that indicates to me, speaking very simplistically, that while the Anti- Discrimination Act has these clauses and sections, the very nature of the PSEMA closes off the application of the ADA in relation to these things based on the merit principle. That is why it is necessary for us to amend the PSEMA to allow the implementation of these special measures.
The legal advice is an important issue to settle here in this Chamber. I am sure the member for Port Darwin will look at it closely, and I anticipate some questions during the committee stage. Hopefully, he will be satisfied with this legal advice, which goes back to 2003. However, we are talking about the Anti-Discrimination Act, as someone mentioned here, which was brought into being by Shane Stone and was a good step on his part. I hope I have dealt with that.
I turn to some of the arguments put forward by opposition members in relation to why they do not agree with it. It is difficult with some of it, which was all over the place and contradictory between various members of the opposition. It seemed to revolve around the notion that somehow through special measures we were going to grab people almost off the street. I believe the words used by the member for Greatorex were ‘unqualified black women’, and place them into positions and prevent well-qualified, long-serving, male public servants from getting that position, and, at the bottom of it, we would be putting unqualified people, people who were not suitable to carry out the work, in these positions.
My advice is, and my advice to the House in turn is, even though a position would be subject to special measures, there would still be a job description, and there would still be references in terms of people’s qualifications and abilities. People who applied for the position under special measures would be judged accordingly based on their qualifications, whether they were suitable for the position, whether they were able to discharge their duties of the position; and the best person from the field of applicants would get the job on merit. So, the merit principle still applies within the special measures.
Once a person is in a position, the general conditions and rules of the PSEMA then apply in regard to a probation period and whether they perform satisfactorily within the probation period. That is part of what we are doing. We are not saying to anyone off the street: ‘Here you go, you are a member of this group, you can sit in that position’. It is not like that at all. I hope it was not a misrepresentation by members opposite, but I am trying to clarify the situation. There are processes for special measures in recruitment, and a normal recruitment process, judging people based on their applications, their potential, their ability to do the job, just as it is with any public service job. People are deemed either suitable or unsuitable for that job, and the best person within that group who have applied will get the job. I believe that is very important.
The other issue the opposition went on at length about, and to some degree, it was a fear or a concern of the member for Nelson that somehow government was going to use these special measures changes to the PSEMA as a lever or machine to fill quotas of disadvantaged groups and employment across the public service. I can assure this House that we do not have such quotas. In the longer-term, we have targets across the public service, but we will not be using, and departments will not be using, special measures as a way to fill targets.
It is all about trying to identify jobs that people, whether they are handicapped, they could be Indigenous, they could be English as a second language, they could be people such as me who are seniors, and getting them in positions as a special measure. Tasmania has similar measures and, according to the 2009-10 annual report, they have 23 780.47 positions and, out of those, there are about 100 or 90 positions identified as special measures. I should do my maths; it is quite a low percentage, if you divide through. I have not had time to complete that particular calculation, but I think 90 out of nearly 24 000 is a low percentage. In the Commonwealth, I am advised only about 25% of departments have taken up special measures. It is important to note that where a department identifies a position as being subject to special measures, the department has to enter into a discussion with the Commissioner for Public Employment, who has to consider whether it is appropriate to apply special measures to that position. It is not a lay down misere that special measures will automatically be applied.
I understand if someone does have a quibble – I do not have it in front of me – but my memory from the briefing is if someone does have an argument about a declaration of special measures being applied to a position, they do have recourse to appeal through the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Those avenues of appeal are still open to the sort of people the member for Greatorex alluded to, who might not be happy about a particular position being subject to special measures.
In general, these positions will be entry-level positions in the public service as alluded to by the member for Nelson. It may not be restricted to those positions, but in general that is what is envisaged.
I hope I have addressed some of those issues raised by the opposition; I listened very carefully. The other thing to mention is - the member for Greatorex mentioned this - this is not about promotion. These are about identified positions. When people go for promotion, they go through the normal processes of the public service regarding selection and application and all the rest of it. This is about identifying particular positions for special measures. That is my understanding of it, member for Greatorex.
Apart from his discourse on Marxist theory and philosophy, which I found quite interesting - he is certainly a font of wisdom – the member for Port Darwin said there is a cogent argument for employment based on race. This was completely different from the arguments run by the member for Greatorex, so obviously the opposition needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I said exactly the opposite. I said there was no cogent argument for employment based on race and that was the point of my whole discourse.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: I apologise, member for Port Darwin. I misheard you, and I apologise for that. I will look at Hansard again when it comes out and go through the whole thread of your argument. However, you did talk about race as being a meritorious principle so …
Mr Elferink: No, you missed my point of order. I said race was not a principle of merit.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, there is no point or order, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: Yes, I accept that. You said that; I agree with that. However, you are arguing against race as being a meritorious principle and the point I was going to make, member for Port Darwin, is I am not arguing that either and neither is the legislation. What the legislation is all about is through the Anti-Discrimination Act - about those particular groups in our society who are discriminated against. Those are the categories we are looking at. We are doing it on a basis of discrimination and the Anti-Discrimination Act as being the descriptor rather than arguing race is a meritorious factor. We are not arguing that at all …
Mr Elferink: You are.
Dr BURNS: We will have to agree to disagree on that, member for Port Darwin; however, that is the way I understand this element of the legislation - the amendment in PSEMA we are discussing today is linked directly to the Anti-Discrimination Act, and to that particular section in the Anti-Discrimination Act that describes the attributes of people who are discriminated against. It is not about merit, it is about people who are discriminated against. I am pretty sure I have this quote right. You said:
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Dr BURNS: It is exactly the same mischief, if you like, that Shane Stone mentioned in his second reading speech. I am not going to repeat it because the member for Nelson mentioned it; however, in 1992, Shane Stone mentioned, in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Act, clauses 51 to 56, about exemptions. He then talked about clause 57 being important as an exemption designed to allow for the development and implementation of special programs for disadvantaged groups in order to address past inequity. That is the mischief Shane Stone was trying to remedy. It has been embedded in statute and applies to the private sector and now we are proposing it apply to the public sector.
I was interested to hear you say this notion of race as a meritorious principle and employment based on race are things put forward by the left. You said that, so it is interesting that Shane Stone …
Mr Elferink: I have always thought of him as a soft lefty. I always thought that about him.
Dr BURNS: I am coming to that point. It seems the CLP has shifted even further right than Shane Stone. Poor Shane Stone is now a left wing ideologue of the CLP. I am sure he will be interested to read this and I hope it gets a run in Bushranger. It might tickle the editor’s fancy, member for Port Darwin, that you have now lumped him in with the left. I find that very interesting. Maybe it is more a commentary on how the CLP has lurched violently to the right as seen in the last two weeks of this sitting with the member for Fong Lim back in a driver’s seat. We have seen a range of items, policies, and positions - not too many policies, but ideological positions shifting since the big fella has come back. Shane Stone may well be on the left compared to the member for Fong Lim.
I have the Hansard rush the member for Port Darwin rushed to get as well about an interjection I made. I am not going to go to that …
Mr Elferink: Why not?
Dr BURNS: Because it stood for itself and I will leave it there. I read it carefully and I have nothing to answer for regarding any allegations of racism. As I said in a point of order, the problem emanated from what the member for Port Darwin was asserting in his speech, which partly had to do with the Aboriginal ACPO from the Gold Coast feeling uncomfortable in the Indigenous community with the sports day …
Mr Elferink: Because it was all about employing an Aboriginal person.
Dr BURNS: There was an underlying assertion that, somehow, this person was picked because of the colour of their skin; they had not gone through any selection process ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That assertion was not underlying; that was stated.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Well, there you go. I hope that person did undergo a selection process. It was a poor reflection on that particular police officer. The comments were ill-directed. I will leave it there; that is probably best.
As I outlined at the beginning, I have some amendments to make. One is the removal of the diversity principle from within the act because both the opposition and the Independent objected strongly to it. We listened. We have removed it from the act. That has been removed; we have stayed with special measures.
There is one other amendment based on advice from the Parliamentary Counsel. As they drafted the amendment to the act, a suggestion was made - or a strong view was put forward by Parliamentary Counsel - that something which had been in regulation under the act should come into the act to provide greater certainty; that is, the protection from liability aspect. I will read the advice I have:
We live in a litigious age and it is appropriate, as suggested by Parliamentary Counsel, that we pull that provision out of regulations and bring it into the act to give more protection and indemnity to those good people who sit on appeal boards. That is a difficult job in itself and can be quite complex.
I want to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, by talking generally about the act. This revision was completed in a thorough way with a great deal of consultation and there have been changes as we moved forward. My advice from the Commissioner for Public Employment, particularly Ken Simpson, the former commissioner who brought these amendments forward to government, was all about enshrining the objectives of the public employment act, and what we are trying to achieve for the public service in the Northern Territory, in the legislation, and putting the process issues around things like appeals and disciplinary hearings, etcetera, within the regulations of the act. That was a strong recommendation, which we accepted.
There are a number of elements I talked about in my second reading speech in relation to changes to the act. It is all about making it a streamlined public service that is accountable and transparent in the way it operates - making our public service a great place to work. We certainly want to see that. There is clarification over a range of issues: administration and management, human resource management, merit, equal employment opportunity, and performance and conduct. It is also clarifying issues around performance and accountability generally in the public service, and clarifying the functions of chief executive officers. All these are important elements.
As I said previously, Ken Simpson has retired as Commissioner for Public Employment. There is currently a selection process under way, as people would be aware. I do not believe the results of that selection process have been finalised and announced. I give this pledge on the floor of parliament, given I believe the amendments will be carried, including the amendments we are going to do in committee stage. We have to streamline the PSEMA now, a contemporary PSEMA. We will have a new public service commissioner. What I want to see and will be working towards in the coming months, in the coming year, and I am sure government will work on it in the longer-term is ensuring we maximise benefits for our public servants regarding development, career development and growing our own, the next generation of people who are going to move through and be leaders within the public service, and streamlining processes within the public service, within the departments.
An issue I have been concerned about since I became minister the second time is there are many people who act in higher duties for far too long. Some people act in higher duties for years. It is undesirable for the person acting in that position, and the person who has left that position and is probably acting within another department, or in some other part of the same department. I think CEOs need to make management decisions about how that is going to work. It is undesirable to have people shifting on a regular basis, particularly in important positions. That is just an example; that is a hobby horse of mine.
What I want to do is work with the new Commissioner for Public Employment; and also the head of Chief Minister’s, as the head of all the CEOs, to ensure we are getting change within our public service, change that will benefit the public servants in their career development, in growing our own, and in streamlining processes. JES was mentioned in this parliament today, and it needs to be streamlined and brought up to date. There is a range of issues and I have mentioned just a few. There are many more. What I am undertaking to do is, with the Commissioner for Public Employment, the head of Chief Minister’s, and all the CEOs, to start to address these issues and make a great public service even better.
I am giving that assurance and promise on the floor of parliament today. These amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act are an important step, but I want to see things implemented on the ground, and the best way to do that is through the CEOs who have a statutory responsibility also.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this act. I have already paid tribute to Ken Simpson, and I am sure he is probably relaxing somewhere and not listening today; however, his old work mates will report to him, hopefully, that this bill has passage in this parliament today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 146), together with schedule of amendments No 59, circulated by the Minister for Public Employment, Dr Burns, and, as I understand, a schedule of amendments circulated by the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, has been withdrawn.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Greatorex.
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 59.1 standing in my name.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I am going to take this opportunity to set the record straight on a couple of things.
I advise the minister at no point did I suggest there was a cogent argument for race-based employment; in fact, I argued strenuously against that proposition. The philosophy engaged in by this government in relation to employment on special considerations and historic disempowerment - I believe is the quote out of the instructions given to Clayton Utz - is that I could not have seen a more stark example of the way this stuff operates. The passion this minister has to pursue matters on race-based grounds, which is what this is all about, and even the instructions given to Clayton Utz says that is what this is all about, special consideration for historically disadvantaged groups of people is exactly what caused the interjection that so annoyed me during the second reading debate.
I was being critical of the employment of a person because the only thing that qualified them for that job, apparently, was the fact they were Aboriginal; not local, they were from the coast, and have probably gone on to blossom in the job for all I know. But the grounds for employment were the fact they were Aboriginal. That is the allegation, and it is not an underlying suggestion; it is an overt statement that that was the motivation.
I am curious, however, that the minister saw fit to interject: ‘What about the member for Braitling?’ Why the member for Braitling, would I ask? What is so special about him? I turn around and I see a man, about six feet tall, probably about 100kg in weight, an excellent performer in every way and, by the way, he happens to be Aboriginal. From this minister’s perspective though, sitting on his side of the House with his lens on, the only thing that can be concluded and extracted from the minister’s attitude was the member for Braitling is an Aboriginal and, by the way, then he is all those other things. This goes to the heart of what this change to the legislation is all about; is putting that lens on.
If I were the member for Braitling, I would have found that comment condescending. If I was in the public service and I was an Aboriginal person and I was told I got promoted, the question would always be in the back my mind: was it because I was black? That is the thing I have been railing against, and that is the thing this side of the House is railing against. Is it because I am black that I am getting the promotion?
No matter how you dress this up, and what language you use, and I heard the minister say: ‘It is still all about merit, we are going to get the best person for the job’. If that is the case, why do you need these special provisions at all? If you are going to get the best person for the job, just stick to that.
But that is not the question that was asked in 2003 of Clayton Utz. The question that was asked of Clayton Utz in 2003 was quite clear: ‘How do we make the law operate in a particular fashion?’ And the answer was: ‘If you want to achieve these outcomes, this is how you do it’. That is what we are engaged in right now. We do not agree. We think it is wrong because it is a short-term solution which will have a long-term legacy. It is like the whole Stolen Generations thing in that sense – well-intended, poor outcomes. The residual of what you are doing here today, the mess will still be around in 20 or 30 years time.
I will finish on one more observation. I am unsure if members of this House are aware of a unit of the American Air Force which was trained at Tuskegee. It had an excellent record. The demands placed on those airmen were enormously high. They had to meet the highest possible benchmark. When they flew during the World War II in Europe as bomber escorts, not a single bomber was lost because the standards they met were so high. The bomber crews did not like them at first because all the pilots from that air unit were black. I have no problem with people, no matter who they are, being asked to meet a benchmark because you will always find those who are prepared to lead. Those who are prepared to lead will come up to the benchmarks and it is better you set the benchmark high and demand much and get a few through than to lower the benchmark and leave a residual doubt in the minds of the community and the very people promoted.
Dr BURNS: I hope, apart from the commentary by the member for Port Darwin, that the opposition is agreeing with the removal of this particular clause as requested. My only response to his philosophical position is to quote once again what Shane Stone said:
Shane Stone, who is a luminary in the CLP, had a philosophical position. He supported special measures applying, obviously, to the private sector and they have applied for nearly 10 years in the private sector. I have heard no grumbles about it in the private sector and think they will be applied judiciously in the public sector. I hope we can move through these committee stage amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 37, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 38:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 59.2 to insert a new section 59G. As I said in my wrap-up to the second reading speech, this is the protection from liability clause we are bringing from regulations into the act. I appreciate the advice from Parliamentary Counsel that this will strengthen those provisions around protection from liability for those members of the appeal board who are acting in good faith in the exercise of their power. I commend this amendment to members in the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I want to wrap up the passage of the bill. I have to make a comment on the minister’s slur towards the member for Braitling. It is appalling that the minister who has carriage of this bill and is overseeing it has such distaste for the member for Braitling because he is an Aboriginal person. The minister said it, it is in Hansard. He could only be alluding to one thing; that is, ‘What about the member for Braitling?’, when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the ACPO from the Gold Coast. We know exactly what you meant by that, minister. You can weasel your way out of it any way you like. You have form. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not know where to start with you. Do we go back to your slur against the member for Port Darwin - the slur that has tarnished your parliamentary career, which you have written letters to newspapers about, saying: ‘It is the most embarrassing stage of my whole parliamentary career’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Third reading debates are to contain information referred to previously in debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Greatorex, would you please keep to the point as much as possible.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. There will be plenty said on this in the future - no doubt about it - because it is another string to the minister’s despicable bow. As I said, people in glass houses, minister, should not throw stones. We have quite a dossier on you when it comes to this sort of stuff.
We believe people should be promoted and employed through the public service based on their merit and their excellence - not cherry picking minority groups to fit some archaic affirmative action. That is what we believe, and we have said it on a number of occasions. Sure, Shane Stone came in here 20 years ago and said: ‘Maybe we need to be moving towards this special measures provision’. Well, that was 20 years ago. As I said, 20 years before that was the 1970s, and all the principles and doctrines were surrounding life in the 1970s. What about in the 1950s and the 1930s? We have moved on. Surely, it is about time we move on from this sort of thing? We are in the 21st century; indeed, we are in 2011.
I do not think it is a good law, Madam Speaker. This law sets the same people up to fail that it intends, or is trying to, protect. I agree with the member for Port Darwin. He talked about that bomber crew of World War II. It is about achieving excellence and setting benchmarks. I alluded to this in my second reading reply; about setting people up to fail and taking away their aspirations, or not encouraging people to aim higher. These sorts of provisions and measures do just that. There is nothing better we can bestow on people who might be from a disadvantaged group than to aim as high as you possibly can, and you will be rewarded for that.
The Beauty Myth and The Female Eunuch are no longer bastions for feminism. We have gone backwards, I have to say. It does nothing to improve the glass ceiling for women, and it certainly does nothing to improve the principles of self-determination for Aboriginal people.
I draw the minister’s attention to the legal advice. This was tabled, and the member for Port Darwin alluded to this as well. If we go to the conclusions and recommendations, it says:
Which is what we are doing:
Madam Speaker, the advice sought by the government has delivered a conclusion that suits its agenda; it is right there in the conclusion. This approach is an insult to women who have achieved and women who want to achieve. You are not there because you are good enough; you are there because you are a woman. How does that make you feel? I do not know how that would make me feel, to know I am only there because we need a white bloke. I would feel insulted, humiliated, and embarrassed about that. I do not know how members opposite feel, maybe government can remove itself from that, being part of this government.
I am sure there are women - in fact, I know there are, because I have spoken with many of them regarding this bill. Their initial reaction and instinct is offence. They take offence to the fact that they will be promoted because of their gender, because they are women, and the same with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people who want to work, achieve, climb the ladder, get as high as they can, and do everything they possibly can to better their life and their family’s life are highly offended by the fact that they are promoted as a result of their historical disadvantage, as it says in this, and we have a whole stack of others.
It does not sit ideologically well with us, or philosophically well, whatever you like to say, however you like to phrase it. It does not sit well with me at all. I feel uncomfortable about this sort of approach. I was never given a leg up. I had to achieve whatever it is I have achieved in life through work, and in this role as a member of the Legislative Assembly, privileged position that it is, through working hard.
That is the best example for people, to get out there and work as hard as you can, and you can achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. This bill and this sort of approach sends a message to people that you are not in this position because you are the best qualified, or because you have worked hard, or because you have set a high benchmark, or you have set a terrific example, that you are a wonderful employee, that you do your work, you turn up on time, you are an excellent employee. You are there because you are part of a historically disadvantaged group; you are there because you are disadvantaged. In the 21st century in 2011, it sends the wrong message.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 August 2011.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the minister’s statement on education. Most members of parliament in this House will agree that education is a top priority. We often hear members of parliament talking about how much they value education, how much they appreciate education, how much they care about education, because it is something we share in life. We all go to school, we are all taught, we all have broad experience in the education system as students, but our experience often differs from person to person.
I went to a range of public and private schools up and down the track: Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Darwin, and briefly, primary school in Adelaide. It was a rewarding experience. Like most people, one of the most important things about school is learning how to interact socially with other kids. Moving schools frequently was one of the more rewarding aspects of my schooling experience, which I enjoyed. I have spoken in the House before about my time at primary school in Adelaide before we returned as a family to Tennant Creek, and I went to Kargaru. Unfortunately, Kargaru no longer exists; there is only Tennant Creek Primary now in Tennant Creek, and I was in Grade 4. At that time, back in the early 1980s, I found I was already six months ahead of the class. We were doing a maths test, and were asked to look at the division times tables, and we were doing multiplication times tables, and I was the only one in the class who knew they were essentially the same thing anyway. It was a very strange experience.
We have made up much ground since then, particularly in the last 10 years as a Labor government, as we have invested time and resources into education, as we have made significant steps and revolutions. The middle school revolution which recognises that Year 7, 8, and 9 require particular attention; are an important time in children’s lives and require dedicated attention from a dedicated school, with a principal and teachers who understand the importance of what those children are going through in Year 7, 8, and 9 and are dedicated to that.
Darwin Middle School is part of the Fannie Bay electorate - depending on how you look at the boundaries of the recent distribution - but a school I spend a lot of time at. It has a fantastic principal in Marcus Dixon, and taking time establishing the school, developing rapport with their students, with their cohort, to deliver outcomes. That is because we said, as a government, we value education and it is critical that we focus on that period of a child’s learning. That is happening at Darwin Middle School, which is commendable.
It is amazing the differences between schools you go to now and schools you went to when you were a child. I have noticed many differences. The quality of the classrooms and some of the stuff in schools now is remarkable. There is also a very Territory thing - sense of shame, shame job, was a big thing when I was going through school. It affected many students in the sense that no one was prepared to get up on stage, no one wanted to speak publicly, no one wanted to dance or sing. I have noticed a transformation in schools lately where students are excited about getting up on stage and expressing themselves; whether by singing or dancing, playing instruments, performing, speaking; a remarkable transformation in the Territory and a sign of how we are maturing as a place, a real change of attitude.
We always have been a ‘can do’ place, but that was not necessarily reflected in students wanting to put their hand up, go to the front of the classroom, and write on the whiteboard. People should feel comfortable to make mistakes. We learn best through periods of discomfort and often people break life into two categories: comfort and pain. It is in discomfort that you often learn the most, when you put yourself out, put yourself in a position where you are doing something new or different or uncomfortable, when you get up to speak publicly. It is not a problem for us in this Chamber, but it is a problem that plagues many people. That famous survey which has gone around so many times - I do not know if it is an urban myth or not - about what are your greatest fears? People say their greatest fears are public speaking, followed by death. They would rather be in the grave than deliver the eulogy, which is a remarkable thing. If you presented it to them that way they would disagree, but people often say the worst thing they can do is speak publicly.
There is a real change going through the Territory, and the education system, and what is happening amongst our student body where people are much more comfortable about expressing themselves and performing. At Darwin Middle School, they do a regular talent show and it is a fantastic demonstration of the quality of the youth, not just the quality of the performance, but of their spirit, endeavour, and attitude. It is an impressive thing and I always walk away from it uplifted.
Often, the best days we have in this job are when we go to our schools. When we go to our primary schools, we spend time with the students, whether at assembly or in a class answering questions about civics, they are some of the best days we do in this job because schools are full of promise. Schools are where kids go to learn, to develop, to grow, and become the future leaders of the Territory, and it is a positive place to be. It is definitely something we value as a Labor government. As someone who was born and bred here, went to school here, when going to university locally - I could have gone down south. I looked at it, I thought about it, and I decided I did not want to leave the Territory. I stayed, and it is one of the most exciting things that has happened.
We talk about it a lot and we should keep talking about it because I still cannot believe it is happening in many ways. I find it very exciting that a kid in the Northern Territory can now go all the way from preschool through to a medical degree. That is an outstanding opportunity for people, to be able to stay locally. Obviously, if you want to have a local doctor, the best way to get one is to train a local. More than that, we know that if you dedicate four, five, six years of your life – in those late teenage years into your early twenties, in a jurisdiction, in a city, say you go to Melbourne; that is a long time in a person’s life. They will form new connections, a new support network, new families, and new friends. They possibly will even meet their prospective wife. They will stay, and we lose Territorians. Now we will keep them. More to the point, people will come here for that period of time training as a doctor - six years - and they will form connections in the Territory.
When I went through uni locally I had many friends in my group who came from down south and stayed at the completion of uni. Whether it be doing articles as a lawyer or moving into other careers or professions, they stayed. It is very exciting that you can now go from preschool all the way through to a medical degree in the Territory. That is one of the most exciting stories we have.
When you visit schools, as the minister was saying recently, they say: ‘Join us in our world’. It is amazing how quickly things change - adopting technology and changes of attitude. I believe I am still young, but I am older than the average age, and the minister was talking recently about some of the revolutions that are happening and the idea that you can have the world’s entire library almost on one device. I recently started using a Kindle, an e-book reader. I always loved the feel of the book, the smell of the book. I love reading and thought I would never move away from a proper book into a Kindle. However, it is a remarkable device for what it provides - its ease of use and the library that is at your fingertips when you use it. When the minister mentioned the adoption of iPads and the access that provides to the world library, the fact that you can take the library home with you and wherever you go that library will be with you is an incredibly exciting place to be. It is remarkable what those devices can deliver, and we are making bold steps into a new future and that is an incredible story.
Mum used to love to tell this story in our Tennant Creek days; I have not heard her tell it for a while. Maggie Hickey was the librarian in Tennant Creek and Maggie used to say that I borrowed enough books that they increased the funding to the library, which I was quite happy with. I love reading; the more you read the better. It is a way of expanding horizons without leaving your desk. The history of humanity’s exploration - we left the cave, we saw the fire, we climbed the mountain, we crossed the sea, we went to where the map said there would be dragons. The history of humanity is the history of exploration and you can do that through reading; you can do that through books.
We have given people the ability to take a library home with them. That is obviously happening in your electorate, Madam Speaker, at Nightcliff, and it is one of the most exciting things we are doing, on top of the ability to obtain a medical degree in the Territory. The ability to have that library with you, to be able to explore the world from the comfort of your home is an amazing opportunity, an amazing accessory, and very exciting.
I spoke about this in the House, last week; several weeks ago I attended the TEDxDarwin conference - ted.com, if members are not aware of it, is a powerful website. It is a place where people can share ideas, spread ideas worth sharing. The conference did not have an education theme, but several people who spoke at the conference were from an education background and they spoke about things they were doing in education and it was very interesting.
One was Adam Voigt, who has been in the paper recently because of Rosebery Primary School and its approach to homework. He spoke about how, as a school, they spoke to the parent community, looked at the data - he talked a lot about data - he believes in making decisions based on data and they looked at what they thought homework delivered. He summed it up, as you can often do, that he made his decision on research and data. He summed it up by saying he felt, generically, homework delivered three things; stress to children, late nights for parents, and no discernable outcomes necessarily education-wise. He said you do not necessarily get a benefit out of making a papier-mch volcano at 11 pm. There is more to homework than that. As kids, everyone hated homework. There were definitely times I did homework that I thought was helpful. There are maths problems you need to spend time on outside the classroom. There definitely can be a place for it in education.
It is always interesting to see people take a fresh approach to situations because often it is about the outcome you achieve. You always have to remember you do not go through the process for the sake of the process. He took a fresh approach to something at Rosebery and he promised the parent group he would deliver students with the same outcomes as if they were getting the homework. He made that commitment, and that is what they are working towards. It is an interesting, exciting approach to education.
Another person who spoke at the conference was Chris Garner from Marrara Christian College. He spoke about how they deal with their Indigenous students in Year 11 and 12. They took a step back because their graduation rate was at 2%. They said: ‘That is not good enough. We are obviously doing something wrong; we need to do something different. What can we do?’ They decided to take a path of a three-week induction in Year 11, where they sat down and talked with their students about where they came from, their expectations, their families’ expectations, what type of environment they would be returning to, and what they wanted to achieve. They introduced themselves and sat down for three weeks and, at the end of that, they tailored a program for those students for the next two years. The program delivered an outcome that obviously met the core criteria they needed to meet for Years 11 and 12 and, more importantly in many ways, delivered an outcome that was going to get that student something after high school. They turned their graduation rate around from 2% to 98%, which is an extraordinary outcome.
I have spoken to the minister’s office about that to find out if we are talking with them. There are lessons there for us. Sometimes, in the public system you have to do things differently to what a single school might do. We are talking to them about what they are doing and how to apply it. That is an interesting approach, and we should look at anything that achieves good outcomes. That is another way of looking with fresh eyes at an old problem.
One of the best things that has happened in schools in the last few years is Building the Education Revolution from the federal government and the physical investment made in schools. Obviously, the most important thing to come out of a school is a child’s education, but the new buildings, when done thoughtfully, as they have been done at the schools in my electorate, can contribute to the students’ experience at school and the educational outcome they receive.
Stuart Park opened their Assembly Hall last Friday with the community. They spent their money in couple of ways: they put a verandah on the lower early primary which allowed all those classrooms access to the grounds they previously could not access. Suddenly, teachers are able to use the grounds of the school - which are beautiful grounds – with their classes. Before, they could not access it, and it denied them the opportunity to get out into the garden and teach there. They have remodelled much of what they do in class to take advantage of that garden space. They are beautiful grounds.
What they factored into the hall was very thoughtful – after-school care and a few other things. An impressive, thought-through building that meets the school’s needs and has allowed them to provide better for their student cohort. That is to be widely commended. The principal, Bernie Bree, and the entire school make a tremendous effort. The opening of the BER building with the community – there were many parents in attendance and people who were part of the project returned. We had a moment when everyone said: ‘Job well done; this is good’. Obviously, it achieved a secondary or primary purpose – it depends on which way you want to look at it – of stimulating the economy and putting tools in tradies’ hands at the same time as leading to a benefit to schools. It was an incredibly well thought-out, economic and education program which was well received in my area. We have had a great benefit at the two schools – Parap Primary School and Stuart Park Primary School – from that investment.
It was good being at Stuart Park the other day because we were able to see some of the things as a government we have recently done. We worked with the council - obviously, it is a council road – to improve car parking on Ashley Street. There was a real problem that built up over the last few years - I have seen it in the paper a few times, too – where traffic was becoming congested and it was becoming difficult to navigate, and parental pick-up and drop-off was becoming a nightmare. We did a safe route to school study with the local school, sat down with the local council, gave the capital grant to council, and were able to get a real outcome, which was what the parent body, the school, council, and we, wanted. It was a win/win/win, which can happen sometimes when you sit down and talk things through. That is now done; it was done over the school holidays. It has already made a significant difference to the school. It had real impact on parents’ and school concerns about pick-up and drop-off and child safety. We have now fixed that before anything happened, and that was a good outcome from everyone.
We are going through a similar process at the moment at Parap Primary School, talking with the school, talking with the council, looking at what is happening around that school. Parap Primary School is an interesting place because of its location on a main road, near the village. It will always have a degree of traffic that might not be common around a school in the Territory. Many of our schools are more internal and in some ways the suburbs are not in the same predicament as Parap Primary School and the challenges we are going to have going forward, but the school community recognises that and there are little things we can do to ensure the traffic around that school works well. We are working on that with the school council.
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to support the minister’s statement. I want to say again - there is more than this - but two of the most exciting things we are doing with education lately are that you can now go from preschool all the way through to a medical degree in the Territory; that is exciting. In addition, the trial we are doing with Apple where you can take a library home with you. Having access to an entire library at home is an exciting thing. I wish I had had that as a kid. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and thank him for bringing this important matter before the House. As we all know, education is the cornerstone for the future of any community, and not least the Northern Territory. It is what builds the future for our kids, individuals, families, and communities, and it is education which is the necessary step to a job and economic independence and, with it, a future. This is a fact based on well-documented data and evidence.
More than two years ago, with the development of the Territory 2030 strategy, as the minister said, education was placed front and centre, and continues to be placed front and centre as the most important area of focus for this government. I acknowledge the continuing hard work of my colleague, the member for Arafura, in her role as Parliamentary Secretary for Territory 2030 in working with the subcommittee of Cabinet to drive the targets which have been set in the vision, in the roadmap, for the next 20 years. During her time as the minister for Education, especially her work in transforming Indigenous education, and as a bush member like me, the member for Arafura knows how critically important it is that all Territorians have access to quality education. Moreover, those children who go to school every day will benefit from an education system in the Northern Territory of which this government is proud.
This government has invested heavily in education since coming to government in 2001, after 27 years of the CLP. Unlike the CLP, we have worked hard to ensure that every child, no matter where they live, has access to an education, and we continue to strive towards meeting that challenge. It is a challenge the CLP either never cared about or did not regard as important because, prior to 2001, schooling for kids beyond their primary years did not exist in the bush, and that is a shameful record.
I am a bush member, and have been a bush resident of Nhulunbuy for more than 20 years. I would like to talk about what is going on out there with getting kids from remote areas into school. About working with these kids, their families, and elders in the communities about how important education is and why it is that we need to have kids at school every day; to complete school through to Year 12, so they have the best chance to go on to jobs and, with strong futures, be in control of their own destiny, rather than being amongst the unskilled and the unemployed, or even the unemployable, and certainly not welfare dependent.
It is about more than just building schools, although building schools and having appropriate facilities is critically important. It is about breaking through the rhetoric, and not just telling people they need to send children to school every day, but also having a workable strategy and tangible measures in place which will bring about real, sustainable, and lasting change. While my role as Parliamentary Secretary focuses on pathways within the middle and senior school sectors, I understand that we are dealing with generational change and need to be acting, and are acting, now. The pathway for education does start from birth and continues along a continuum.
The minister spoke about the report of Professor Masters and the acceptance of his recommendations. One of those key recommendations is around the need for greater emphasis on a child’s early years to get them and their parents on the all-important path for lifelong learning. The minister referred to child and family centres and Families as First Teachers, as well as mobile preschools, which are all fantastic initiatives. There is much good work happening on the ground in communities with children, their parents, and families actively engaged with the education process.
The East Arnhem Shire, as I am sure other shires do, has an active and positive role in the area of children and families and I congratulate them and highlight the great work they do. In the East Arnhem Shire, that work is led by Families and Children’s Services Coordinator, Diane Kearney, who is a committed and dedicated professional and advocate for children and families with many experiences in the sector. I have known Diane since she was the director of Nhulunbuy Community Child Care Centre where I worked with her for several years on the parent committee.
Recently, the East Arnhem Shire, in collaboration with Families as First Teachers and East Arnhem Shire Indigenous families, launched a children’s picture book written and illustrated for Yolngu children as part of the all-important educational and nurturing activity, reading stories. With the launch of their book, they included a CD, which I am advised is a fantastic resource and hopefully by the time I get home from sittings, I will have one on my desk. The name of this book is Nganapu Nguli Marrtji Diltiyi, and this means ‘we go out to bush’. I listened with interest to the contribution of the member for Macdonnell about how welcome the Families as First Teachers program is in her electorate, and the need for more of it, recognising that the teachers of the program spend a good deal of time travelling to remote communities within the electorate. As the minister indicated, where we see a need and we need to fill a gap, we will certainly endeavour to do so.
I have listened to many of the contributions of the member for Macdonnell during my time in this House and I have heard her speak on several occasions about how dependency on welfare and government services seems to have resulted, in some instances, in parents stepping away from parenting responsibilities and non-government organisations and the government stepping into the breach. She expressed this view in relation to sport and recreation officers and while I think we would all defend the role of sport and rec officers supporting our young people to engage in healthy and active lives, I certainly take her point.
I also listened with great interest when she spoke the other day about the proposal from a prominent Indigenous academic at Melbourne University about providing food security to communities with the location of families’ food stores in eskies in places like health clinics; I think that was how the story went. I am sure this individual’s proposal is well-intentioned, but I agree with the member for Macdonnell that it reflects a lack of understanding of the reality of life in our remote communities and such proposals sound quite impractical.
We are seeing success from the investment in early years’ education and we know that attendance of children at preschool and Transition to Year 3 is generally good. However, the success of these years and the Families as First Teachers program requires an integrated approach across government agencies, working with shires and non-government organisations and, most importantly, engaging parents, families, and elders, as partners. We have heard the health minister and the Minister for Central Australia talk about successful partnerships in Alice Springs highlighting some of the innovative work at Gillen Primary School, especially in the early years, with a program that outreaches into people’s homes.
A key recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report is there needs to be an integrated approach across government agency and service delivery, and not a silo mentality where agencies are not talking within and across one another. With this integration in mind, child and family leader positions within the Department of Education and Training - new positions as I understand - were advertised last weekend and these roles are focused upon and I quote from the description in the ad:
Already those ads have generated interest. I have had a couple of phone calls from home, from teachers who are interested in these roles and want to know more. Schools are the foundation and the hub of communities, as the Minister for Central Australia said. The member for Macdonnell also acknowledged this when she talked about Papunya and the efforts to engage parents and families with the school. To encourage them to be actively interested in what their kids were doing by attending school open days, listening to their kids about their schoolwork, looking at the work produced by their kids, and attending parent teacher interviews to talk with teachers about how their kids are doing.
I have attended many parent teacher nights over the years, both as a teacher and as a parent. Many schools are moving away from these being occasions that were once a little threatening and intimidating, sometimes for both parties. One of the first meetings I had with former member, Syd Stirling, was when he came to a parent teacher night to inquire about how his son was progressing in English. We had a difference of opinion about the grade I had arrived at, but I stood my ground and explained to Syd how I arrived at that grade and was sure his very smart son would progress well beyond that. I am pleased to say that he most certainly did.
Most schools I see do not rely, necessarily, on the old style of parent teacher nights. Schools complement that by creating a range of opportunities to encourage open dialogue. From an open door policy which encourages parents into classrooms to actively help out and participate, to e-mail contact, which is so helpful for busy parents and busy teachers for whom organising a sit down meeting or playing phone tag is not viable. I appreciate the e-mail contact I have with my children’s teachers and we continue to embrace new technology, not only to communicate – and I have to say the weekly newsletter of Nhulunbuy Primary School, the NPS Express, which welcomes community notices as well as school news, is probably more widely read than the local weekly newspaper in Nhulunbuy.
We also embrace that technology in the classroom. As the Treasurer said in her contribution to this debate, we have moved from blackboards to whiteboards, to Smart boards. I graduated through the first two; however, I confess I do not know how to work a Smart board, but am pleased my kids do. I was pleased to see kids at Baniyala Garrangali School using Smart boards with confidence, which they so clearly demonstrated when the minister and I travelled there for the opening of the school just a fortnight ago today. We heard both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Braitling refer to the community at Baniyala and acknowledge the school, which is great, because Baniyala has moved from a homeland learning centre to small school status, which means the school is staffed full-time, five days a week, and there has been an investment to house teachers.
I was rather curious about the comment from the Leader of the Opposition when he said there is something happening under the radar at Baniyala. I do not quite know what he means, but I might have a chat with him later to see what he thinks is going on down there. That community is very happy and delighted to have their full-time school and to see their children going every day. In fact, at the opening, the kids sang a song they had written, accompanied by Wendy Ellis on the keyboard, about every child, every day and the importance of going to school.
I was talking about the importance of the integration of services, especially in the early years, and the involvement of families and communities in getting kids to school and seeing schools as valued and valuable places in what they can offer to improve and turn around people’s lives. Some communities have been successfully doing that for a while. It would not be the first time I have referred to Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island doing fantastic work from preschool through to Year 12 as one of the Strong Start, Bright Future colleges. Within that college environment, they are also obviously looking after the Marthakal homeland schools.
Other colleges at Yirrkala and Groote Eylandt have achieved good progress and successful outcomes, and the 9 to 3 and 3 to 9 programs are gathering momentum. The 9 to 3 and 3 to 9 simply refers to schools being open from 9 am to 3 pm or 8 am to 3 pm and reopening or staying open in the evening to offer additional classes to anyone else in the community.
At Shepherdson College, working with the local police, several young people have acquired their learner driver licences and are learning how to operate vehicles. There are cooking and nutrition courses, there is a childcare course - forgive me if I have already mentioned music – and language classes being offered for non-Indigenous people within the community. It is fantastic to see schools being the hub of the community, and places where people are made welcome - not just kids in the community, but adults as well.
As we all know, we have seen positive outcomes for kids only when we see every school-aged child attending school every day. As the member for Nelson pointed out, it is about participation in the learning environment, not just attending. Remote communities, as we know, have special and unique circumstances. Several people in this debate spoke about building in flexibility of school terms, particularly in the Top End where there is a four-week stand-down period in the middle of the year. It is the best weather of the year, and people may leave their communities and not come back for some time and, yet, during the Wet Season, there is pretty much a captive audience. There is less mobility because there is water around and on the roads and, therefore, it makes good sense that we negotiate to keep a school open rather than close it for the six-week period over Christmas and New Year. That has been well received by the AEU.
I also want to add to that, again referring back to Baniyala Garrangali School, the week we went out, a fortnight ago, was just after the long weekend. On the Monday of the August long weekend, those children went to school. Pat and Wendy Ellis, as the teachers, were at school that day. They negotiated that with the community because, on the Friday, so many people were travelling into just outside Nhulunbuy for the Garma Festival. Rather than have the children lose a school day on a public holiday, on the Monday as well as the Friday with Garma, they had an arrangement and agreement in place that, on the public holiday it was school and business as usual, which was fantastic.
The measure of our success in education is not only about seeing attendance records above 90%; it is also about monitoring the results through NAPLAN testing. Schools are about many things, and students have the opportunity to participate, grow, and achieve, both personally and academically, in many curriculum areas. However, there is no escaping the core responsibility of delivering an education so kids are literate, numerate, and competent in English when they complete school. A national testing regime like NAPLAN has only existed since 2008. I confess at the start, I had reservations about NAPLAN and the pressures it put on kids in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9, especially those in our remote schools for whom English is a second, third, or maybe even fourth language - and pressures, I should add, on schools and teachers.
Sadly, there has been a skewing of the NAPLAN debate with the publishing and brandishing of league tables based on those results, aimed almost as a name and shame exercise. Quick to jump on the negative stories, too often the members opposite - often joined by media - peddle these stories about our schools, our teachers, and our kids in a negative way. They ignore both the positive highlights, and what the complex statistical data reveals about incremental improvement. The minister mentioned that when comparing our cohort gains from 2008 when NAPLAN was in its first year, to 2010, the Northern Territory recorded some of the strongest improvements in Australia. Territory schools registered above national gains in 11 of 15 testing areas. Uncharacteristically, The Australian newspaper reported this positive result.
Like members on both sides of the House, I work hard at keeping abreast of what is going on in schools in my electorate through principals, teachers, and other dedicated staff, as well as school councils, members of which have an enormous role to play in a volunteer capacity in school communities.
In my role as parliamentary secretary assisting our Minister for Education and Training, I take the opportunity whenever I can to visit schools and educational institutions outside of my electorate as part of my ongoing familiarisation to understand, at the ground level, how our schools are operating and the challenges they face. I mentioned in the CTC debate the other day that when I am out in communities, I always try to squeeze in the time to visit the schools. My visits in recent months have included a number of primary schools at Palmerston, including Driver Primary, Moulden, Gray, and Bakewell, and I have heard the member for Drysdale speak enthusiastically about those schools in his electorate, and with good cause, because they are fantastic schools. I have also visited the rural area, Batchelor Area School, Girraween, and Taminmin, and again, I have heard Taminmin talked about frequently, and the important role it plays in …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Mr Elferink: Standing Order 70 or 77?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Standing Order 77, sorry.
Motion agreed to.
Ms Scrymgour: Standing Order 77; I will write that down.
Mr Elferink: Check to see what you have actually passed.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Arafura for her support.
I think it was the member for Nelson who said Taminmin College must be one of the biggest schools, if not the biggest school, in the Northern Territory, and the important role it plays in offering VET in schools and, indeed, as an RTO offering those programs well beyond its school boundaries.
I have also visited Wanguri, Alawa, Manunda Terrace, and Karama Primary Schools. My school visits have invariably seen me greeted by student leaders or school captains, and how impressive these young people are. They are a credit to their schools and families, and are wonderful ambassadors. A meeting with the principal, and sometimes the assistant principal generally follows this. Afterwards, there is a tour of the school, visits to classrooms and students, and plenty of discussion whilst on foot around the school campus.
I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of principals, the clear vision and aspirations they have for their school communities and students, and their pride in that space. While our discussions can be wide-ranging, there are a few things I will always ask about on each visit, including attendance and participation, special needs, and NAPLAN results. Obviously, we talk about much more, but they are the key issues. Principals provide frank and fearless feedback on the subject of NAPLAN, and can clearly articulate school and student progress. The positive incremental improvement year upon year is based on hard statistical data across each of the areas tested, and captured and mapped in spreadsheets. This serves as a diagnostic tool to identify areas where individual students require focus and appropriate classroom support through literacy and numeracy programs, and QuickSmart is one I am familiar with.
Madam Speaker, I have mentioned principals, but I also acknowledge teachers. I concur with the sentiments of the member for Sanderson that teachers do a tough job because, well, they do. He has seen this firsthand, during his many years in schools as a school-based constable. I know about the tough job of teachers because I am an ex-teacher, I have many friends who are teachers, and I am married to a schoolteacher. Parents and families value our teachers and school staff, as demonstrated by the steady growth and interest in nominations over the last few years for World Teachers Day. If members do not already have it in their calendar, Friday, 28 October this year, at the end of our October sittings, is World Teachers Day. I trust members are ready to do something special for the teachers in their electorate.
I especially acknowledge the contribution our Indigenous teachers make in our remote and urban schools. In particular, I acknowledge three teachers from Yirrkala whose graduation I attended at the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in June. The three Yirrkala teachers, Dhalulu, Multhara, and Banbapuy, each graduated with their Bachelor of Education. They were teachers for several years, but under the requirements of the TRB, all teachers who were three-year trained have to update their qualifications to a four-year degree. These three teachers, with much experience, each returned to study to upgrade their diplomas to a four-year degree; something they achieved whilst studying and working full-time, and in addition to family and cultural responsibilities, and they were certainly the stars of the show at the graduation.
The Minister for Business and Employment was there with me. Dhalulu received the Higher Education award from the NT department of Education. Multhara received the Australian Association of Literacy Educators Award, and Banbapuy was chosen to speak, and very eloquently, on behalf of all students from the Faculty of Education, Arts and Social Sciences.
I want to go back to that subject again, and I know the CLP groan every time we say it, but it is worth repeating. Prior to 2001, Indigenous kids out bush did not have the opportunity to go beyond their primary years to a secondary education to complete Year 12. This is a reality now in bush areas. It will continue to be a reality. We will continue to invest in kids having access to education. We welcome the contribution from the federal government which will see a boarding facility constructed in East Arnhem Land to accommodate students from homelands and the surrounding area. This facility - after an extensive consultation process about the best location - is going to the Laynhapuy homeland community of Garthalala.
Garthalala is a couple of hours outside of Nhulunbuy. One of the reasons for its selection was because it has already operated a secondary boarding facility for a few years and seen students graduate with Year 12, so that is an exciting project. The federal minister has taken a personal interest in it and when visiting the Territory earlier this year he made a visit to Nhulunbuy, jumped in a hire car, and drove to Garthalala so he could see where this facility was going for himself, and talk with community members about what this facility would mean. I am particularly pleased for Multhara Murrungurr who I have just mentioned as one of our graduate teachers because this is her homeland and something she and the Laynhapuy homelands have wanted for many years. It will be fantastic when we see work start there.
I have a couple of notes that I scribbled whilst people were talking and I have circled here in bold pen ‘skate parks’. Without buying into whatever might be happening in your electorate, Madam Speaker, with skate parks, Nhulunbuy is fortunate to boast a fantastic skate park which is the envy of people of who come into our town. When driving down that main Matthew Flinders Way to the centre of town, people say: ‘Wow, what a fantastic skate park’. I pay tribute to a senior lady in my community, Eva Cantrell, who has no children in the community but is community minded and drove the cause to get a skate park and drove the fundraising efforts as well. I cannot remember exactly which year - probably around 2003 - it was definitely supported by the Labor government with the contribution of $70 000.
The skate park is currently undergoing a facelift. Nhulunbuy Corporation maintains it and some fantastic artwork has been reapplied. Kids have designed it, kids have painted it. There is enormous value in these sorts of community facilities; for young people to have somewhere they can hang out. Our skate park is really well-utilised. It is highly visible and has good lighting so people going past can see what is happening. The kids who use it have an enormous sense of pride and ownership in that skate park. I am all for skate parks and I do hope you will see one in your electorate soon, Madam Speaker.
I am going to leave it there, but I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. There is nothing more important this government can do than education and looking after kids and families and ensuring they have a strong future. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on education, which has been a focal point of our government’s agenda.
I want to clarify something; I thank the member for Port Darwin for pointing out that I nearly pulled the wrong standing order on you, member for Nhulunbuy. It was not my intention to cease you talking in any way. I want to clarify I meant Standing Order 77, and I thank the member for Port Darwin for suggesting I look at the standing order to see what it meant. I was shocked when I realised I had called the wrong standing order. That was not my intention.
Madam SPEAKER: I can assure you I ignored it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I wanted to clarify that.
Today marks 10 years of a Labor government in the Northern Territory. I recall the day Labor was elected, and even prior to being elected, the discussions when Labor was in opposition. I spoke recently about the passion of Syd Stirling, who became the Education minister, and Peter Toyne, who in opposition had the shadow portfolio; two men who pushed the then CLP government to look at the dire statistics in bush education; in both infrastructure and attendance.
A book I have close to my desk in the electorate office is Learning Lessons. Even now, I often refer to Learning Lessons and look through the recommendations and the urgency expressed to the then CLP government to do something in Indigenous education. I was working in the health sector at that time, running health services, and working with Aboriginal people and communities to build strong health services; trying to get Aboriginal people to take control of their health to a point where they could make informed decisions and choices about their health services. It was clear there was a huge disconnect between health services, the ownership of health services, and Aboriginal people’s rights to be able to own and control education, and be able to change and look at the flexibility we needed in some of our communities.
This has had much discussion and Labor, because of our commitment to education - I am pleased, as the Parliamentary Secretary for 2030, to have education as a central plank of 2030. To be able to go throughout the Northern Territory and consult with people about how we get better outcomes, not just for our remote Aboriginal communities, but through all our urban centres and our regions to do better, strive better, and have that partnership with parents and students.
The member for Nhulunbuy said something quite profound, and she is right: it is one thing getting kids to school; it is another thing to have them participate and engage in the education system.
I applaud the minister and the Education department. Particularly in West Arnhem, the changes in the Gunbalanya/Jabiru region where seeds have been planted and hopefully the tree will grow strong. Places like Gunbalanya - I pay tribute to Esther, and Sue Trimble, and all the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff in that community. If you compare attendance rates at Gunbalanya 12 months ago with current attendance levels, there have been profound changes at Gunbalanya School. Many members of the community, and I, look at the school with pride. Recently, we opened the science building at Gunbalanya School, constructed through BER and Northern Territory government funding. The school has received over $3m of Northern Territory government funding, which is very pleasing as a local member.
Old asbestos-ridden classrooms had been sitting there for many years and, during the Wet Season, children did not have airconditioning or appropriate facilities in which to learn. If anyone has been in places like Gunbalanya or Jabiru during the Wet Season, they will have experienced the heat in the escarpment, the stone country that borders this community. If you have not been there during the Wet, I suggest you should because it is about 42 degrees in the shade. It is very hot; the community retains the heat. The conditions in that school and in some of the classrooms prior to 2001 were dismal and appalling with kids expected to go to school under those circumstances. No wonder they did not go to school under those circumstances. Recently, I took some people there who had come out to Gunbalanya with me in 2001. We were there about a month ago and the level of the infrastructure and kids’ happiness absolutely threw them. This was just prior to the school break and it was great to see the participation, and kids enjoying the facilities that are now there.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about principals and good teachers, and that is true for Gunbalanya. When we opened the science building, Esther, who is the principal and has been there for such a long time, a student she taught in primary school who is now in secondary did a speech for her. I said to young Jamie, the student, that I would quote his speech. On behalf of students of the West Arnhem College at Gunbalanya, he invited all the guests; he talked about confirming the dedication of the school building to Esther and he talked with such passion and admiration for the support Esther provides to all the students. This young man expressed his gratitude to Esther as the principal for her ongoing help, not just during normal school hours, but also outside of school hours, to educating the youth of Gunbalanya.
One can see the dedication and the professionalism of these people. Sue Trimble, Esther’s deputy principal at Gunbalanya does a fantastic job. If you have an Aboriginal principal, who is competent and can do the job, one of the sustaining factors of those principals staying in the job is having a fantastic non-Aboriginal principal who can work with the Indigenous principal side-by-side to ensure they can deal with all those aspects of the school.
I congratulate the department, which has done a great deal of work. We often hear members opposite talking about the dire consequences, and talking down many of our bush schools. Yes, we have a long way to go with literacy, numeracy, and attendance levels, but those things are lifting. Rather than talking down those areas, we should all be working together and looking at the small improvements, the small steps taken by these communities to turn around a decade of neglect, and that is certainly happening.
West Arnhem College will go a long way. It is in partnership with ERA and Injalak Arts Centre is part of it. I have had approaches - and I have to talk to the minister to pass on to the department - from a number of tour operators who are interested in partnering in the West Arnhem College agreement to be able to provide that pathway where we talk about lifelong learning and going from learning into a full-time job. The interest is there, people can see the results, and see that things are turning around.
Integrated services at Gunbalanya with the child and family centres and the Families as First Teachers program which, when announced by the Chief Minister in 2007 or 2008, was a fantastic program and it is a fantastic program. It is working in Gunbalanya and has engaged many of those families. I pay tribute to the teachers who are engaged in the Families as First Teacher program. They have done a fantastic job on the ground, not just in Gunbalanya, but also at Maningrida, where the attendance was 30% or less.
Last year, the community was struggling to get kids to school. Maningrida’s attendance level has improved over the last year, and about 50% or more children are now attending and participating in the school. The CLP will criticise and say we are not meeting targets, and that is true, but there are attempts to turn that around, not just by the school, but also by the community. We certainly still need to do the partnership and work with communities to try to encourage and get parents to see the value of education for their children and get those children to school.
The infrastructure put into Maningrida School - I recall seeing the first lot, after the first mini-budget, and subsequent first budget of the Labor government in 2002-03 - construction of the needed infrastructure in Maningrida was finally coming. When anyone goes into that community now - the member for Braitling went recently with Senator Scullion and he criticised the BER construction there. The member for Braitling has failed to understand that Maningrida is a coastal community with cyclonic conditions every year during the Wet Season. The BER constructed infrastructure specifically to cater for a community cyclone shelter. The aesthetics might not appeal to the member for Braitling, but it is important and essential infrastructure for a community living with cyclonic conditions. He thought the building looked like an immigration detention centre. Next time I go out there I will let the community know what the member for Braitling thinks of their infrastructure.
I am not going to say what the community said about the member for Braitling and Senator Scullion regarding some of the comments they made to people. He went there during the school break, which was a pity; he would have had a better experience in the community if he had visited during a working week when school was on. It is one thing to stand in this House and talk down communities and say things which might appeal to a certain constituency and be absolutely demeaning and insulting to Aboriginal people, and it is another thing to go to those communities and selectively not tell them how you really feel.
We still have a way to go; something our government has never shied away from, but over the 10 years, we have made many inroads. The investment has been massive, it has been huge in education, and anyone working with remote Aboriginal communities prior to 2001, could see the level of improvement in many of our communities. If we put the infrastructure down on the ground, improve the infrastructure, communities will embrace that and will start getting their children to come to school.
A key area embraced, and I congratulate you, minister, and the department for negotiating with the Australian Education Union about flexibility and trialling school in the non-peak times, such as the Wet Season, for communities like Gunbalanya and Maningrida which are closed off for nearly six months of the year. During that peak time, we have a captive audience of students and families and it makes common sense to be able to target those children and those families and get those kids back into school. Gunbalanya School is looking at trialling a 3 to 9 program. It goes from 3 pm to 9 pm and that school has been able to re-engage and get those secondary children who have fallen out of the school system to come back, as well as the young parents and others in the community. Things are turning around. It is not a complete basket case, as often portrayed …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes to be able to conclude her comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Gunbalanya is trialling it and Maningrida School is looking at it.
I am keen for the department to look at homeland learning centres because it is an important part of our education system; how to get homeland learning centres back on the radar and achieve the needed outcomes for children who reside with their families on homelands.
At Minjilang in West Arnhem Land, Cyclone Monica demolished the school, which our government rebuilt. The new facility is much better than the building previously there for many years. Warruwi, which is another coastal island community; the school has had substantial repairs and maintenance.
From West Arnhem Land to the Tiwi Islands: the comparison between Bathurst and Melville Islands. Melville Island on the Tiwi Islands - both Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti communities have government-run public schools. In both those schools, Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti, we have over 90% attendance and the outcomes in both of those government schools are fantastic. You not only have kids attending, but you have kids in that school participating, and families as well. At Milikapiti School, Suzanne Brogan, as well as the Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers do a fantastic job. The childcare centre as part of these schools - because the focus is on early years of education - is having good results in that community. For Milikapiti and Gunbalanya, 90% attendance is fantastic.
We go to Wurrumiyanga as it is now known, or Nguiu, and there have been discussions for a long time about Nguiu, the biggest community on the Tiwi Islands. It has a population of 1800 people. It is no secret that I have for many years, even before joining politics, rarely seen eye to eye with the Tiwi Land Council. One of the areas the Tiwi Land Council and I agree on is the need for good education services happening for Tiwi children.
Whilst we have a college at Pickertaramoor, which is located at the bottom end of Melville Island, the Catholic education system needs to look at attendance rates at Nguiu. It is a non-government system on Nguiu, and the department has been having discussions with the Catholic education system to see how to get that partnership going better so we can start turning around what is happening on the Tiwi Islands. It is not bad teachers, because I have talked to many teachers and principals, Kathryn Van Egmond at Xavier and Leah Kerinaiua at MSC. Too often we point the finger at teachers, schools, or the government; however, at the end of the day, education starts at home. That is the message to ram home, particularly on the Tiwi Islands. Mal Brough and many federal colleagues, even federal Labor, often hold the Tiwis up as the trailblazers and yet, the Tiwi Land Council delegates and others will not take responsibility for getting their own kids to school.
I was fortunate with my parents. My father had a basic education and my mother was from the Tiwi Islands. My parents reinforced the need for a good education. We were not allowed to wag or to make excuses why we could not go to school and that value certainly needs to be rammed home in our communities or partnerships. Where there is entrenched absenteeism, partnership is sometimes code for not doing anything, and we have to reinforce the need for education to parents. The department does that and I would like to see that turn around on the Tiwi Islands because the issue of child attendance needs to change on the Tiwi Islands. It requires leadership: not in the schools because principals and teachers are doing the right thing. They want to teach our kids. Leadership and commitment needs to come from communities to get our kids to the schools, because if we can get them to school, teachers will teach. Much of the infrastructure has changed and Catholic Education has put substantial money into fixing Xavier College on Bathurst Island and MSC.
With regard to education, this Labor government should feel proud of our achievements. We have put infrastructure in place, not just in our urban centres, but also in many of our remote communities. We have worked with communities to look at ways in which we can achieve better outcomes with kids attending school.
I have to convince the parliamentary secretary and the minister to come out to Gunbalanya School, in particular, because they will be nicely surprised about what is out there, and to meet John Bray, the Executive Director of both Jabiru and Gunbalanya. They will see the good work that has happened in this area. We move forward because, as the minister said:
Madam Speaker, that is probably the most important area because we know our kids’ future depends on it, as does the future of all children of the Northern Territory. It is about building a safer, stronger education system. I commend the statement.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I know everyone is keen to get home, to finish here today and get going, wind things down. It has been a long fortnight. It has been an ordinary birthday for you. We rained on your parade. It is a sad day today. It is a sad day across the Territory anyway, but I know we rained on your parade. We spoilt your party today. Question Time did not go well for you. We again exposed the Health Minister for the culture of cover-up he presides over and, boy, didn’t he walk into it? That will be a story for another day …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw the member to the concept of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Greatorex, if you can come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: I have just started, Madam Speaker. Surely, I can develop my argument. I know the member …
Madam SPEAKER: It is about education, member for Greatorex, and if you can get to the point.
Mr CONLAN: No doubt about it, Madam Speaker, I will be talking about education. I will be talking about the concept of education. I will be talking about this statement, and importantly, I will be basing my argument around the competence of the Education minister, because that is exactly what is at stake and what is in question here today. How can we have a good education system with an Education minister such as the member for Johnston?
It is interesting. I know the member for Barkly likes to get up. He has discovered his sense of humour; it has taken him three years to get started. He has had a few false starts, and he is up today and wearing a shirt to celebrate his birthday …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The McCarthys are known well back into the traditions of Ireland to have a good sense of humour.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Very good, but it is not much of a point of order. Like I say, a sense of humour is pretty good; intelligence remains to be proven. Fair dinkum, the member for Barkly makes Humpty Dumpty look like a brain surgeon. He makes Mr Squiggle look credible. Seriously, if someone said to me …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Next.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr CONLAN: That is not a point of order, I was going to say …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, that is not very relevant to the education paper. If you can just get to the point, please?
Mr CONLAN: I have 18 minutes to prove relevance, Madam Speaker, and I can do that in the last five seconds …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you do not have 18 minutes.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seriously, if someone said to me Gerry McCarthy, a minister of the Crown, articulate and intelligent ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. You called me to account yesterday on this issue, and I draw your attention to Standing Order 67.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, and I did indicate yesterday that having asked the minister to cease digressing, that I would sit members down. After four minutes, the minister stopped digressing, so just bear that in mind in the latitude level. Thank you.
If someone said to me, the man from the moon with the pencil on his nose comes in a spaceship, it would be more believable, but anyhow.
The common theme from the government throughout this debate has been their obsession with the CLP. It has been CLP this and CLP that, and Country Liberals this and Country Liberals that, throughout your debate. There was not much on schools, not much on children, not much on playgrounds. It has always been about the Country Liberals, and you have the member for Barkly who says he has been in the Territory for a hundred years, and worked in the Education department for 50 years, or whatever it might be. He has spoken on several occasions about his successes as a teacher and the children he has taught over the years, and what a wonderful success it has been. Yet, in the same breath, he gets up yesterday and says it has been a disaster, and he has campaigned actively against the CLP for the last 27 years, or whatever it might be.
Madam Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. He has developed a sense of humour, as he says. As I say, intelligence is yet to be proven, and capability and competence has yet to be proven and certainly dress sense leaves a lot to be desired. He has worn the shirt today because it is the 10th anniversary. We have rained on his parade. It is a terrible day. We have spoilt their party. It has been a difficult fortnight for you. You have been unable to land a blow and, hence, your obsession with the Country Liberals. The obsession with the Country Liberals has not only been in these sittings, but during the Alice Springs sittings. I was on the flight to Darwin the other day and I had a transcript of Hansard …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, we are on the education debate. It is totally irrelevant to talk about a conversation when he was in transit from Darwin to Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN: I am not talking about a conversation. I am just developing my argument. For goodness sake!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you just come to the point of the statement, please?
Mr CONLAN: I am coming to the point, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, make it fast, please.
Mr CONLAN: … and to demonstrate, clearly, to be able to - I know you do not like it and you want to go home. That is the problem. You are not going home until I finish, okay? Then you can go home.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member well knows he has to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, member for Johnston. As I said, going through the transcript - at the Alice Springs sittings, government mentioned the word Country Liberals 300 times in three days, 300 times in three days; it was 101/99 and 101/100. I did it on the flight up, as I said, as I am sitting at 30 000 feet abeam Elliott, I thought I would run through the transcript and count how many times you mentioned the word Country Liberals and it was 300 times. You guys are obsessed. Can you just get over us and get on with governing the Territory.
That would be a novel concept. Ten years on and the minster over here, the minister for bad dress sense, the one who makes Humpty Dumpty look like a brain surgeon, this guy has the audacity to suggest that - it does not matter if I go there. I might save that for the final 30 seconds. We might try to go out with a bang.
Nevertheless, you guys are obsessed with the Country Liberals. It would be a novel approach to get on with governing the Territory and provide real outcomes for Territorians, particularly with education.
Another thing the member for Barkly continues to do, and it has become almost his catch cry, is ‘a new era’. We were having a conversation last night about this new era business. When Clare Martin won the election in 2001, you could credibly say it was a new era. That would bring it well within the bounds of credibility. Ten years on, to suggest it is a new era, after the appalling failures by the government and the appalling failures by the member for Johnston - you have had just about every portfolio there is to have. How many have you had? How many – five, six - what are you on? You have gone through them all just about and now you have the education …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has touched on education when he mentioned the new era alluding to corrections but I draw his attention to relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you at least try to bring in education from time to time.
Mr CONLAN: As I say, the minister for Education, I am referring to this statement. Just because I do not pluck out parts of this statement does not mean that I am not referring to the physical document and the government’s obsession with CLP failures in education. It is quite staggering. All we hear is how, on 18 August 2001, the sun rose for the first time on and across the Northern Territory. Those dark clouds and those evil, horrible CLP people were banished, and have been for 10 years.
Indeed, it was a new era, because literally by virtue, member for Barkly, it was a new era. Here we are 10 years on - by no means a new era - and it is a bit late to start a new era, mate. I tell you, people have stopped listening. People stopped listening to you a long time ago and here we are 12 months out from an election and people have switched off. It is over. The game is up. I say, 300 times you mentioned us in Alice Springs. It would be interesting to do a further count again on the flight home to see how obsessed you are with the Country Liberals …
Dr Burns: You could try writing policy!
Mr CONLAN: That brings me to the education policy by the Country Liberals. The minister loves to stand up here and say: ‘This little flimsy document put out by the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader, terrible, does not mention anything about Aboriginal education in there’. What he does know, and the mischief he likes to create, and he thinks it is somehow painting us in a picture. You notice the media has not bought into it at all. No one has picked up on it. That document is one little plank of a core comprehensive education policy. You will see comprehensive education policy rolled out over the next 12 months. To say the policy the member for Blain has put forward is all we have, and not one mention of this and not one mention of that, is wrong. It is mischievous and he well knows it. He likes to create mischief around non-issues and we have seen that today. We have seen him target a colleague in a very ordinary, bitter, low way. He has form in this area, as I have said before. It is not the first time.
We have this wonderful dossier on every ‘oops’ the member for Johnston has made throughout his parliamentary career. It is 10 years today since you were elected. How many things can we count? It has not been a glowing 10 years, has it? If we had to hire you on merit, you would not get a job. You would have to get your job through diversity because you would not get a job on merit; not at all. The amount of ‘oops’ that has happened with the member for Johnston over the last 10 years is quite extraordinary and, in most cases, the levels you have sunk to are quite despicable. A senior like you should have matured over the years. You have softened a little but a number of your jibes would fit well in the school playground. Hence, there is my relevance to education once again.
The fact that education has survived 10 years of Labor is not because of Labor’s wonderful policies, or their wonderful minister, or wonderful department. It is only because of the great schools and the great school communities we have in the Northern Territory. Much has been said about the wonderful programs, the dedicated teachers and students, and the dedicated school communities. We have heard it and I agree with most of it. We have wonderful schools, wonderful teachers, wonderful students, parents, and those school communities are terrific and an essential fabric to any community.
In my community in Alice Springs they are the heartbeat of it. I have Centralian Senior College, Ross Park Primary School – one of the best primary schools in the Territory, along with Sadadeen. Probably two of the best primary schools in the Northern Territory in my electorate of Greatorex in Alice Springs. There is OLSH and Acacia Hill as well. Who could forget about Acacia Hill? Oops, the government nearly forgot about Acacia Hill - left it with about 300 problems with regard to occupational health and safety issues. Serious stuff! Doorways you could not get a wheelchair through. Remember that? Was that the other minister? That might have been the other one. How many Education ministers have we had? We have had a churn of ministers, the revolving door of ministers in the Labor Party. The ministerial reshuffle has been quite staggering; the ministerial failure this government has presided over.
Acacia Hill School, if it was not for some serious - the opposition essentially dragged the government kicking and screaming, as it does on so many important issues, to this issue. If it was not for me and the Opposition Leader drawing attention through the local newspaper, the Centralian Advocate, who knows where that school would be right now. Those issues have been addressed. I cannot remember if you were the minister. You probably were. It sounds like you all over. It has your DNA and fingerprints all over it. Let us not do anything until there is an issue. Until someone makes a song and dance about it; then we might try to fix it. Acacia Hill School is a wonderful school. I know that school community quite well. I spend a fair bit of time with the schools in my electorate and many of them are well-functioning schools. They do very well; however, Acacia Hill needs a little help occasionally. It certainly needed help over the last year or two. I am more than happy to help them out.
That is just an example of the government’s attitude towards these things. I agree with most of what has been said in this Chamber about schools, and the efforts, and what has happened. Holy cow, how can you disagree with it? When a kid graduates from Year 12, it is a good thing. Yes, it is a good thing, no kidding. However, you have to look at the credibility and you have to look at the future of it. You have to look at the credibility of the minister presiding over Education.
We see the other minister over here, the former minister - it is like the Hendo show, this thing. Who is who; who is who in the zoo? You have Bungles over here and we have No-Show-Hendo and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: … you have Humpty Dumpty over there …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that we refer to members by their titles in this place, not by pejorative terms, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I know, Madam Speaker.
Mr Tollner: You cannot call him the chief psycho either.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! It is not necessary to interject.
Mr Tollner: Oh, sorry about that.
Mr CONLAN: I was going to suggest that we had another player. It is like the Muppet Show of the Territory, the Hendo Show. We have the Tiwi banshee up the back, Madam Speaker …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am finding the tirade from the member opposite quite offensive. You have already reminded him about using member’s correct titles.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, that last comment was extremely offensive. I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr CONLAN: A banshee, Madam Speaker, is someone who is hysterical and that is what it is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw it, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I withdraw it. No problem. I know you do not like it when someone actually …
Madam SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: I withdrew, Madam Speaker. I know you do not like it when someone actually takes it up to you. You cannot take it. You do not like it at all. All you can do is try to push, push, push, but when someone can resist and push back just a little, hoo hoo! I know it goes against the grain. We see it time and time again, so much so that you have this obsession with the Country Liberals.
We might need to take a restraining order out against the government because it is an uneasy feeling. It does not sit well, this obsession, the stalking by the government. What people want is for you to get over us and get on with governing the Territory. What a novel idea to get over the opposition! The first rule of any engagement when you have an opposition, whether it is sport or business or whatever, is do not let the opposition lead the way. All you are doing is letting us set the agenda. We are setting your agenda, clearly. The first rule is do not look over your shoulder constantly at your opposition, or whoever it might be; look forward and get on and set the pace yourself. But you guys cannot do it. You are out of ideas. It is all over. The game is up. You are out of ideas; bereft of any ideas. You have been for a long time.
As I say, with regard to the member for Arafura, there has to be one of the greatest disappointments in Australian politics. Not only was she the …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking of being bereft of ideas, could you remind the member that this is a debate about education?
A member: She is a former Education minister.
Mr Conlan: A former Education minister - exactly right, Madam Speaker.
Ms WALKER: I believe I have the call, Madam Speaker. Could you remind the member, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is about education rather than about the Education ministers.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I beg to differ.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She was the former Education minister that he was referring to. While I am on my feet, under Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: All right. I thought I might have been pushing it. I was going to try to wrap up in the last 30 seconds, but why not keep going. Why not? We might as well stay here. It is the last day and it is only 5.30 pm for goodness sake.
Madam Speaker, just to clarify, it is important to highlight the competencies of previous ministers. How can you have an education statement and a vision of 2030 and whatever it might be, how can you possibly have any credibility in a vision statement like that if you do not question the competency of the person leading the charge, the leader? Therefore, I do question the ability of the member for Johnston and the previous Education minister, the member for Arafura.
It is one of the greatest disappointments in the history of Australian politics. We had the most senior Aboriginal woman in Australian parliament, the Deputy Chief Minister, Education minister, and what did she do? Dealt herself out of the game. She has the audacity to sit up here and tell us about the failures of the CLP, and how evil and nasty the CLP are, and how wonderful things have been since 2001. Her credibility is in tatters. If we had to switch off the member for Johnston, his ministerial life support after he failed in Health, he is probably not too far away from switching off his ministerial life support in Education. This one was put out of the ministerial misery. She walked away from it. How many people did she let down as a result of that? Regardless of what she did to her own colleagues, let down all of them and scared the daylights out of those guys.
Margaret Banks - Waxgate, it was called for some reason or another. Whatever it was, but that whole era of Margaret Banks and the member for Arafura walking away, dealing herself out of the game, yet having the audacity to sit up here and lecture us and tell us how terrible we were. What about all the schools the CLP built? How many schools did the CLP build from 1978 to 2001? How many? How many schools? You guys say you have a new list of them in here, how many schools you built and how many things you have done, mind you, with Commonwealth money, but that is okay, because most of our schools were built with Commonwealth money too. It does not matter so much but, at the end of the day, hundreds and hundreds of schools across the Northern Territory …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the government’s statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is called. We have a quorum, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it is hard to draw a crowd when everyone wants to go home, isn’t it? I know it is hard to draw a crowd too when all people want to do is go home, knock off after a long, hard fortnight. It has been a hard fortnight for you. You have not really had any wins. We have exposed, here we go, here is the ministerial life support about to be switched off over here for the health. We have already had one over here switched off, and the member for Arafura up the back dealt herself out of the game, dealt herself into irrelevance. It is a voice from the past I sometimes hear up the back from the member for Arafura …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr CONLAN: You were not even here. I have been developing my argument …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that reference to the presence or absence of members is not in accordance with standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, withdraw that comment. You have a couple of minutes left and it might want to be only on education.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Only on education, member for Greatorex. You have stretched our patience.
Mr CONLAN: I would like to finish my argument and if the question is to be put that I am no longer heard, that is fine. That is a member’s prerogative, but you can let me speak for the next five hours or we can spend the next five minutes dividing over it. What would you like?
Madam SPEAKER: It is about education. Can you stick to the point?
Mr CONLAN: And I was talking about it, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the credibility of our Education minister and previous ministers, and that is very relevant to this debate. Extremely relevant to this debate, because how can you have a good education system with a failed, bungled minister at the helm. It does not go hand-in-hand.
We have seen the failures of the member for Johnston. He stands here in parliament and loves to throw stones at this side. He is more than happy to raise Ombudsman’s reports. I told you the other week, you show me that Ombudsman’s report and I will raise you 10. On your watch in 10 years, how many Ombudsmen’s reports have come your way? Damning ones? How many reports have highlighted you as the failure; several have. How come you are not Health minister any more? What happened? He loves to throw that one around. He loves to throw little jibes at the member for Braitling here today, and backpedals when he realises: ‘Oops, oops, another one’. Has not been a good 10 years for you, member for Johnston, and as a result, it has been a tough 10 years for schools across the Northern Territory.
The only reason those schools have survived is because they are great school communities. It has not been the wonderful leadership or the wonderful programs, or anything decent you guys have done. You are happy to launch assaults at the CLP because you are obsessed with the CLP. The CLP is leading your agenda. You say it constantly. They mentioned the Country Liberals 300 times in the Alice Springs’ sittings – probably similar – probably double that in these sittings. It has been two weeks and in three days he mentioned it 300 times so clearly the Country Liberals are leading the agenda. These guys know the game is up; they know no one is listening. Yet we have a statement talking about how great they are and how the sun rose for the first time and, in the beginning, as the member for Port Darwin alluded to, that day it all began, and all the evil, horrible ways were finished with, put to bed. The member for Barkly can finally go: ‘Hallelujah, I have campaigned hard for the comrades. I have got rid of that nasty, evil CLP government’.
The member for Arafura clearly has deep down bitterness and hate towards the Country Liberals, but she dealt herself out of the game, played herself into irrelevance. Her credibility is in tatters, left the party, came back, and now sits on the backbench. She had a great opportunity to do something in education, a wonderful opportunity if she could just hold her nerve and stay where she was. But no, it was not even based on anything ideological because she came back. She walked back to the Labor Party. If she had any guts or truly believed in what she was doing, she would have stayed on the crossbenches. But no, she had to go back because the nasty, evil CLP might get back in. Oh, we cannot have that. We could not have that.
Anyway, the game is up. It is all up. People have stopped listening. You guys are obsessed with us. The minister for Education had his ministerial life support switched of as Health minister and it probably will not be too long until it is switched off as Education minister …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, you have already spoken. The minister has the call.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is a hard act to follow, and the member for Greatorex talked about schoolyards. He talked about schoolyards and that was a puerile performance by the member for Greatorex. He talked about people dealing themselves out of the game. When you look at it, along with the member for Blain, he is the longest serving member on the other side and yet he does not seem to be able to get ahead. One would have thought, and I am going to mention that word ‘CLP’. Seeing Alice Springs is the birthplace of the CLP, one would have thought he would be deputy leader by now. Why is it that he is not? Because his peers do not recognise him for anything and he has not developed. He has time on his hands because he sits on the plane counting the number of times we mentioned the CLP. I would have thought if he was engaged in being the shadow Health minister, he would be on that plane writing policy. He would be meeting with people, he would be collating policy and, as I have said in previous debate, a year out from the 2001 election - we are talking about the 10th anniversary - that group of seven members of Labor had comprehensive policies including health and hospitals.
How long has he been here now? Five years is it? He has been shadow Health minister for nearly five years - since Richard Lim left - and has not written a policy. That is laziness. He thinks he can get away and float along the top by coming into this House and putting on the big show. The big show like the wrestlers! It is about as good as that. He almost, metaphorically, picks up the chairs and gets someone in a headlock and says - Steve Austin – ‘Steve, you are past it now. ‘I am going to turn off your life support’ and he will not speak to the very important statement.
I will pick up on one thing he said about Acacia Hill School. I wonder whether he has been to Acacia Hill School lately. I have been there two to three times in the last six to eight months - at least twice - and the government is investing in Acacia Hill School in 2010-11 with $2.56m and in 2011-12 with $1.5m. On top of that, the school and the school council came to me with a problem about some capital works, about some infrastructure services and we are able, with the department, to solve that for the school. That school has new toilets and bathrooms. The last time I was there I accompanied the principal who showed me the plans for new classrooms, for replacements. Much is happening at Acacia Hill School and yet the member for Greatorex can only talk about doom and gloom. He can only talk about the past. I am unsure of the issue he raised about occupational health and safety. It has not been an issue while I have been minister. I would have to say I have been very attentive to that school, as I have with all our special schools, since I became Education minister.
He can talk about my life support. As I go out, if they turn off the life support, I can look to Acacia Hill School, look to the $30m this government has invested in special schools across the Territory and something dear to my heart, Nemarluk School. He talks about failures and lack of achievement. I have to say to you, member for Greatorex, politics is a little like sport. You would not find one champion sportsman who does not have a few games they would rather forget, probably a few seasons they would rather forget, but some fantastic victories along the way. A few defeats, but that is the ups and downs of life.
If he had a word with John Howard, probably his hero, John Howard would have the same story. He was the Prime Minister of Australia who went out on the back of losing his own seat in an election. He did achieve things in his time as Prime Minister. I do not agree with everything he did; however, when you look at any career in politics and sport, you have ups and downs. It would be interesting to see the member for Greatorex in years to come. He showed promise at the beginning, but has not been realising that promise. I digress, Madam Speaker.
I turn now to the positive and good contributions by people in this debate. The member for Brennan talked about NAPLAN and about attendance being critical. I agree with that. Professor Masters has briefed the member for Brennan about our specific plans for literacy and numeracy. We are seeing incremental improvements. We have introduced strong measures around attendance and the proof will be in the pudding.
He asked about the Save the Children program - an attendance program – and asked why we axed the program. Talk about repetition! He asked the same question at estimates and Eva Lawler told him very clearly:
Obviously he was not listening during estimates. He still comes in here and grandstands as he did yesterday about Nightcliff Middle School and a parent at Nightcliff Middle School. I am looking at what was said about that very carefully, as I look carefully at everything the member for Brennan says. Given some of the events in estimates where he tried to spin up that I had somehow misled the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory over Nemarluk School. He presented FOI documents he had cobbled together; two separate documents as one document, and tried to assert that I had misled the parliament, and then had to eat humble pie. I did not go after him after that because I thought it was a reasonable error. I am telling you now, member for Brennan, I am looking very closely at everything that has been said on this issue. I will just say that to you.
We have had the incident with his car and the story he told the newspaper. It certainly unfolded that there is much more to that story than he first said. So, the member for Brennan has form on this and people are beginning to realise how he operates. I take what he says now with a great deal of scepticism. He is into stunts; he is into the cheap shot; he is into making a political headline and a story on the Channel 9 news or ABC news but this is a longer-term game. This is not a sprint; it is a marathon. People’s character becomes evident with time, and that is what is happening with the member for Brennan. But I digress, Madam Speaker.
The member for Macdonnell made a positive contribution. She talked about education being something that makes something of kids. She is calling for more open days, more participation by parents and grandparents to get them engaged. I will be talking to the department about that and our directors of school performance and school principals. There is much engagement that goes on and I believe the member for Macdonnell had a very good suggestion.
The member for Araluen talked about truancy, which we are addressing. There were questions about infrastructure from the members for Goyder and Nelson. Comparisons were made between Nhulunbuy, Batchelor, and Tennant Creek schools and comparisons with Taminmin. I undertake to respond formally to those. I do not have that information on hand but I will respond formally to those members on that issue.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about a variety of curriculum approaches and I agree with him. I have said publicly that the curriculum is cluttered and I have said as much to principals. We need to be tightening up the curriculum. We do not want to confine students in their learning but reading and writing, literacy and numeracy is our number one priority. I want students to enjoy their schooling, to enjoy the arts, to enjoy other activities but, at the core, it is literacy and numeracy. That is why we have a literacy and numeracy strategy. That is why we are investing in it heavily and that is why we have engaged Professor Masters as an independent set of eyes to give advice to me as minister, and the CEO of the department.
The member for Nhulunbuy picked up, as I did, the strange wording and comments of the member for Blain regarding Baniyala School. I attended the official opening of Baniyala School with the member for Nhulunbuy about two weeks ago and it was a great occasion. Government has provided over $2m worth of infrastructure in that school. Much of it was due to the effort of the former member for Nhulunbuy who secured that funding. This arose because the community wanted teachers resident in the community, so it is not just the school, it is the accommodation for the teachers, as the member for Blain observed, or told the parliament. The teachers out there, Pat and Wendy Ellis, are great people. They are fantastic people and are doing a great job with that community.
Partly what the member for Blain may have been alluding to is the desire of that community; it is a very Christian community, they take their Christian faith very seriously and they are very strong in that belief, and that is a great thing. There has been much debate in this parliament over the last day about values and about Christian faith, particularly from the member for Nelson and, to some degree, from the member for Blain. I made it plain at the opening of that school that I encourage the community to bring their Christian faith within that school in that homeland. As I looked around the walls of that school, I saw wonderful images; the kids and other community members painted some of them. Some were health messages about tobacco, about alcohol - very important health messages. I saw others, clearly of a cultural nature, about the local stories and culture of the people in that community. They were beautiful. I also saw on the wall of that community some drawings of Old Testament stories. One was about Jonah and the whale, and the other was about Noah and the Ark. The motto of that school is ‘Strong and Proud’, and I encouraged that community, quite openly and publicly. I said: ‘It is fantastic what I see here, I want you to continue, and, as Education minister, I welcome that’.
There is no barrier from this government about that community out on the Gulf of Carpentaria near Blue Mud Bay, for the community values of culture, those health messages, and their Christian faith playing a major part in that school. I will place that on the record now. I am not sure what the member for Blain has in mind for that school, but he needs to place on the record exactly what he was he talking about the other day, because I am sure the local people would be interested in what he is saying. Certainly, I am interested as minister. Maybe he might tell me what he has in mind for that school.
I talked about special education, which is important. The member for Goyder asked me about the Exodus Foundation. I have said this directly to Reverend Bill Crews, whom I admire, he is a great Australian. He has come to see me about the Exodus Foundation and their programs in the Northern Territory. I had to be straight with Bill Crews and say that several schools were backing away from the program because they did not feel they were getting results with it. I encouraged him, and even arranged for him to go to a school, I am not going to name the school, but to a school here in Darwin’s northern suburbs, to talk with the principal and find out exactly what the problem was in their program, which the school, incidentally, had evaluated. I have been straight up and down with Bill Crews. He was asking for $2m for four schools. I have also said my priority is our literacy and numeracy strategy with Professor Masters. Two million dollars for four schools is a hell of a lot of money; I think it was over three years. We are investing our money strategically to have the same sort of care and attention that Bill Crews was having in a limited number of schools; that is, having literacy and numeracy tutors.
Our focus is on providing one-on-one support for kids who may be lagging behind. Professor Masters made it plain that we need to have a clear idea where each child is with their learning and what is required for that child to come up to the standard, or where they are expected to be, for that particular year. That is our effort. It is unfortunate I was not able to meet Bill Crews’ request but I also made it plain that if he was to get money from the private sector, from the corporate sector, from sources like that, he is more than welcome to carry on his program within our schools.
The other day I went to Millner School for the Jimmy Little Foundation, which is a great project, but that project runs in the schools from donations the Jimmy Little Foundation gets from its many sources, so Uncle Jimmy Little attracts funding and I do commend Uncle Jimmy Little. It is a great program about nutrition and health, etcetera. Buzz Bidstrup is taking the lead and the interface; it is a great program and there are other similar programs running in our schools. They are not necessarily asking for $2m over three to four years. I do repeat to Reverend Bill Crews, you are welcome to continue your programs here, but I do not have that sort of money.
The member for Sanderson used his experience as a school-based constable to talk about the value of early intervention, which is what we are doing with our Every Child, Every Day strategy; there are interventions. We have compulsory conferences with families and students to try to ascertain what the problem is and this enables us to link in with other agencies, if that is required, to provide services to those families and individuals. This is important in terms of what we are doing with individuals. I appreciated the offering in this debate by the member for Sanderson.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about his enjoyment at school and about what an important place school is for kids. He also talked about the thrill for someone like himself, who was born and raised in the Territory, being able to go from preschool to a medical degree …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: That is an important step forward and something that has happened under this government. Previously in this place, I have paid tribute to the CLP over the establishment of Charles Darwin University, formerly NTU. Paul Everingham lead the charge as someone said here today. I am not about standing in this place and not acknowledging the good work that did go on during the 27 years of the CLP. CDU is certainly one of those. What I am saying is that through the development of the medical faculty, the pharmacy faculty, and the other partnerships CDU has with other universities, this government is supporting further important developments in tertiary education within the Northern Territory. I commend the work of Professor Barney Glover in that regard.
The member for Fannie Bay also touched on the rather controversial subject of homework, which has been in the papers of late. What was not presented is that it is my understanding that in some areas and in some classes of that school, that is Roseberry School, kids do get some homework but there is an overall school view about an absence of homework causing less stress and the kids should be learning at school. I am a little old-fashioned. I grew up with homework and can remember sitting on the back stairs with spelling and geography and all the rest and mum and dad asking me questions about the homework. You would get to school and the teacher would ask you questions about homework. There was always pressure with homework, which grew and grew as I went through secondary school and university. I did a lot of homework at university. I can understand the view of teachers and the professional teaching staff at that school and, if that is their decision, if that is the decision of the teaching staff in their professional capacity, as minister, I back that.
I am sure there is discussion between the teaching staff, the principal, and the school council about this important issue, so I commend teachers. I also commend our school councils, which are autonomous, despite what some people opposite might try to argue. I try not to do anything to compromise the integrity or autonomy of school councils in my electorate. There have been times I have left the school council when there were issues I felt they needed to discuss without me there, namely letters from the Opposition Leader or other controversial issues and I did not think it was my place to be there and participate in that discussion. Autonomy of school councils is an important issue and I commend our school councils.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about sustainable and lasting change through education. I am fortunate to have the member for Nhulunbuy as parliamentary secretary, particularly in the area of training and VET in which she has immense experience. Many people like to think of the member for Nhulunbuy as a long-term teacher. She spent a long time as a teacher and was greatly respected as a teacher; however, we all need to realise she spent a long time in industry in training and employment, particularly with Indigenous people. Seeing the warmth with which company representatives, company executives, but moreover, the Indigenous community of Nhulunbuy greet her, reinforces to me the great respect the member for Nhulunbuy is held in within her home community. She is passionate about these issues and I commend her on that issue.
She mentioned the issue of NAPLAN and the My School website and it is regrettable that some media enjoy printing plans – I would call them a league table - which goes right against the spirit of the My School website and NAPLAN. It is all about comparison of like schools and it is important we understand that. What we have is people taking schools out of their context, both demographically and in a range of other facets, and making a direct comparison with schools interstate. In addition, there are people comparing averages in schools, and these averages, unless you have the standard deviation, the comparison of averages or means is essentially meaningless.
I have said in this House several times that what we have in a number of our schools, including our urban schools, is two populations of students: those who are attending regularly and those who are not. Those who are coming from disadvantaged backgrounds - and this starts in the early childhood area - an average in that situation is essentially meaningless and it is wrong for media, and the opposition, to be making those comparisons. However, we live in a free country and have freedom of the press. The New South Wales Education minister, at the last Education Ministerial Council, asked a question and sought advice about whether action was going to be taken against any newspaper that printed league tables, and that advice was forthcoming.
That debate will rage on but I welcome NAPLAN. I welcome My School because it enables parents and school communities to look at their school, look at their individual child’s result, and engage in discussion with their teachers, with the principals, about those results, and everyone welcomes that. It brings a great deal of transparency but it does not help to have people like the member for Brennan coming in here waving tables around, particularly for Nightcliff Middle School. This is a school which is on a path, a journey, but it has also been in the wars over the years and, as I have said on the public record, has struggled with enrolments. Most parents want to send their kids, for whatever reason, to Darwin Middle School or somewhere else, and to some extent …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! It would be the quorum. This is the minister’s closing speech on education. There should be quorum.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We have quorum.
Dr BURNS: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said it does not do the member for Brennan any good to be rubbishing Nightcliff Middle School. He told me he wants to go to Nightcliff Middle School and maybe he should be meeting with the school council as well as the teaching staff, and maybe he should discuss some of his comments and the fact he is waving around cards with the NAPLAN results on them in this place. Let us see if he has the courage to do that, if and when he goes to Nightcliff Middle School, but I digress.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, education is front and centre of our 2030 vision for the Northern Territory. Education is the key to economic prosperity in the Northern Territory. Education is the key for our social advancement in the Northern Territory and education complements our social diversity.
What do we see on the opposition? The member for Greatorex alluded to it before. We have not seen any policy on education. He has promised it, he has promised it here tonight. He said over the next few months we are going to see much policy development, many policies laid on the table. I look forward to that because I want to engage with the opposition in a debate about education policy.
In closing, this is a government that can hold its head high over our record in education over the past 10 years. We do have challenges. We are meeting those challenges and addressing those challenges, and I am proud to be Education minister in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the Fourth Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation Report, which is about recent community trips. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Council of Territory Cooperation’s Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee Preliminary Report.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the Darwin Festival and arts and culture in the Northern Territory in general.
The bells are ringing. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was just standing on the lectern delivering a welcome speech for the crowd who turned up to celebrate the National Indigenous Music Awards for the Northern Territory. A three-year build, which is a sensational story, and the bells started ringing in a true musical sense, and I had to leg it straight off the lectern, around that corner, and back into the Chamber to be with my parliamentary colleagues. I will try to explain that to the crowd at some stage.
It has been a start of another Darwin Festival, and the Northern Territory government is extremely proud to promote festivals, not only here in the capital city, and the premier festival in the Darwin Festival, but right across the Northern Territory.
The 28th National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, sponsored by Telstra, was a wonderful, inspiring experience. It was truly wonderful to see the work that is going on in Australia, the premier Indigenous art, and to see the Territory representatives. It is great when you can walk around a premier national art award and see a finalist who comes from your electorate. I acknowledge Thelma Dixon, a Garawa woman, who has a superb painting that made the finals this year, reflecting the culture of the cattle industry, funnily enough; this year, a wonderful painting. It is well worth going to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory to have a look at the NATSIA this year.
I caught a show after that, and that was the wonderful Tracks Dance Company and their show for the 2011 Darwin Festival, Crocodile Man, Pineapple Woman, and then it was back to work. I have not been able to catch up with much of the festival, but there is plenty on, an 18-day festival, and members should take the opportunity to get to what they can.
The Aboriginal Art Fair at the Convention Centre was a fantastic event. Being there on Sunday, talking to all the different arts centre people who came in, and talking to the artists was certainly a great research opportunity for a minister of the Henderson government. It was good; good story, good sales, good vibrations, international tourists and international art buyers are attracted, as well as Territorians and people from the greater Darwin Region.
The Indigenous Music Awards are on tomorrow night, and to go out there in the courtyard and bump into the legendary Hall of Fame Tableland Drifters, Joe Davey and Lexie Holt were out there once again, up here to celebrate. I received a text saying: ‘Minister, get over to Kitty’s tonight, we are on at 6.30 pm, don’t be late’, from one of our celebrated bands from Tennant Creek, UBX. That is all about a wonderful exponent of music and an opportunity for young musicians, coinciding with the Indigenous Music Awards each year and that is the iNTune Music Conference which brings representatives of the national music industry to Darwin to provide opportunities for musicians to network, to connect, and pursue career opportunities in the industry.
Tonight, there are 14 Territory bands performing across three venues which gives everyone that real world stage. When you have young people coming out of Tennant Creek and regional and remote areas and they are gigging in Darwin tonight, participating in another sold-out conference, that tells government that is arts funding wisely invested. The festival will continue and festival funding from the Henderson government, the Darwin Festival funding, has hit $1m. That is considerable funding for a premier festival. Government is aware that when you are a holistic government, when you take into account the whole of the Territory, and you have progressive, bold, and challenging policies like A Working Future policy, you are looking at how to develop opportunities, and one of the opportunities our government recognises is the arts - the arts and culture.
It is not just about the creative element. It is not just about the culture and the cultural maintenance. It is not just about developing wellbeing in the communities. It is a serious economic driver and has the potential to continue to create jobs. I pay respect to art centres that are working right across the Northern Territory in regional, remote, and urban areas because the centres provide a focus area to give artists the support they need, the motivation, the meeting place, the keeping place. They are the ones that are going to be growing under our policy of A Working Future. They are the ones who are keen to take those opportunities, work with government, and grow another aspect of a remote or regional community.
It is great to be concluding the sittings in August. It is Darwin Festival time. There are wonderful things happening around the city and the festivals roll up and down the Track. I was talking to a young lady outside who told me about the Jabiru Festival and, of course, Desert Harmony in Tennant Creek, and the Alice Springs Festival closely following; festivals in the north, south, east, and west. It is a wonderful time to be here. It is a wonderful time to get out and celebrate with the community and, if you are inclined, perhaps pursue your own creative opportunity, your own creative edge, whether that is in the visual arts or in the performing arts.
I would like to make mention of the Tracks Dance Company. Tracks Dance Company is not only a premier dance company in Darwin, but they also work in remote and regional areas. They have a 20-year history with and have done fantastic work with the community of Lajamanu. Their shows at the Darwin Festival are big shows, they are premier shows each year, and I was lucky to see their show once again. It is a journey. A Tracks show is a journey. We were at the third act of a big, bright, and beautiful show, and I happened to notice Lynette Lewis from Tennant Creek performing in the Tracks Dance Company show, Crocodile Man, Pineapple Woman. For Lynette - my wife, Dawn, was with me and I tell you we both shed a tear. Lynette did not have any time to shed tears. She was working really hard. She had a major part. She was one of the lead dancers and she worked really hard that night. I cannot wait to get home and catch up with you and your family, Lynette, and share that experience of being so proud to see you! There is a Tennant Creek young woman whom we know, who we have seen grow up, and here she is performing in the big end of town. Well done!
I was privileged to open two exhibitions of Northern Editions at the Charles Darwin University. It was a wonderful experience, a great crowd, good turnout, and the printmaking was superb. As I checked the walls, once again, two Barkly artists, Thelma Dixon and Amy Friday, there they were - beautiful prints up in the ANKAAA Exhibition in partnership with Northern Editions. They are two people I look forward to catching up with when I get back to Borroloola and Robinson River and telling the story of how proud I was to acknowledge their art in what is a premier exhibition.
It is time we started to focus on the positives art and culture can bring and the positives needed to balance out the hard work. Infrastructure is one thing and programs are another, but there also has to be a time when we take stock and think about our wellbeing and having a bit of fun. That is what the arts can deliver.
Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Thank you, as a previous Arts minister as well in the Northern Territory, and one of a team that has been growing the arts and culture throughout our time in government.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by concurring with the Minister for Arts and Museums. The Alice Springs Festival has commenced in Alice Springs. On the weekend I attended the junior performance of the Wearable Arts Competition at the Araluen Arts Centre. It was an amazing display of creativity, liveliness, of kids with the most amazing creations strutting their stuff on the catwalk. It was truly impressive. It was fun. I took my 11-year-old daughter, Alice, and my 12-year-old son, Harry, and we had a fabulous time enjoying the wonderful creations of children in Alice Springs
Second, I would like talk about and pay tribute to the Alice Springs firefighters and volunteers. This week has been a hellish time in Central Australia with bushfires running out of control in and around Alice Springs. I acknowledge the untiring work and commitment of our emergency management crews, the firefighters, the volunteers, the backup staff, the families of the firefighters and, indeed, the families and people who have been affected by the bush fires in Central Australia.
The prison was threatened earlier in the week. Many pastoral properties have been affected. We have had people living on their homelands around the Golden Mile outside of Alice Springs. It has been a really tough time for some people in Central Australia and parliament needs to acknowledge the good work and the untiring work because it is a hard job; it is frightening, it is incredibly exhausting work. My father was a volunteer fireman in my home town for 25 years. I know how hard it is. You work through hours that are difficult on your family and work commitments. Congratulations to everyone who has been involved. It is an honourable and good thing to do for the community.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak on behalf of one of my constituents. I am going to read parts of a letter and will refer to that person as ‘constituent’, and I will refer to his business as ‘other’ as the minister for Fisheries moves around the Chamber. Maybe he should have stayed.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows reference to presence or absence of individuals ...
Mr BOHLIN: I withdraw that. As the Fisheries minister moves around.
This is a letter I wrote to Honourable Kon Vatskalis, NT minister for Fisheries. This is dated 12 July and is a recapped letter:
Dear Minister,
I will go through a time line, because it is important. This is a ministerial position we are talking about. This is a minister, who has good, hard-working staff, but the reality is, this is a letter to the minister and we still do not have a reply as recently as - I printed this off at 4.53 pm today, and my electorate officer is still in the office. We do not have a reply from your staff.
So, dear minister for Fisheries, the Honourable Kon Vatskalis, I first sent a letter to you on 31 December 2010 in relation to the Palmerston boat ramp kiosk and caretaker. On 1 and 2 February 2011, follow up phone calls were made to the minister’s office. We were told to expect a response in 10 days. That was February. On 24 February 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke said: ‘Security compound has not been erected due to record rain falls and will not be until there has been two weeks of dry weather and you will receive a formal response very soon, which will include this advice’.
On 13 May 2011, a development application was advertised. That is good to see. There is still no response from the minister’s office, though. We started in December and there was still no response at 13 May. On 12 July 2011, a second letter was sent. That is the one I just read out, to the minister with information regarding Mr Constituent. There were personal and determined efforts to get a response from the minister’s office.
On 15 August 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke from the minister’s office, said: ‘You will receive a formal response in a few days’. That was at the beginning of this week. On 18 August 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke said: ‘Database is faulty.’ He cannot tell if the letter has been sent and he will call back. If it had been sent, he undertook to provide a scanned copy via e-mail. We still do not have that scanned copy. The letter has not been sent. This started in December and, you know what? We were just asking a simple question on behalf of a constituent and a local business: are there going to be expressions of interests called in a caretaker’s facility and a kiosk at the Palmerston boat ramp?
The compound is all fenced now. There is no caretaker facility but the point is, as a minister, that is poor, December until now, December until August. Your staff tried to put us off for another week so we would not speak about it here in parliament, but no. Minister, that is shameful. It is probably one of the simplest questions a minister will face. Is there, or is there not, going to be a kiosk and a security compound at the Palmerston boat ramp? It is not hard. It is a pretty poor effort from a minister who has been under fire about health all day. It is pretty shameful, really.
Whilst I am on my feet, I also managed to enjoy some of the Darwin Festival last Saturday night and thoroughly enjoyed Cantina. The function prior at Brown’s Mart was a fantastic event as well. I even found myself some dinner before I went there, so between various functions on the night, Saturday night was pretty flat out, I managed to get some food over here at the Darwin Festival Park, and fantastic to think that for $10 you can get yourself a good meal - absolutely brilliant.
The Lighthouse is spectacular in itself. It is a fantastic environment to be in. The performers are amazing, somewhat risqu in Cantina, but nonetheless amazing. The company for the night, the people I was chatting with, including the Leader of the Opposition and other Darwinites, fantastic. It was great spending some time with you guys, having a laugh, and even whilst I was having my dinner, listening to people sing from within the Lighthouse. It was a beautiful event and the organisers should be commended for their great effort. So, thank you very much.
We have a great weekend coming. Those who do not always remember, including the member for Nelson, the Palmerston Markets on Friday nights are a fantastic event. You should get yourself down there. Bring your family along, plenty of spots to sit down. Come along, say hello, shake my hand, and see how the rest of Palmerston and the rest of the world lives, because Palmerston is the greatest place to be.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, Coolalinga Markets every Saturday morning, Berry Springs Markets every Sunday morning, be there, you will find out how the real people live.
I would like to say something tonight in support of marriage, as lately it seems to be under threat by people who have other agendas. Marriage is a commitment, and I made that with my wife, Imelda, nearly 38 years ago. I married her because I loved her and still love her. It has not been an easy marriage, and because of this job she has now installed voice recognition equipment at the back door of the house, because she rarely sees me, but we are still together. My marriage was, and still is, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, until death do us part.
Marriage is a commitment for the rest of my life, but it is more than that. Through this relationship, we have had three wonderful children, because we are man and woman, we are mum and dad, and now a nanna and a poppa. Marriage is not a guarantee for everlasting love, or a recipe for eternal happiness as can be seen by the number of divorces and marriage breakdowns in this country. I know the pain of marriage breakdown in my own family. There are probably many reasons for that, but that does not make marriage a bad thing.
But marriage today is under threat. Some want to copy it. Some want to use it for their own purposes. Some want to change the meaning of marriage, but marriage for me is a special bond between a man and a woman, where a commitment is made publically and, in some cases, before God. I know there are other relationships. I am simply saying tonight that I have a right, which I think is under threat, to stick up for marriage, as we know it, as a very special relationship that has served humanity well. Even with its failings, it is the central core of our society for many years.
On another subject, I got a copy of this today, which is called, Have Your Say. I ran into Shane Stringer, who I have known for many years, and he has put together this comic, which is going to be available tomorrow as part of open day. It is a great production, teaching kids how to vote. It is all about some students who went to Gunnalearnya Boarding School and they were going to have a school election. It has a foreword by Bill Shepheard, the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner, and all the artwork, and I presume the words, are by Shane Stringer.
If you want a way for young people to learn about how to vote, this is a great example of how to do it. Besides all the cartoon characters in it, different kids from the school, it has little spots where it says:
This document - this document! Too much parliamentary speak! This comic in plain speak is a great contribution by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. It is a means of getting information out to young people to help promote amongst them not only how to vote, but to promote the whole concept of democracy, which is very important. I thank Bill Shepheard, and I especially thank my old mate, Shane Stringer, for the usual excellent job he has done in cartooning. I am not sure this year, because he is working for the Electoral Commission, how our Christmas cards are going to go. I hope Bill can give us some exemptions …
Mr Chandler: I thought it was us on the front.
Mr WOOD: It probably is us on the front, member for Brennan. Once again, I say great job and well done on the work that they have done.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say a couple of things in regard to what happened this week with a few issues around the Nightcliff Middle School. I have learnt in this House that things very quickly become history after they have been twisted somewhat. That has already started to occur here with the minister for Education who has come into this House and made some accusations and so forth. I read Hansard and it was interesting to note the minister came in here and named the ministerial advisor that had made a particular phone call.
I just want to step through it. Yes, I was speaking to a young lady who had spoken to me both on the phone and through e-mail in regard to a few issues that had been raised at the Nightcliff Middle School. Interestingly enough, that same person was very enthusiastic and appreciative of what the department had done to alleviate some concerns within the Nightcliff Middle School. Even with the media the other day, she went to great pains to explain to the journalist that she was – in fact, that was how she started out her statement - very appreciative of the government department and its action taken with some of the issues faced at Nightcliff Middle School.
Nonetheless, there were still issues, including a lack of teachers in the science and maths area; that was how the year started out and it was not until recently that some of those things were addressed. The point is the school, the council, and this particular parent, were very impressed with the way the government or the department in this case had acted.
From there, the same lady contacted me again to raise some concerns about a particular staff member and some other people who had attended the Nightcliff Middle School council meeting. It was thought these government staffers were turning up to talk about some of the issues at Nightcliff Middle School; however, the strange thing was, and the complaint was, they were there to talk about the skate park. As soon as they had addressed the issue of a skate park and tabled letters from the member for Nightcliff, they left. People I have spoken to felt the situation was unusual given they thought they were there to talk about the issues around Nightcliff Middle School, not just about the skate park. What then happened was I received an e-mail from my electorate officer saying the same lady had received a phone call from a member of Dr Burns’ staff which made her feel very unsettled.
This is where I need to correct the record. I did not mention the staff member’s name in this House. In fact, I read from the e-mail and my electorate officer thought the person referred to was named Rod, and the e-mail referred to Rod. At that stage, I did not have any idea who the member might be. I figured it may be someone else, but I read from the e-mail and I said the name Rod. I do not know who the minister has working for him in his office. I do not know how many staff he has. I do not know who would be contacting this person, but I did not know at the time which staff member had contacted the person. It was not until the minister and I had a conversation in the Chamber where the minister mentioned his senior advisor, and I agree that it is out of character for the person I know.
In fact, I have never regarded this advisor as someone who would talk to someone as was described to me. It was the minister who used the word ‘bullying’. It was the minister who used the word ‘intimidation’. There was another word and it escapes me. He mentioned his ministerial advisor. At no stage did I mention him. I want to correct the record because things in this House get out of hand because the truth is often twisted when messages are repeated.
I have already drafted the letter. I will be taking the minister up on his offer to visit Nightcliff Middle School. I look forward to visiting Nightcliff Middle School and look forward to, in the future, people coming to me as local member or, in this case, shadow minister for Education. Will I be taking on their issue? Damn right I will, because that is what I do. That is what I have to do and, if they feel in any way unsettled by a phone call or whatever, will I be raising that? Yes, I will, because that is what we should be doing.
You might think this has got a little out of hand and I have been accusing Nightcliff Middle School of doing that. One thing I will say in this House is we have some damn good teachers in the Northern Territory. We have perhaps the best principals I have ever seen working in schools, and we have some very good school councils. Can we improve on education in the Territory? We can. Does it require changes to the curriculum? Perhaps it does to lift the level of our academic achievement. The minister agrees with this, I agree with it, everyone in this Chamber agrees that education is important, and the government calls it the number one priority; I agree with that; it is the number one priority.
To come into this House and twist the way things have turned out and all of a sudden push it across to this side that we are the enemy, it had nothing to do with education, and trying to put me in the frame that I might not want to front Nightcliff Middle School. I want to front Nightcliff Middle School and tell exactly what has happened. I am proud I stood up for a parent of the school. There is nothing that has happened here, nothing whatsoever, that I would not repeat because that is our job, and the job of members on the government side, to stand up for their local constituents, or, in this case, as the shadow minister for Education, to stand up for someone who raised issues about education. But do not try to twist it. That is how it happened. And I will do it again.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to do a review, if you like, of the last two weeks of parliament to ask those interested tragics who watch parliament and listen to parliament to the death throes of the final days of sittings, to examine what has occurred in the last couple of weeks.
In the last two weeks we have seen a substantial change in the sleeping leviathan that is the Northern Territory Labor government which seems to be have been aroused by something into a state of higher consciousness expressed by a lower quality of behaviour.
I have been struck by the focus the Labor government has brought to bear against their rivals, namely, us, the Country Liberals. What I find curious in this process is that the Country Liberals have occupied so much of the cerebral activity of the collective minds across the Chamber from us and doubtlessly on the 5th floor of this House. What it has produced is a change in style. The stylistic change will suit some of the members opposite. We are used to tirades of abuse from some of the members, but other members have chosen to read out the speeches shoved into their hands and to put in the barbs against the CLP.
There are the constant attacks about what the CLP will do in government, and what the CLP has done in government in the past, and how dreadful we are, and how the dark clouds of dismalness will return should the CLP government return to power. The government is using this interesting tactic because it is now starting to express an idea that the best form of defence is attack.
What I am surprised at, despite their best efforts, is how spartan the recent information, in particular, is at their disposal. It is surprising to hear the names of Denis Burke and Steve Dunham intoned by members opposite in reference to their attacks. They have to go back 15 to 20 years to find sources of attack on the current Country Liberals. That has a ‘stalky’ quality to it. It will not be long before they break into our houses, go through our sock drawers, or perhaps rummage through our rubbish bins in an effort to find some dastardly secret they might use.
It is an interesting tactic because it misses the point in one important area. A government, which is entirely focused on the people who sit opposite them in a parliament, is not focused on the job it should be doing for the people of the Northern Territory. I would hope the spin doctors on the fifth floor are cognisant of this because I have the hide of a rhinoceros after 11 years in this place collectively. They can abuse me all they like on that side of the House, but in truth, it means their focus is on the wrong place.
I will give you an example of this. I was upstairs and was interrupted on a couple of occasions, but I was listening to the adjournment debate of the member for Drysdale. The member for Drysdale, quite rightfully, raised an issue which clearly has been unattended to by this government since he originally raised it with the government back in December, I think you said, member for Drysdale. This government hears the member’s complaint and, lo and behold, the member for Drysdale informs me that as soon as he sat down, his electorate officer, who is at his electorate office - I notice, member for Drysdale, you have a dedicated electorate officer if she is there at half past six or whatever it is at night …
Mr Bohlin: She is great value.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that, pop, onto the screen came a letter from the minister saying: ‘We have sorted out the problem’, and it is dated 15 August. Okay. Presuming, just for one second, in the unlikely event this date of 15 August is accurate - presuming we have not just bumped a little and changed the rubber stamp a few days back so we can make it look like we were attending to the matter a few days ago. In truth, if you raise an issue with government in December nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens. Then the Country Liberals raise the issue in this Chamber and, within 10 minutes, e-mails are being sent around; ministers are running around assuring people that things are happening. It just shows you that the focus on the Country Liberals is justified - justified in the sense that the punters out there now know that to come to us is to get things done but, moreover, it means government is still responding to the issues of Territorians as political issues. Quick, get rid of the bad news story by whatever means we can. Work late. Send the e-mail as soon as the member for Drysdale, or member for Port Darwin, or the member for Sanderson, raises it. Make it look like we are doing something.
The Leviathan stirs into life based on a simple fallacy - to look like you are doing something is to govern. No more is that manifest than in the tender for the rebranding of this tired, lazy, arrogant Labor government, which still does not understand that its function is to govern for the people of the Northern Territory rather than to buy advertising space. We see that manifest and writ large across our television screens every night, as ad after ad after ad tells us not to beat our wives, to produce our driving licences when we are buying alcohol, and what a great job the government is doing in a whole raft of areas. The ads do not work, but the government does not care. It does not care that these ads do not work, so long as we have the advertising space. That is not good governance; it is a concern about what you look like.
The tendering to rebrand yourself is a concern about what you look like. Advertising ad nauseum, on television, radio, and in newspapers, is a concern about what you look like. It has nothing any more to do with governance. It has gone. The idea of governance has gone. That is something the public service does. We just have to stay in power come what may. We make ourselves a small target regarding things like the member of Drysdale raised in the House tonight. We make ourselves a small target in terms of doing anything. We try our hardest to make ourselves a small target on any other issue that we possibly can, and we buy millions upon millions of taxpayer-funded advertising and get the message out there that we are doing a great job.
It is all about the tag line: ‘written and authorised by the Northern Territory government, Darwin’. That is all it is about. It is cynical, it is facile, it is puerile, and it does not convince anyone. Just look at the comments in the Northern Territory News every time a story runs on government. There is comment after comment, people saying they are tired of being treated like that. If that is the only thing they have left in their locker, then they have nothing left. The problem is that taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay and pay until the next Territory election whilst they continue to produce nothing and leave governance up to the public service.
I am already starting to get the sense that the government has entered a caretaker mode. Their language, as the Labor Party, is becoming more political and they are doing less and less. They have tried to get their hard decisions out of the way early, and now they want to cover their tracks in all sorts of ways. They made sure the Ombudsman no longer has powers to investigate child offences. They made sure the Ombudsman no longer has control of the Health Complaints Commission. They made sure that crime statistical reporting will not be reported until after the next Territory election, with the exception of the June quarter this year. It is all about message management, and so be it.
The fact is that Territorians are starting to see through it. The constituent who Mr Bohlin, the member for Drysdale, was defending tonight, has been well-served by the member for Drysdale, but it is a shame that this government responds to that sort of prodding, rather than saying to itself, this is how we should do our job all the time, punctually, accurately, completely, concisely, and correctly.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the attendance of a bunch of young Territorians who came to the parliamentary sittings over the last fortnight and those are students from Wagaman Primary School.
Wagaman Primary School is in the northern suburbs of Darwin. It is in what we call the green belt. It is a well-established neighbourhood close to the Casuarina Shopping Square. It is one of the schools built about 30 years ago and it is still standing. It has been upgraded and modernised. It sits in a beautiful green area with well-established trees, ovals, a good little shopping centre close by, preschool, and a childcare centre, all wrapped up in the middle of the suburb.
These young people came to look at the Westminster system of democracy and this fine building in which we sit. They had a great time. I acknowledge the people in the Parliamentary Education Unit for doing such a great job looking after these young people and teaching them about what happens in this establishment.
I would like to acknowledge each of these young people by name, as they came here, they participated in all of the activities, and they were extremely excited to be in this building to look at the various aspects of what we do here and where we do it:
The other issue I raise is a send-off to a young lady who has contributed much to Darwin. Unfortunately and sadly, she has chosen to leave the Territory and move to South Australia where she will start a new life. The lady’s name is Lesley Ann Hodge and she is the daughter of long-term Territorians, Bill and Lesley Hodge.
Bill and Lesley both grew up in Darwin. When you talk to them, they tell stories about the old Star Theatre, the baths down at Larrakeyah, and the fruit and vegie farms at Nightcliff. They have much corporate history and have been trying to record some of that because they too, unfortunately, will be leaving the Territory shortly and moving to South Australia.
Lesley Ann holds a record in this country for being at one stage the youngest person to hold a pilot’s licence. Back in those days you could not obtain a pilot’s licence until you were 16 years of age. She completed her test on her 16th birthday and was given a pilot’s licence. There are some great photos of that event and it is something of which Bill and Lesley are very proud.
Lesley worked for Airnorth back in those days, not as a pilot, but as a flight attendant, and flew in all types of aircraft, one of which is an historic aircraft maintained and still owned by Hardy Aviation. It was part of the tour of the Tiwi Islands craft that was used to ferry tourists from Darwin to the Tiwi Islands. That aircraft, and she is very proud of having flown in it, is an old World War II DC-3. Its call sign is MMA, mike-mike-alpha, which is the flagship for what was MacRobertson Miller Airlines. The aircraft is an historic plane now and a flying museum piece. It is well and truly maintained as part of the Hardy Aviation aircraft stock. It is still flying. It is a regular in the skies of Darwin, especially at sunset when the flight crew often take it out to give it a run around the skies. It is something to look out for and I sincerely hope Hardy Aviation is able to keep it flying for many years to come.
In the meantime, we in the Sanderson electorate wish Lesley Ann the very best in her future. It is sad to lose people, but that is what happens in the Territory. Some people go, but I am sure at some stage she will return, as many others who spend most of their life in Darwin will return to what is the greatest place in this country.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Pairing Arrangements -
Members for Wanguri and Katherine;
Members for Daly and Blain;
Members for Arnhem and Goyder; and
Members for Stuart and Sanderson
Pairing Arrangements -
Members for Wanguri and Katherine;
Members for Daly and Blain;
Members for Arnhem and Goyder; and
Members for Stuart and Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have two documents relating to pairs. One is for the entire sitting day for the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, with the member for Katherine. It is signed by both Whips.
The second document relates to the period 4.30 pm to 8 pm and is for the member for Daly with the member for Blain; the member for Arnhem from 4.30 pm until 6 pm with the member for Goyder; and also the member for Stuart from 10.30 am until 6 pm with the member for Sanderson. That is signed by both Whips.
I table those documents.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Bakewell Primary School students accompanied by Mr Mark Williams and Ms Catherine Nunn. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
KENBI LAND TRUST BILL
(Serial 175)
(Serial 175)
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, at the request of, and on behalf of, the Chief Minister, I present a bill titled Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175).
Bill read a first time.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Kenbi Land Trust Bill is an important step in implementing the in-principle agreement between this government and the Northern Land Council for resolution of detriment issues arising from the Kenbi Land Claim.
On 30 January 2009, the Chief Minister was pleased to jointly announce with the Northern Land Council and senior traditional owners that agreement had been reached on resolution of the detriment issues arising from this long-running land claim. The agreement secured a significant part of the Cox Peninsula for the future development of Darwin, while at the same time meeting traditional owners’ aspirations for the protection of their traditional lands and the creation of economic development opportunities for Indigenous landowners.
Recently, the Commonwealth decided on areas it wishes to continue to occupy, and commenced research and remediation of land to be granted, including its former Quail Island bombing range.
On 29 June 2011, the Commonwealth government entered into a Heads of Agreement in support of the in-principle agreement between the Northern Territory and the NLC setting out time lines for grant of Kenbi which parties will use their best endeavours to meet. The arrangement will see part of the land recommended for grant by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in 2000 granted as Aboriginal land under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and part of it granted as freehold for development.
This bill facilitates the grant of a third category of land to a newly-established land trust, the Kenbi Land Trust. It enables land in the north west of the Cox Peninsula to be held by the Kenbi Land Trust without extinguishment of native title until such time as the land is required for development. The bill also provides for the granting of land to the Kenbi Land Trust under the provisions of the Crown Lands Act by the minister with responsibility for that act, and provides for some restrictions on dealing with the land.
Because survey of the precise boundaries of the land to be granted to the Kenbi Land Trust has yet to be finalised, the bill describes the land to be granted to the Kenbi Land Trust as within the area recommended for grant by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and is more fully described in the regulations.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think I understand what has happened here, and we will not make a major issue of it. However, Standing Order 177 says ‘when a bill is being read the first time the member in charge of the bill may move …’, and it reads on. The minister has not sought leave or informed the House that he is the member in charge of the bill. I am wondering if the minister has a script or a set of words in front of him which would give him that operational facility. If he does not do it, he is in breach of standing orders.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, at the outset I said at the request of, and on behalf of, the Chief Minister I present a bill titled the Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175). Hopefully, that fulfils the requirements, and answers the question asked by the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: It is clear now that that is the case, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 162)
(Serial 162)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a bill that significantly revises the Mining Management Act, which will deliver a range of improvements to the enforcement and accountability of environmental regulation of mining. The amendments also implement the government’s policy of ensuring that large mining developments deliver lasting benefits to the communities in which they are based.
The act was revised in 2008 to implement the government’s decision to separate the administration of environmental compliance and occupational health and safety. This bill represents the first systematic division of the way in which the legislation applies and regulates mining operations in the Northern Territory.
The primary issues of significance are:
the tightening up of the compliance requirements of the act with the introduction of compulsory reporting and the ability to direct investigations of environmental incidents at any level;
The Mining Management Act came into effect on 1 January 2002. It was based on objective-based regulation rather than prescription, and focused on achieving strong environmental management of mining operations. The act makes it clear there is an onus on mining companies to demonstrate best practice and appropriate management of risk.
The act recognises that mining, by its nature, has an impact on the environment. Soil and rocks are removed, sometimes in large quantities, and chemicals are used in refinement of metals. The act recognises there will be environmental disturbance associated with this. Whilst such disturbance may be approved, the act clearly requires operators to put in place an environmental protection management system and operate within its parameters. Several changes proposed in the bill are to provide greater clarity on the obligations of operators to protect the environment and ensure they stay within the scope of the approved works.
There are three broad classes of activities that are covered by the existing act: exploration, extractive mining, and large-scale mining. All require authorisation under the act, including the submission of mine management plans, MMPs, that are suitable to the level of the impact they will have.
Exploration covers a wide range of techniques used to indentify marketable deposits including drilling holes, drenching, and taking samples for processing. Where operators use non-invasive techniques, such as rock chip sampling or airborne surveys, they are not required to have an authorisation.
Extractive mining covers sand and gravel mining as well as quarrying. These activities provide materials for construction and landscaping activities and do not use chemicals in processing.
Large-scale mining refers to operations that have a significant environmental footprint, ranging from the extraction of minerals such as manganese and phosphate, to processes that use acids or alkalis to extract metals from ore and produce chemically-active waste.
Activities that cause substantial disturbance of the land, which includes Territory waters, must be authorised under the act. The act requires the submission and approval of an appropriate MMP that includes details of the environmental management of the proposed activity. An authorisation also requires the submission of an appropriate level of financial security that covers 100% of the rehabilitation liability of the activities specified in the MMP. As these activities differ in scale, so too does the level of planning required and regulation. Whilst exploration and extractive mining are inspected and submit securities, the highest level of risk relates to large mining activities.
Over the past eight years, a number of issues have arisen that indicate there are areas where improvements should be made to the act. These include improving the public transparency of environmental reporting of mining activities, improvements to reporting of incidents and offences, and delivering long-term benefits to communities.
In arriving at those changes, my department consulted a range of industry, government, and non-government groups, including the Minerals Council of Australia, NT Division; the Extractive Industry Association of the Northern Territory; the Mining Board appointed under the act; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport; EPA; the Environment Centre NT; the Environmental Defender’s Office; and the Northern, Central, Anindilyakwa, and Tiwi Land Councils. Proposed changes were also presented to the Australian Geologists and Exploration Seminar in Alice Springs, and I have also been speaking with stakeholders on a number of the changes. It is fair to say there is considerable division between the perspectives of stakeholders on a number of the proposed amendments. In arriving at a decision, the government must balance the views and interests of particular groups with that of the wider benefit the proposed amendments will bring to the Northern Territory.
The government acknowledges the importance of the mining industry to the Territory, particularly regional communities. These amendments are in no way intended to be anti-mining, but are very clearly intended to be pro-accountability. These amendments demonstrate a clear will on the part of this government to ensure high standards of environmental management of the mining industry.
I will now outline the major changes to the act to honourable members.
Community benefits: the long title of the act is to be amended to clarify that it covers the provision of economic and social benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to environmental regulation. Section 37, Conditions of Authorisation, is consequently amended to make it clear that the minister may require an operator to address the provision of social and economic benefits. New section 82A is also added to give effect to this requirement. This is a consequence of the government’s belief that large mines have a long-term impact on the communities where they operate and miners need to demonstrate how they will address this. I will clarify that this provision would only come into effect at the point where actual mining commences, that is, after the exploration has proved up a minable deposit, a mineral lease has been applied for, and an authorisation for mining has been sought.
The government’s view is that miners need to be involved in conversation with the community over a period of time. In the lead-up to a decision on whether to proceed with developing a mine, the proponents should be identifying opportunities to support local communities, and planning how this will occur. The government does not seek to be prescriptive in this regard. Mining operators might deliver benefits to the local community in many ways, ranging from increased employment and supply of goods to the establishment of Community Benefit trusts. Some of these will occur as a matter of course, and I note companies are generally placing a much higher focus on local employment, especially Indigenous employment. The government’s view is that community benefits should simply become part of the developmental planning process.
In short, a mining company spends an amount of money on jobs, services, and business as a matter of course. Through these amendments, government is endeavouring to improve the channelling of that expenditure into the local area. In due course, guidelines will be issued under the amended act to assist operators to identify the scope and nature that community benefits may take.
Changes to language: honourable members will note the bill includes a variety of proposed changes to the language of the act. These primarily relate to two issues. The first is the removal of some terms that relate to the previous iteration of the act when it covered occupational health and safety. For example, the term ‘serious accident’ will be removed from the definitions and section 29. The second significant change to language relates to the inclusion of the principles of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act in all offences against the act. Part IIAA states the general principles of criminal responsibility, establishes general defences, and deals with the burden of proof.
There are a number of areas where penalties have been simplified by removal of a separate penalty for a body corporate. This is because the penalty for a body corporate is specified by the Interpretation Act to be five times the penalty for a natural person. It is therefore only required to include the penalty that would apply to a natural person.
Obligations of Operator: the government proposes to expand the sections dealing with the obligations of the operator to protect the environment. A new section 16A will be added to the obligations of the operator, replacing section 33 of the current act. This new section makes it clear the operator has responsibility for ensuring all those working on the mine site, including contractors, are involved in developing and implementing environmental protection measures.
Environmental Offences: as discussed, the environmental offences have been rewritten to take into account the principles of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. These offences are to make clear the environmental obligations of the operator which will include the additional obligations specified in new section 16A. The government initially proposed to include an additional offence of failing to comply with an approved mining management plan. This was one of the recommendations of the EPA investigation into the unleaded petrol incident at Alcan Gove. However, the view of the Parliamentary Counsel was that this should not be included because there is already an offence under section 39 for failing to comply with an authorisation. The conditions of authorisation are specified in section 37 of the current act and include:
- 37(2)(a) the conditions that the operator must comply with the current mining management plan in respect of mining activities to which the authorisation relates;
Under section 64 of the current act, it is an offence to fail to comply with a direction of a mining officer which could include circumstances where the operator is not working within the limits of the authorisation or MMP. Also supporting the enforcement of environmental compliance will be the addition of a general offence as a new section 33 under the act. This section creates an offence of releasing a waste or contaminant from a mining site where the release is not authorised under the MMP. This will apply whether or not the release is on or outside of the mining site. The government believes this offence will cover most foreseeable situations involving an act that impacts on the environment but does not necessarily trigger the existing environmental offences where it is necessary for some degree of environmental harm to have occurred. As this offence is one of strict liability, it will capture situations where there is a lesser degree of harm to the environment and where an operator has failed to report an incident to the regulator resulting in an inability to investigate whether there was an immediate or short-term environmental harm.
It should be noted that the offence applies to incidents inside and outside the mine site, in support of the government’s intention to harmonise environmental legislation on and off mining tenure. It adds to the existing power under section 83 of the act for the minister to direct action to be taken on or outside the mining site to prevent, minimise, or rectify a hazardous situation or environmental harm.
Reporting and investigation: the government proposes to make significant changes to the reporting and investigation powers under the act. Section 29 currently requires an operator to report ‘a serious accident or critical incident’ on a mine site. A critical incident is defined as an event that has ‘… the potential to cause significant adverse effect on the environment’. A serious accident is defined as an event that causes material environmental harm. Material and environmental harm is in turn defined as environmental harm that requires up to $50 000 being spent to minimise the harm or rehabilitate the environment.
Under section 31, if a serious accident occurs on a mine site, the operator is required to investigate the event and provide a written report to the Chief Executive within 14 days. In practical terms, this has resulted in mining companies self-assessing the impacts of an environmental incident and determining whether they should report it or not. The government proposes to address this by amending section 29 to require operators to report all environmental incidents to the Chief Executive. Under an amended section 31, the Chief Executive will have the power to direct the operator to investigate such an incident and provide a report within 14 days.
The existing term ‘serious accident’ will become ‘serious environmental incident’. It will have the same definition as an event that causes material environmental harm and therefore automatically requires an investigation to be undertaken and a report provided.
The government notes that these changes may have the effect of capturing a large number of trivial incidents that are inevitable on an industrial site and which may already have been effectively cleaned up. There will be guidelines to indicate what constitutes a trivial incident, however, the legal responsibility lies with the industry to report incidents that the community would be expect to be reported and investigated. The government believes it is important to be clear in its message to operators that environmental incidents should be taken seriously and there is an obligation to inform the regulators. Where a series of incidents occurs, it would provide a clear indicator for my department that further scrutiny might be required in relation to inspections and/or approvals of MMPs.
In addition, a new section 31A will be added to allow the Chief Executive to publish reports prepared by either the operator or the department where publication is in the public interest. This is one of a number of amendments that will improve public transparency in the regulation of mining.
Public reporting on environmental incidents is handled in a variety of ways in other jurisdictions. An environmental incident may be made public in Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania. In South Australia, they are reported annually; whilst Queensland and Western Australia do not routinely report incidents.
Substantial Disturbance: the requirement to have an authorisation for a mining operation relies on there being substantial disturbance to the land. This allows operators undertaking non-intrusive activities on exploration licences to do so without having an authorisation. Examples include airborne sensing and rock chip sampling where there is no measurable impact on the environment. However, there was a case recently where an operator proposed to undertake seismic surveys in water with the potential to impact on wildlife, but which was not ‘substantial disturbance’ of the land. In order to clarify this, section 35 is amended to include a more detailed definition of what constitutes substantial disturbance and an offence for undertaking such work without authorisation.
Access Areas: while on the matter of definitions, it is proposed to broaden the definition of ‘mining activity’ under section 4 of the current act to include the construction, maintenance, and use of infrastructure in an access area, as defined in section 8 of the Mineral Titles Act. This will have the effect of allowing for the imposition of a rehabilitation security over associated mining activities not located on mining tenure, for example, transportation corridors between sites, and/or access roads to sites.
Granting the Authorisation: the provisions relating to granting an authorisation from section 35, 36, and 37 are combined in a revised section 36. The section now clearly specifies that approval of the MMP is critical to the approval of the authorisation. This reflects the government’s intention that the MMP will be the operational plan for the site. Under the proposed bill, the maximum penalty for undertaking unauthorised mining activities for an individual has been significantly increased from 1250 to 5000 penalty units, which reflects the seriousness of such an offence. If the offence was committed by a body corporate, the penalty applied would be five times that applying to an individual. Thus, under the current penalty unit structure, the maximum penalty that could be applied to a company for undertaking mining without an authorisation is $3.4m to $5m. The new monetary penalty is in line with a similar type of offence under section 148 of the new Mineral Titles Act of conducting mining and/or related activities without a granted mineral title.
Section 37 under the proposed bill importantly includes a new requirement for those operators mining for minerals to submit an annual report on the status of conditions imposed through the environmental assessment of a project, and the environmental performance of the operation. Further, these reports are to be made public.
In proposing this amendment, the government is aware there may be some concerns in the mining industry. It is the government’s view that mining operations have a significant impact on the environment and there is a public interest in demonstrating the management of those sites. In addition, the conditions of approval for environmental assessment are the result of a public process and it is reasonable to expect public reporting of how these conditions are being implemented. The government acknowledges that mining operations change over time, as do management practices. These changes should be identified. New section 45A will allow the minister to publish the report if the operator fails to do so.
The focus of the new requirement is specifically on mining activities being undertaken on a mining lease which, due to the nature of operations conducted, represent a higher environmental risk than that posed by lower impact exploration or extractive operations. The government is aware that mining documents can contain information of a commercially-sensitive nature. It is not expecting such information to be released, but I foreshadow that the onus will be on the operators to demonstrate the case for information to be excluded.
It should be noted that new section 37(5) will allow a range of conditions to be imposed on authorisations, including the outcomes of environmental assessment and public reporting. It should also be noted that section 90, the confidentiality clause, is also to be amended to allow the release of information if directed by the minister or Chief Executive.
In making these changes, I note these matters are all handled differently from state to state. South Australia is considering the public release of mining plans for large operations. In New South Wales and Queensland, reports may be made available on request, subject to dealing with issues of privacy, and commercial and legal sensitivity. Other states do not publish such reports.
Section 38 is also varied to allow for the variation for an authorisation. In practical terms, the existing phrase ‘improving the protection of the environment’ in section 38(3) acts as an impediment to amending an authorisation. Many changes to authorisations relate to expanded activities which have a consequently greater impact on the environment. While the expanded activities must be proposed in accordance with an approved environmental management plan, it is still difficult to satisfy the requirement to improve the protection of the environment. As a result, the practice has been to issue a new authorisation instead of varying the existing authorisation. This can present significant difficulties for most small operators because it requires the submission of a new rehabilitation security for the new authorisation. The period of overlap between issuing a new authorisation and revoking the previous authorisation and refunding the security effectively requires two securities to be in place over the one site for a period of time. The section as it currently stands would also limit the ability of the government to vary the authorisation to include provisions for public reporting and community benefits.
The proposed amendment will allow authorisation to be varied with the existing security in place, whilst still ensuring appropriate standards of environmental management are met. I emphasise there is no intention to reduce the level of environmental management; it is simply a mechanism to improve a process that is currently unusable.
Mining management plans: sections 40 and 41 are amended to clarify the relationship between the MMP and the authorisation, and the requirement to ensure MMPs are reviewed and updated. It should be noted that section 65 is also to be amended to allow for a review of a decision not to approve an MMP and/or grant an authorisation.
Mining officers: section 62 is to be amended with the addition of a penalty clause to make the offence of failing to comply with the direction of a mining officer more explicit. Section 64 will clarify there is an offence of obstructing a mining officer. An additional section 64A will be added to introduce the offence of falsely representing a mining officer. It is intended to introduce an infringement notice system consistent with section 62 through regulation.
Offences, liability and criminal proceedings: Part 9 of the act is proposed to be replaced. The intention is to update this section so it complies with the evidentiary and liability provisions of the Criminal Code Act and modern legislation.
Service of documents: section 91 is to be repealed. The service of documents is already covered under the Interpretation Act.
I noted earlier there were some conflicting views on these proposed amendments. Some would argue they go too far, others would argue they should go further. The government believes these represent a reasonable balance which will allow for improved regulation of the mining industry.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just one thing before we go any further. I raise the point of order of Standing Order 173. This bill was not given notice of at the appropriate time yesterday. I draw your attention to that standing order which says:
- A Member shall give such a notice by stating its terms to the Assembly and delivering a copy to the Clerk at the appropriate time.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, I agree with you, member for Port Darwin. In fact, I did advise the minister of that. That being the case, he actually sought leave of the Assembly to do it. If, of course, leave had not been granted, he would not have been able to do it. I agree with you, member for Port Darwin, it certainly needs to be an exception rather than the rule.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Wanguri
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Chief Minister due to his attendance at COAG.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 146)
(Serial 146)
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, over the last few months, in negotiations and discussions with the member for Nelson and, indeed, in the briefings with the minister’s department, we expressed our concerns about special measures, merit, diversity, and diversity over merit, and it does not sit comfortably with the opposition at all. After lengthy discussions with the member for Nelson, we agreed we would not support a bill that had diversity over merit principles and, with the support of the member for Nelson - we all know the influence he holds over the government - the government decided to withdraw that particular part of the bill, to draw that out of the bill.
We also have concerns about the special measures clauses that remain. We have amendments here; we have tabled some amendments. The member for Nelson has indicated he will not support those amendments, so we will move to withdraw those amendments and oppose the bill.
There are parts of this bill which we support, and they are important to bring things up to speed. However, when it comes to diversity over merit, when it comes to special measures, it just does not sit well with the opposition at all. This government has a history, or they preside over, separate development policies, especially when it comes to Aboriginal people. It is like we are going to hark back to the old days of affirmative action policies.
The member for Port Darwin made a good point. He may get to his feet today during this debate. If you can indulge me, member for Port Darwin, to lift some of your comments raised throughout a series of briefings about these issues, which were fought long and hard throughout the 1970s. The equality, equal opportunities, equal pay, equal rights, suffrage, the whole bit, was fought long and hard. Now we see a situation where we are going to diminish that by allowing these special measures to be put in place to allow certain disadvantaged groups, you might say, a leg up.
I use the example of someone who has spent a lifetime in the public service, 30 to 40 years in the public service, highly qualified, has ticked all the right boxes for a particular job or promotion, but is overlooked by an underqualified black woman. That is a real possibility, and the sort of thing that happened in the past. There is nothing here to prevent that from happening again. I know the diversity stuff, the diversity over merit, directed the government to actively promote these sorts of affirmative action policies, but now that has gone, the government still has an out through these special measures. It has gone a long way to assure the member for Nelson that it is not about quotas, but how do we know? How do we know that it is …
A member: Ten per cent Aboriginal people.
Mr CONLAN: That is right; there is a quota in place to employ 10% Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory Public Service. Where does it end? Does it just end there? If you want to lift those quotas, for example, there is nothing stopping the Northern Territory government from doing just that. These special measures open a door; a door that does not sit comfortably with the opposition.
These rights were fought for long and hard, and here we are in the 21st century harking back to those sorts of days. The member for Nelson spoke to me about a second reading speech, which was the special measures provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act which have been in force for nearly 19 years. It says that since it was passed in 1992 without any objection raised in debate in the second reading speech presided on 1 October 1992, the then Chief Minister Shane Stone stated the following in relation to special measures, and he goes on to talk about clause 57. That is well and good but I say to the member for Nelson, that was 20 years ago. We have moved on. Twenty years was a long time ago. Does that mean something that was common in the 1970s, and we go 20 years prior to 1992, say 1972, and the policies that were in place at the time in 1972, and people’s expectations and what was considered appropriate in 1972, is a far cry from what was considered appropriate in 1992. Therefore, in 2011 or 2012, just because it was introduced in 1992 without any objection, does that necessarily mean that it is appropriate in 2012? I do not think so.
We have moved on, and we need to move on. We need to stop separate development, allowing people who do not have the appropriate qualifications to step up and climb the ladder in the Northern Territory Public Service over those who are highly qualified, do have the appropriate qualifications, and therefore will deliver a better public service for all Territorians and deliver the best value for the taxpayer. The situation where section 57 does not apply to the Northern Territory public service act - why can’t that be amended?
The government has sought legal advice so I am interested to see this legal advice - the advice was as to why the Anti-Discrimination Act does not apply to the PSEMA in section 57. Will the minister table that advice or make that advice available to the opposition? Why can’t that be amended? In discussions with the member for Nelson just five minutes ago about the act mentioning merit and there being no allowance for merit in the Anti-Discrimination Act or vice versa, to me, it is a vehicle for this government to pursue its separate development policies. In 2012, we should be moving on. We should be allowing those people who are qualified to achieve the jobs and the aspirations they want and not be overlooked because someone from a particular disadvantage group needs to fulfil a government quota or the government needs to fill their quota.
If you appointed an Aboriginal woman to a job because she was an Aboriginal woman, that would be highly insulting. I do not know how Aboriginal women would feel about that, but I would be highly insulted and offended if I was promoted purely because of my sex or my colour. The best thing women can do for themselves is to do a good job. The best thing anyone can do for themselves is to do a good job in the job you are doing. People say: ‘Prime Minister Gillard has broken the glass ceiling’. The best thing she can do for the cause, for women, is do a good job as Prime Minister. If she fails, she is pushing the whole cause back.
I find it personally offensive and I am the furthest from that disadvantaged group. I am a white male, so we are not in a disadvantaged group, but who is. Who is in a disadvantaged group? Where does it end? Where does it end with, say, homosexuals? Alice Springs is touted as the lesbian capital of the country. Are we going to make an equal representation or represent the public service to reflect that group of people in Central Australia, or indeed the Territory, or Australia, or wherever it might be? Are we going to move towards that? Do we need to appoint homosexuals to positions?
What about people who might be colour blind - 10% of the male population is colour blind - it can be a severe disadvantage. It means at least two-and-a-half people in this building are colour blind. The member for Nelson thinks it is funny but it is quite a serious ailment for many people. So, where does it end? You cannot join the Northern Territory Police Force if you are colour blind. Does that mean we will now move to allow people with colour deficiency to enter public service jobs because they are a disadvantaged group and we need to have a representation of a large group of people in the Northern Territory? I would suggest probably not.
If you cannot do the job, why be there? Surely it has to be about doing the job and fulfilling the position to the best of your ability. It is lost on me why someone would want to promote people who are underqualified and unable to fulfil a task for the sake of fulfilling a quota.
In some of these briefings we mentioned representation across certain disadvantaged groups, representing them in the public service, and I suggested we have elected representatives for that. Elected representatives play a vital role in local councils and parliaments across the country. We have quite a diverse parliament here and quite diverse local councils - municipal councils. Aboriginal people, and women, on the councils are able to make policies, make legislation, and direct policy towards certain disadvantaged groups. It does not sit comfortably with me for us to be enshrining into law this type of thing. It even says here that the strategy itself is not a special measure. It is a plan of action by the agencies, and all agencies will have one, to put in place a range of initiatives to assist Indigenous persons to gain employment and to further their careers. That is right. It is a strategy and a policy. Why can’t it stay as a strategy and policy? Why does it have to be enshrined into law? That is where it does not sit well with the opposition.
This can seriously impede someone’s ability to aspire to something. If someone knew they did not have to achieve, did not have to reach a certain qualification or a certain benchmark, they may not aspire to that. They may not further their education or they may not further any professional development as a result of these policies. Again, it does not sit well.
I find it offensive - not personally offensive, because I am not in that disadvantaged group, but for women or Aboriginal people to be promoted purely because they are an Aboriginal person or because they are a woman - I do not know. That is more offensive to people than not getting the job. You would be hard pressed to find someone who would not want to get a job on their merits, and that is what it is all about. That is what women and Aboriginal people are fighting for and have fought so hard for - to be recognised on their merits and on what they have achieved.
Women do not want to be judged as a disadvantaged group. Women do not want to be disadvantaged; they do not want to be seen to be a disadvantaged group. I do not see women as a disadvantaged group or a lesser sex. For goodness sake! There are several women in this Chamber who have achieved great things. The Labor Party had the first female Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We have a female Prime Minister, a female Speaker, a female Governor-General, and there have been several female Premiers in recent times.
I grew up with a number of women in my household. My mother grew up with Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer and it was hard going in that household as a young boy growing up in the 1970s. With Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer hanging around, it was hard yakka. I learnt quickly that women are capable of doing just about anything they want. The only thing that holds women back from achieving anything is their qualifications. If they are not qualified, they should not get the job, and if Aboriginal people are not qualified for something, they should not be getting the job.
I am sure if you found an Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory and said: ‘I am just going to promote you because you are a blackfella, an Aboriginal, and we have to bolster this up a bit and it makes us look good’, how do you think that person would feel? How do you think that person would feel if they were promoted purely on the fact of their race and the colour of their skin, their sex, or even their disability? Essentially, we are setting people up to fail. We cannot put too much of a fine point on that. Potentially, it could seriously impede a person’s aspiration to further their education, or embark on professional development to get them to a level where they are qualified and can apply for a position knowing they have done everything they possibly can.
We also have to look at the best value for money and the best delivery of service. We are talking about the Northern Territory Public Service. We do not want a public service full of underqualified people, or people who are not able to deliver because they do not have the qualifications or the skills. We see it in remote parts of the Northern Territory. We see teachers in remote communities who are there because they fit a particular type of disadvantaged group. In many cases, they are largely underqualified and they are leading the charge on our kids. It is happening and it is out there.
We are setting these people up to fail, and the same goes for those with disabilities. I mentioned colour deficiency. If there was ever something discriminatory in our modern society, it is probably that. We have ramps for wheelchairs and we have all sorts of things for disabilities in our modern society and they are enshrined in law. However, 10% of men have some form of colour deficiency, but that tends to be seriously overlooked. The reason for that is, probably, half the blokes do not know they are and the other half probably do but they are too ashamed to admit it. That is a bigger issue and another problem, and something that is a bit close to my heart.
As I said, where does it end? What is to say the government will not use these special measures to apply quotas? We already have quotas in place in the public service when it comes to Aboriginal people. The best way to get the best out of someone and the best out of the public service is to get the right person into the job, not because that person fits a particular disadvantaged group. The best thing any person from a disadvantaged group - whether they are someone with a disability, someone of Aboriginal descent, someone of Asian descent, someone of the female sex; whatever it is – can do is seriously achieve. That is the role model and the way to get people into these jobs; to set the standard, set an example, and be a role model for those people of particular disadvantaged groups.
This whole thing does not sit well with us so, essentially, we will withdraw our amendments and will be opposing the bill. We are happy with the removal of diversity over merit, but not retaining the special measures, Madam Speaker. We will, once we get to the committee stage, withdraw those amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I had a bit to do with this bill when I had the shadow ministry of the public sector. I began with the same reservations expressed by the member for Greatorex. The member for Nelson had similar concerns, and I well understand his concerns. That is why this bill, which was introduced some time ago, has been languishing at the bottom of our agenda whilst the structure of this bill, or the particular sticking point in this bill, was dealt with.
The current Public Sector Employment and Management Act does the job adequately. I would go so far as to say it does the job well. The former Public Service Commissioner, Ken Simpson, articulated that thought; however, they have seen fit to review the act. The review has been going on for several years, or several years prior to the bill finding its way into this place. The review was delayed and delayed and delayed. I suspect one of the reasons for the delays behind the scenes was this sticking point. Ken Simpson drove this because he particularly wanted the capacity structured into the bill to pursue the advancement of particular groups in the public sector. He assured me during a briefing that the bill was not aimed or designed to fulfil quotas.
The problem I had with that assertion is there is a quota, as the member for Greatorex correctly pointed out, operating in the Northern Territory Public Service right now, and that is a quota that says 10% of the public service will be Aboriginal people. We heard the minister in this House the other day waxing lyrical about how close they are to achieving that benchmark. Those sorts of benchmarks have odium of artificiality to them that I am not particularly comfortable with, and I share the reservations expressed by the member for Greatorex.
I was advised that the structure of the legislative instrument, as it was originally proposed, was going to be changed to deal with some of those issues pertaining to merit. Ken Simpson described the capacity as membership of a particular cultural group, as being meritorious, not as a way of fulfilling quotas, but enabling certain outcomes to be achieved in certain circumstances. There is, to some degree, a cogent argument to support the assertion that we need to be able to employ based on race and those sorts of things because of Aboriginal Health Workers and such matters. I will return to that issue shortly.
The idea of creating someone’s race as a meritorious principle is confounding to members on this side of the House, and equally confounding to the member for Nelson. It was his sticking point. My concern now is that, whilst the language of the proposed changes has changed, I suspect the intent has not.
During a briefing the other day, I was speaking to the Acting Public Service Commissioner, and the first question I asked, and the real question that lies at the bottom of this is: what is the mischief you are attempting to remedy by making these changes? The Acting Public Service Commissioner was kind to give me a fulsome answer but, in essence, the mischief that is attempting to be remedied is the hamstringing, if you like, that the current act has in place to prevent the advancement of these sorts of principles. For the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to them as the affirmative action principles, because that is, in essence, what they are.
Nothing I have seen so far gives me any comfort that this cannot be used for the satisfaction of quotas so the principles of merit as described and contemplated by government still may be pursued under the legislative instrument. It is not what the instrument advances that particularly concerns me, it is what it fails to prevent that concerns me. The mischief it sought to remedy was its inability to introduce some of the concepts it had been pursuing for some time and is not, in my opinion, a mischief, and, consequently does not require the remedy that the government brings into this bill today.
It is a shame that, unfortunately, because of the structure of the bill, the opposition, which would fully support the vast majority of the bill, is now forced to vote against the whole bill because of the inclusion of these elements.
I ask members to think about the consequences of the affirmative action approach being promoted by this government. Whilst I understand affirmative action - it has a long and cherished history, particularly amongst those who are inclined towards the left - it resonates a certain quality of unfairness to the very people it seeks to advance. When a person walks into the Motor Vehicle Registry to register their car, they may well find themselves, under current government policies, being served at the counter by an Aboriginal person, a woman, a Muslim, a Sikh, any number of potential and various minority groups. At the moment, I have full confidence - except for Aboriginal people, and I will come back to that shortly - that the person serving me is there because they are capable of doing the job in an efficient and effective manner.
I could be forgiven for thinking less so about an Aboriginal person because I would immediately ask myself, as many Territorians do, is that person behind the counter because they are capable and doing the job; they may well be and I hope they are. But the question lingers - because there is a quota in place, is that person there because they are Aboriginal, or because they are the best person for the job?
The public service should not be used as a Petrie dish for the Northern Territory government to fulfil its social experiments. It should be exactly as is described in its title – a public service – an organisation that provides services to the public. For that, you do not need a person who is of a particular gender, group, sexual orientation, or religion. What you need is a person who can do the job. If a person who happens to be Aboriginal works in the Motor Vehicle Registry, I hope they would be proud of the fact they got the job, not because of their Aboriginality, but because they could do the job.
What you eventually achieve is a disservice to those people. If a person who happens to be an Aboriginal person who got the job on merit is dealing with a member of the public, that employee is disadvantaged because the member of the public is standing there thinking to themselves: ‘He got the job because he is black’; and that is a disservice to that particular racial group.
Furthermore, the principles espoused in this process have percolated their way into other areas of government service delivery. Batchelor College produces university graduates who, I am well-advised, often are flat out writing their own names. We hear so often about the government’s successes in encouraging Aboriginal people in remote Aboriginal communities to achieve their Year 12 certificate. Imagine my disappointment when I speak to an organisation at Wadeye seeking to employ these people, and am told: ‘We cannot employ these Year 12 graduates – they cannot read’.
The decision is to advance people, to give them degrees and higher school certificates, without having an expectation upon them to better themselves. Why? When you distil the logic of this whole process, it is to make them feel better about themselves and more confident. Surely, you are doing a person a disservice when you say you are qualified to do something, push them into a workplace, and they demonstrate they are not qualified to do something. How will that make a person feel good about themself? Surely benchmarks are designed to lift levels of service, education, and understanding, rather than depress them to a point where anyone can step over them. Surely we would not issue university degrees to illiterates. We would issue university degrees to people who have reached the qualification standards of the institution at which they studied because the professions they enter into expect those standards to be met. Surely that is the standard. And the same applies to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I am certain there is no shortage of statistical information which will tell me Aboriginal people are under-employed in the Northern Territory. That is a given. There is no shortage of statistical information to tell me women are at lower paid jobs throughout the community, and I do not suggest for one second that is not the case. I believe the avenues are now in existence and available for Aboriginal people, people of different religions, and people of different genders, to advance themselves irrespective of their gender. It was not such a long time ago where I heard Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, standing in this House talking to Loraine Braham, the Speaker of the House of the Legislative Assembly, being wholesomely agreed with by Jodeen Carney, Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, that women did not have opportunities in the workplace. They were all sagely agreeing with each other saying that was the case. It struck me as somewhat ironic.
This approach to advancement has the potential to diminish people as I described before. I mentioned before the idea of Aboriginal Health Workers, culturally appropriate health workers and such things, and I do not mind the fact that in certain communities you will require certain skills. I put this to the Acting Public Service Commissioner recently during a briefing. I said: ‘If your issue is having culturally appropriate people on the ground, then write the job description in a fashion which does not necessarily have to be racist’.
For example, a health worker in Yuendumu would have to speak Luritja, Pintubi, and Warlpiri and would have some Arrernte in their language base. Make that part of the job description so people are urged to apply who can speak those three languages, as well as English’. I suspect, through that process, you will have the effect of excluding most European people. However, in Yuendumu there are European people who have those language skills because they were born, bred, and grew up there. Under the proposal suggested by this government, those people will be excluded from applying for a health worker’s job on the grounds that they are white. If they can meet the required benchmarks of being able to deliver the service to the local community, and those benchmarks include the capacity to speak certain languages, then make the capacity to speak those languages the benchmark and not the person’s colour.
It is merely a tool of convenience which the government is seeking in those instances, and I do not agree that it is an appropriate way to go. If you want a job filled where certain things have to be done to a certain standard, then make the job description reflect the standard, not the applicant who may or may not apply for the job.
I have also heard there is a presumption or an expectation in Aboriginal communities that we allow our employment structures to be facilitated by the motive that we have to look after the cultural mores of that community. This, whilst not immediately apparent and seemingly logical, throws up an important issue, which we talk about in this House in other ways.
The issue is best illustrated by going back to the 1970s. If we look at European culture in the 1960s and 1970s – the time of the great social upheavals - many of the attitudes being railed against were cultural issues, such as equal pay for women. We had a standard system throughout Australia where women were paid less because they were women. We had a system where we did not employ Aboriginal people because they were Aboriginal. All manner of sectors fought hard to have those attitudes and cultures changed because of a growing expectation in the general community that a person would be paid and advanced to a position based on their ability to do the job.
If one walks through the three major themes of feminism which were percolating through the arguments at that time, all of them came to a similar conclusion: that there was no right to discriminate against a person because of their gender. The three major themes, for members’ information, were radical feminism, Marxist feminism, and liberal feminism.
Radical feminists believed that, basically, what was between their legs was the cause of their oppression. Women were sexually oppressed by their male counterparts, and all structures created in our community were designed to enhance that sexual oppression.
Marxist feminism saw women as a product of cheap labour, a form of slave labour if you like. There was a large body of Marxist feminist writing that railed against women being used as cheap labour for the advancement of the patriarchy.
The third theme of feminism through that period was liberal feminism, where the argument was simply an economic one: that women should not be oppressed on the grounds of their gender and they should be liberated, if you like, to enable them to gain jobs and positions, not based on their gender, but on their abilities.
Without going into the pros and cons of each theme, what was consistent in all of those themes was that gender was not a ground for discrimination. Yet, what the government seeks to introduce here is that race, perhaps gender, or membership of a particular group, is important to the point where, if you have two candidates of a particular standard, you will discriminate - positively discriminate - in favour of a minority group. If you are pushing quotas, that business of finding the candidate of the right standard means it gets pushed aside because the pressure will be on from the government of the day - as it has been from this government - to find 10% Aboriginal workers in our workforce.
I do not believe we should lower our standards anymore because I do not believe these issues are as entrenched as they were in the past. Moreover, I do not believe that just because we have a cultural issue to deal with, we should set aside the wars and battles that were fought by many intellectuals, and women, and Aboriginal people, in the 1970s. That is what this approach and this policy would have us do.
Surely the time has come for us to say we should be gender blind, colour blind, religion blind, sexuality blind, and blind to anything but capacity, capability, and sufficiency ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Merit.
Mr ELFERINK: Merit. I thank the member for Katherine for his interjection. Indeed, merit. This is about getting the right person for the job. If the issue is getting the right person in a remote Aboriginal community, for example, then make the job description fit the job, but do not argue that an Aboriginal person is automatically in a better position to fulfil the job because they happen to be attached to the Aboriginal race of Australia. It will not always be the case. For that reason, it should not become a priority in thinking. In every likelihood, it would be the case because they are culturally bound to that community and they do speak the languages. I do not doubt that that will give them an advantage, but it should not become the test. If it is the test, then any person they are dealing with will have that doubt in their mind.
I will give honourable members an example. Some years ago, when I was still the member for Macdonnell, I went to Titjikala, a community just south of Alice Springs, and I saw a part-Aboriginal person there in an ACPO uniform.
That person was looking about as awkward as most Europeans do when they first go to an Aboriginal community, particularly during a football carnival, as was the case on this day. I engaged this person in conversation, and I discovered, yes, they were Aboriginal, and had joined the police force and become an Aboriginal Community Police Officer from the Gold Coast six weeks earlier. This was the first time they had actually been sent out, so they were standing there looking completely out of place in this community. Why was that person there? Were they the best person for the job? I suspect not, and I do not wish to diminish them, but if they came from the Gold Coast and had never lived in the Northern Territory, they were probably not as well versed as they should have been in some of the norms and mores of the community.
Dr Burns: What about the member for Braitling?
Mr ELFERINK: Nevertheless … I pick up on that interjection. What about him?
Dr Burns: You are making comparisons about Indigenous people who come from elsewhere in Australia that are not flattering.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, no. That is actually a racist thing you have just said.
Dr Burns: I am just repeating what you have said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: No, the member for Braitling happens to be the best person for the job because the people of Braitling elected him, not because of who he is or his cultural background. That is my point. He is the best person for the job because the job interview he had with the electorate advanced his cause. That is typical racism we, on this side of the House, are railing against and it is a disgusting stunt you have just pulled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Burns: Do not work yourself into a tizz.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of The Essington School students, accompanied by Miss Neisha Dumesny, Miss Donna Morvant and Mr Edmund Connor, and the member for Nhulunbuy has advised me that Miss Lisa Mare, a former resident of Nhulunbuy, is also there. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point I was going to make before that racist comment from the Leader of Government Business was that this person was employed because they were Aboriginal, tick. Some public servant somewhere wanted to fill out a form and make sure they got the right number of Aboriginal people. To hell, as far as that employer was concerned, with where that person came from, so long as they were Aboriginal, tick.
Dr Burns: Did they not go for a job interview, too? Didn’t they?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Burns: Is that what you are saying?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is precisely what I am saying, because you guys are running the quotas. You are the government of quota based on race.
Dr Burns: That was your inference.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I also point out that the racism inherent in this government is not inherent in the overall community of the Northern Territory, including Aboriginal people. If it were, I would never have been the member for Macdonnell. Moreover, when they had the option to choose between an Aboriginal person and a non-Aboriginal person in the 2001 election, they still chose a non-Aboriginal person because they believed I was the best person for the job. That is the standard I ask this government to apply - the same standard applied by the people for Macdonnell.
The people considered the new member for Macdonnell, who happens to be Aboriginal, as the best person for the job - why - because she had the language, the cultural ties, and those sorts of things. I have said this before and I will say it again, perhaps she was the best person qualified for the job …
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: She was the best person qualified. Are you happy? It was not because she was Aboriginal, but because she had the ties, the language, and all the other requisites the people from Macdonnell required …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr ELFERINK: That sordid little interjection from the Leader of Government Business suggesting the member for Braitling is in some way a token member on this side of the House, is a disgusting suggestion and that is the attitude which has percolated its way through this legislative instrument. That is the way this government thinks and it is for those reasons, and those reasons alone, we will resist this government in its condescending approach to employment in the Northern Territory. For that reason, we resist this bill, and that comment by the minister is an embarrassment and he should apologise …
Mr Knight: That is why they are going to dump you as Whip.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, I ask you to cease interjecting please.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. In the dictionary, there is a difference between a quota and a target. I have had a look at that and at no stage in this bill are they talking about a target. It is talking about a quota, which gives the public service an ability to do something.
I spoke to my colleague, the member for Nelson, and we had a couple of hours of discussion in the member for Nelson’s room on this bill yesterday. The member for Nelson has had e-mails coming backwards and forwards with the public service and the minister clarifying some of the doubts we had in our minds yesterday. The private sector already has this public measure, which is not scrutinised by the Public Service Commissioner. This is an ability and it is asking for a quota which gives them something just in the public service act, but it is administered and monitored by the Public Service Commissioner, which the private sector does not have.
I have stood in this parliament many times, and the minister knows that, and spoken about not having a black way or a white way to do things, but this gives ability as a quota to give people a helping hand. It is a stepping stone for people who are just leaving school, might have low self-esteem, and are in the public service. We use the public service as a way for people to gain confidence, confidence in their ability to work in the public service, be a bureaucrat, and have the ability, because they have other people working inside the sector who can give them a hand. I see this bill as a stepping stone that gives young Territorians, black Territorians, Asian Territorians, Greek Territorians, and Territorians with a disability, a stepping stone, a lending hand.
That is what the Territory is about; it is about that lending hand. We have always been like that and the whole history of the Territory goes back to the lending hand, giving someone a go when it is hard. That is what I have seen through the stream of the introduction of this bill and I am quite happy to support the government’s bill on this amendment. It is a fantastic opportunity for the future generation of our children, future generation in the growth, because the Territory is becoming a multicultural society. If you have a look at the Indigenous population and it is not at any stage designed just for one group of people, it is for the multitude of people we have living in the Territory.
If it is a specification for a group of Indigenous people who are struggling, as long as those people are not put into jobs where they will fail, and I cannot see this anywhere inside this bill, this bill gives them the opportunity to grow as a great Territorian. It puts together in the bill and in the public service, they have other people they can pull on, resources, people who can talk to them about their low self-esteem and give them the ability to grow. We do not just plant trees; we have to water and nurture the trees. That is what I see in this bill and I am supporting the government’s bill and these amendments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am also supporting this bill. It has taken a long time for me to come to that decision. I have had many briefings, many discussions, read many articles and, as people know, I opposed the diversity amendments which were in this bill and are being omitted today under section 5D of the bill. Many of the reasons the members for Greatorex and Port Darwin mentioned - not all of them, but many of those reasons – are exactly the reasons I opposed the diversity clause in that section of the act.
I do not want to see people get a job based on whether they are people who are put into this equal opportunity target group, just because they are part of that equal opportunity target group. I was concerned that many of the issues the member for Greatorex spoke about would have been encouraged by that clause. Other people may disagree. I was glad to see the government withdraw that. It was obvious the reason it has not come before parliament is because the government wanted me to support that section, and I had concerns from day one that it was not a good clause; it did not promote equality in employment. However, you have to take a step slightly sideways in relation to the proposed special measures clause.
As the member for Macdonnell said, the merit principle already exists. The special measures section already applies to private industry in the Northern Territory and to all other public service employees in Australia. One could argue we do not need to be the same, but I have not heard people complaining that this enforces racism in employment in the private industry. Companies like INPEX will have targets to employ Aboriginal people and are able to do that because of special measures within the existing Anti-Discrimination Act. Many big companies have targets for women and for whatever.
As an aside, the question about Aboriginal Health Workers was clarified in some of the discussions we had. The jobs are not advertised for Aboriginal Health Workers - the position should read ‘a health worker in an Aboriginal community’ so anyone can apply for the job. I make that clear as an aside.
This special measures section arises from the Anti-Discrimination Act which was brought into this parliament by Mr Shane Stone, as the minister for Public Employment. He said during that debate:
- As a result of the extensive consultations and the resultant changes to which I have referred, we now have before us a bill that reflects the wishes of the majority of the Northern Territory community
He goes on:
- Clause 57 is important as it is an exemption designed to allow for development and implementation of special programs for disadvantaged groups in order to redress past inequities. Such programs are often titled ‘special measures’ or ‘equal opportunity programs’. These programs may establish special training or benefits that will lead toward providing equal opportunities for those groups. Some of these programs could be directed at unemployed …
That does not mean whether you are black, white, homosexual, colour-blind:
- … or homeless persons or persons from a non-English-speaking background. The exemption will allow the programs to be restricted to those people with the particular attribute for which the programs or benefits are designed. Subclause (2) provides that the exemption applies only until equal opportunity has been achieved.
The principle of not discriminating in the workforce is important. However, we do not live in a totally black and white society. There are people in society who, for whatever reasons …
Ms Anderson: Grey.
Mr WOOD: There are grey areas; that is right. There are areas where, for whatever reason - for instance, as mentioned by Mr Stone, people who are homeless, or itinerant. A reasonable case for special measures is young people leaving school. There is an opportunity for the NT Public Service to encourage young people to come into the public service. I see that as a stepping stone, as the member for Macdonnell said, to become equal partners in the public service - not based on their race, but it enables them to get over that initial bump and, from then on, they will not be judged on whether they are homeless or come from a non-English speaking background.
You have to remember that this is not mandatory, as the diversity value was. This does not have to happen. It just gives the public service, in certain circumstances, the ability to use it. I do not see it as a broad scale breakdown of equal opportunities in the public service. In certain circumstances only, will this be allowed to be used. In the briefings I have had - and I have had many of them - the Commissioner for Public Employment said permitting special measures does not require that special measures must be implemented. Special measures and programs are optional, not mandatory, and do not require or imply quotas or achieving percentage targets. Special measures programs for a particular group can only continue so long as the group remains disadvantaged.
I use the example of young people trying to get a job in the workforce. Many of us know kids coming out of school can lack confidence. Their skills might not be quite up to the standard yet, partly because of the lack of confidence. It enables, in certain circumstances, for assistance or special measures to be used to help these people. It seems strange to me that we have special measures in private industries, such as INPEX, McArthur River mining company, and Toll. They can all set targets using this particular clause to help people yet, for some reason, it is not available to the Northern Territory Public Service. As I said, it is available to all other public service systems throughout Australia; so it seems very strange.
I should also say there are checks and balances, because if you read new section 38B(2) it says:
- The Chief Executive Officer of an Agency must not implement special measures in connection with human resource management in the Agency unless the measures have been approved by the Commissioner.
This approach was brought forward by the then CLP government at a time when these types of measures were groundbreaking - the member for Greatorex said we have moved 20 years on – but at that stage it was groundbreaking. The CLP brought in legislation which said you cannot discriminate on all these things, but Mr Stone deliberately allowed some exemptions, and the problem we have is, because of the way the act is written, those special measures do not apply to the Northern Territory Public Service. One would have to ask, if it is good enough for INPEX, if it is good enough for McArthur River, if it is good enough for those big companies to be allowed to use special measures, why is it not good enough for the Northern Territory Public Service?
I am on record saying I do not believe, in general, you should discriminate against people when applying for a job. However, this allows the ability to help people who need assistance to become equal, not to become better than anyone else is. I would not expect this to be used for people in high levels of government; I would expect this to be used in positions where people can get a start in the public service. I am certain, when I was a young fellow in Victoria, that the governments used to give a certain number of positions in the public service to young people. They used to make people retire so young people could move into the job. The reason was simply to enable young people to get a start.
The idea of merit is that if you have five or six young people applying for a job, they will not get the job unless they fit the criteria for the job, and they will be selected on merit within that group of young people. Merit still applies, qualifications still applies but, in this case, we are targeting a group of young people who may not have had the opportunity otherwise to get a start. I need to clarify that I do not support, in general, discrimination in the workforce based on whatever, there is a range of things.
I do believe you have to have a system that allows for the ability, as it does in the private sector, and I do not hear anyone complaining that the private sector should not have this. If it is good enough for the private sector, surely it is good enough for the public sector. I understand where people are coming from on this side, and I support a fair bit of what they say, but I think there is a misunderstanding that that is the reason I asked that the diversity factor not be included in this act. I thought it did go that far, the way the members have been speaking today, and that is why I did not agree with that section being left in the bill.
This section is a reasonable section that a CLP government, in their legislation, when they introduced the Anti-Discrimination Act, did say should be permitted in certain circumstances. The argument is whether the government will try to use this in circumstances which are not necessarily appropriate. That is something we have to keep an eye on. You also have the Public Service Commissioner on record saying this is optional and will only continue as long as the group remains disadvantaged. We do have to keep an eye on it to ensure this is exactly what this change will do.
I would be concerned if it was being used to circumvent the deleted diversity clause, but I recognise that we have to have some ability, just as private industry does. In this debate, we should be recognising that the private industry does this. If someone is saying in this parliament that this is racially discriminating and the same measures are allowed in private industry, are we saying private industry is also racially discriminating when they set a target for certain groups using this special measures clause?
The special measures clause was deliberately put in, not to be used any which way you can, but to allow some flexibility, for good reason, to employ people who may not have otherwise had a chance to get a leg up and gain employment. We know there are many groups in the Northern Territory who have trouble trying to get a job.
Aboriginal people - my wife, much as she has been around the blocks many years, can be very shy when she goes into a situation where she has to talk publicly or if she was asked to get a job where she did not know anyone. Sometimes there is difficulty; it is not that they do not have the skills, but there are cultural reasons, or simply the way people have been brought up. Sometimes you need the ability to give those people a lift, give them the confidence, and once they have that confidence, I expect they would be able to take those jobs standing up equally with anyone else, and this clause would not need to be used anymore.
I want to stress that the reason I asked for the diversity value to be taken out is for the very reason the opposition members have opposed it, but I am saying there needs to be some flexibility. This change not only keeps us in line with existing Northern Territory private industry, but allows the public service to do exactly what the private industry is allowed to do presently – but with checks and balances. That is, the commissioner must give approval and ensure these things fit within the guidelines. Sometimes this debate goes off on tangents and people are accused of saying things they did not say. I need to ensure that the reasons why I am doing one thing and not doing the other thing are clearly articulated, so there is no misunderstanding about where we are coming from.
Clause 7, you might say is a fairly harmless inclusion into this bill. The Human Resource Management Principle, 5C says:
- The Human Resource Management Principle is that human resource management in the public sector must be directed towards promoting the following:
We also have a case of one person who has been on three-month contracts for five years. You would think after being on three-monthly contracts for five years, that person surely must be doing a reasonable job, but now that person has been put on casual. If people are not performing, there is a process in the public service - and I am no expert on the public service - which allows management to address issues of underperformance and allow a person to achieve the goals they would expect that person to do in that particular job.
I am concerned about these people. I have other issues about some of them having their jobs replaced by private industry. There tends to be in the public service, especially what I have heard from this department, a belief that if they complain, not only will they not be heard, they will be picked on and life will become very uncomfortable. When people have to work in those situations, they become stressed and when they are stressed, they feel like giving up the job altogether, even though they are good workers.
I am not going to say where those people are because I am concerned about their future. I ask the Public Service Commissioner for a confidential discussion which went no further than he or I until I have some advice. I said at this briefing that Labor says part of its philosophy is sticking up for the worker. These people are what I call genuine workers. A number of them have left the union because they think the union is a waste of space and that sometimes the union is too close to management. When I thought about this and having had the discussion, because unions are attached to the Labor Party, do they have a conflict of interest when there is embarrassment with workers saying they have not been treated fairly in the workplace. I would say to the union movement: ‘Should you be completely independent of the Labor government or Labor Party?’ Not because I do not think you can have those ideals, but because do you have a conflict of interest by belonging to the Labor Party and paying subscription fees to help the Labor Party run. When I sat at that table with a group of people who felt they were not being heard, and when they went to their union, that somehow got to the management and they got into trouble again because the two are too close together.
You would hope a union would stand up for the workers regardless of who is the boss. Unfortunately, the boss is a Labor government and the union also pays fees to the Labor Party. Perhaps that is an issue that does not help these people. Perhaps there needs to be an independent public service union with no affiliation to any political party so people feel they are looked after.
They also had a complaint and felt they got nowhere with the Public Service Commissioner. I am not pointing my finger at any particular person in this parliament; however, I was left with a feeling these people were not treated fairly, reasonably, and in a non-discriminatory way. I did not feel they had reasonable access to redress when adversely affected by improper or unreasonable decisions. To me, these people were genuine, ordinary, hard-working Territorians who had worked for many years in a particular department and gone no further than AO1. I am not saying because you are an AO1 you are not necessarily going to go further - you can apply for higher positions. All governments have certain numbers of job categories, but we also want to ensure people are encouraged to take up higher duties. Sometimes in the public service, people may not know, even though they have been there a long time, the mechanisms to apply for a higher job.
The human resource management principle government has put in here is important, but actions speak louder than words. If you put this in as a nice piece of writing in the act and do not carry it out, people are going to have less faith that when they are unfairly treated they will be heard and given proper and reasonable access to management, the Public Service Commissioner, or the union so their complaints can be taken on fairly.
This bill has taken a long time to come through. I have had discussions with members of the public as well. I have tried to look at this as fairly as possible. To some extent, we say we are concerned about discrimination but, the reason special measures were bought in is because you can also have discrimination against people who have no chance. In other words, the weaker in our society do not always get a chance. I certainly do not support across the board - I do not believe people should generally be discriminated against. However, human beings, their position in life, where they come from - all those things need to be taken into account. As long as things are kept in perspective, as long as we have a valid reason for what we are trying to do, you can allow special measures to occur.
Shane Stone would not have brought this forward if he felt it would bring in rampant discrimination of different categories of people in our society. In fact, when you read the Anti-Discrimination Act; that is exactly what he was trying not to do. This was coming from a conservative government in 1992 and was revolutionary for its time. We have probably advanced even further than that today. However, he deliberately inserted a section that allowed what we are talking about today to happen. To put it in blunt terms, I am supporting what he put in that legislation. I am saying he put it in for all people in the Northern Territory, for it to be available to them, if necessary. I am supporting that clause the Chief Minister - I do not know if he was the Chief Minister at the time or the minister for Public Employment - I am supporting the clause he put in that act, which is backed up by what we are saying today.
This whole idea of special measures has not come originally from a Labor government; it has come from a conservative government. That is important to understand. It is not only from a conservative government, but also private industry is able to use that particular clause.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Greatorex, and I appreciate him coming along to our briefings. We had a number of briefings. He said good things that I support, and some things that were slightly exaggerated, but that is fine. I appreciate him giving up his time to have briefings with the government. I also thank the government for their patience. I actually made up my mind at 9 pm last night, if people think I have just been diddling around out the back there. This has taken a great deal of thought. I have had to get my head around ‘public service speak’ and that is not always easy. If you have not been in the public service, some of the gobbledegook is hard to understand. I was not going to stand up here today until I had a good understanding of what was being put forward.
Madam Speaker, I am genuinely against discrimination in the workforce, but I am also realistic enough to know there are people, at certain times in certain places in the Northern Territory, who need a hand. This special measures gives them that hand without breaking down the principle I am standing for here; that we should not have discrimination in the workforce.
____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Michael Pengilly MP
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Michael Pengilly MP
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the ministerial officers’ gallery of Mr Michael Pengilly MP, member for Finniss in the South Australian House of Assembly. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: I also advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Essington School students accompanied by Mrs Rebecca Dearden, Mr Edmund Connor and Mrs Sara Materazzo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, today I talk a little about quotas in relation to this act. I start by saying that I am not going to dignify the racial slurs of the members for Johnston and Daly by responding. These people represent a party that, in the history of federal parliament, have never had an Indigenous member of parliament, and have a policy or philosophy of positive discrimination within their federal parliament of 40% men, 40% women, and 20% merit. When you look across the bows over there, it is difficult to find where the 20% merit is. It is very difficult to find 20% of positive performance. The slur made by the member for Johnston and supported by the member for Daly was about, not just my ethnicity, but also the fact that I was born interstate. I have worked in a number of states, have been fortunate to travel the world and learn a few different things, and bring much expertise and experience to this place, but they think it is a good point to slur. The fact remains, I am here on merit and I am very proud of it.
Getting back to the point of the bill, previously, when I worked in Canberra, I had a lot to do with the Australian Public Service Commission and the positive and negative discriminatory practices in trying to get people into employment. I was on a working committee - I cannot recall now what it was - but a working committee to increase particularly Indigenous Australians within the Australian Public Service Commission, but also people from non-English speaking backgrounds, or NESB as we called it back then, and people with a disability, and other categories, or groups of people, or populations of people.
At the time, I used to go through what is called the federal State of the Service Report, and I understand the Territory one as well. I am guiding my experience here based on the slur from the member for Johnston, so I will use my previous experience …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If there was a slur, it emanated from the member from Port Darwin, and the Hansard record will show that very clearly.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr GILES: Thank you. I used to do a fair bit of analysis with the public service on a working committee. At the time, I was working for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations heading up Indigenous Economic Development. I had concerns about the retention rate and movement of Indigenous Australians, amongst other populations, outside the public service. This was back in the days when I was still coming to the reality of moving from Labor to Liberal and understanding the principles of both parties. I came to a point where I recognised that just because Indigenous Australians were leaving the federal public service; it was not a bad thing. I was a person who used to support quotas and a targeted approached, but I have come to the realisation that merit-based selection is the way to go, particularly with the retention of staff in the public service.
I now have a philosophical belief that the public service, like Indigenous organisations around Australia and in the Northern Territory, represents an opportunity to engage and employ young and unskilled Indigenous Australians, and I am specifically now talking about Indigenous Australians from my portfolio. I recognise that it represents an opportunity to get people in during a recruitment drive, people who may not have the educational experience or ability, the work experience, or the productivity levels that would be expected in the private sector. What Indigenous organisations provide as an opportunity, and what the public service at the lower level can provide, is an opportunity for people to get in, harness skills, learn work lifestyle, increase productivity levels; for some people that may take longer than others.
These days, the job of the public service is to get Aboriginal people and people from other diversity groups out of the public service. If it is a good training ground, which I believe the public service is, particularly if it is accepting of lower productivity and lesser skilled people in the cohort we are talking about. To provide those skills and opportunity from workplace experience, and then farm them out to the private sector.
We had a conversation here the other day when we spoke about reconciliation. For reconciliation to be broader in the mainstream, that includes getting people, Indigenous people, as well as people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and people from other diversity areas, into the private sector. If we continue to just park them in the public service that is a bad outcome. That is what we see in many of our private enterprises in Australia - a lack of diversity at the higher echelons within those organisations.
The member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell spoke about targets in the private sector and that is not such a bad thing. It is slightly different from the public service in that the private sector is still moving to a reconciled model, where the public service has been there for a long time and has many Indigenous employees in varying departments and agencies. We should be fully supporting the engagement and development of diversity groups within the public service, but then move to a model of trying to farm people out. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. I mean that we should be creating partnerships with the private sector – the public sector to the private sector – in advancing people’s careers in the big, open world.
There is nothing better than seeing corporate Australia represented by all walks of life and it is particularly good to see people with a disability, or from a non-English speaking background, or an Indigenous Australian, at the top of an organisation. I can think of a few organisations headed up by people who have broken the mould. Too many Indigenous Australians work, or are represented, through that paradigm of public service. It is fantastic when people are out in the private sector, on their own, without the shackles of the public service, which hold them back and hold them in that negative position.
I had a look at the federal State of the Service Report 2009-10 and looked at the agencies that employ Indigenous Australians and, as I said before, Indigenous organisations are very good at taking people at the lower level. I note the agencies with the highest proportion of ongoing Indigenous employees at June 2010 include Aboriginal Hostels, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the National Native Title Tribunal, and FaHCSIA. Indigenous Australians are often involved in the service level area in organisations and, hence, you will find a greater proportion of Indigenous employees at that level than, say, in fields of high technical expertise in Treasury or other technical areas. FaHCSIA, which has control of Indigenous affairs at the federal level, has a percentage of 8.7% Indigenous, DEWR at 6%, the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts at 4.6%, Centrelink at 4%, and Department of Health and Ageing at 2.4%.
Centrelink, as you would understand, has a high number of Indigenous field staff trying to provide services, and it is good that the interface of service is more culturally appropriate, culturally friendly with people; but that is not say that we need to set a target. A smart organisation ensures their customer service operatives meet the needs of their customers, and that is not target based. There are arguments run which say: ‘Why are you setting a target of 10% when the population is 30%; why would you not set a 30% target?’ That is an obvious question if you were interested in setting targets, which I do not support.
The point of me standing here today was to say that I do not support quotas because I believe we should be utilising the public service to get people in, develop them up, and get them out. That is the model we should be going for; that is all my experience interstate, that is my experience from the past, and that is where we should be going.
When we talk about the development of the Northern Territory, you recognise there are 18 000 approximate full-time equivalents, 22 000 employees, roughly, in all. Out of a population in the Northern Territory of some 220 000, where around 105 000 people are working, you would think we would be trying to get more people in the private sector. On top of that 22 000, we also have the Defence Forces and other federal government employees, people at Pine Gap, and a number of other people in the Northern Territory who are working in some type of government administrative role. I have not even spoken about the number of Indigenous organisations and people who work there. It is important that we further develop our private sector. This quota will take people away from the opportunity of working in the private sector, and that is what we have to develop if the Northern Territory is going grow.
Madam Speaker, I commend the points made by the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin; I support their approach. I do not support quotas – and that is not some philosophical bent - but for the development of the Northern Territory, we have to get people in the private sector, and the public service can be much smarter in the way it moves forward. If it just seeks to hold and retain Indigenous, non-English speaking background people, people with a disability, it is doing those people a disservice, it is running a discriminatory model, and it is not supporting the growth and development of the Northern Territory and the principles of reconciliation across all diversity backgrounds in the Northern Territory.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Additional Terms of Reference
Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Additional Terms of Reference
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move, in relation to the Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory, additional terms of reference:
- That the terms of reference for the Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory be amended by adding the following paragraphs:
(4) the Independent member of the committee shall be the member for Macdonnell;
(5) the committee shall elect a government member as chair;
(6) the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint a member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee and the member so appointed shall act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) three members of the committee shall form a quorum;
(8) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;
(9) the committee is to report by the first sitting date after February 2012;
(10) the committee may present to the Assembly, from time to time, progress reports of its proceedings with or without the evidence received; and
(11) the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders.
___________________
Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory - Membership
Madam SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I indicate I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition nominating the member for Goyder and the member for Sanderson. I table those two letters as well.
___________________
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, a small technical issue I have noticed, probably in the way the motion was drafted. The Leader of the Opposition moved a disallowance motion which has certain rules surrounding it; however, the text has been drafted that it be heard on the next General Business Day. I refer the matter to you now so it is brought to your attention. I point out that this is a disallowance motion and would expect the rules attending to that would be accordingly applied.
Madam SPEAKER: That is relating to the notice of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I just refer it to you.
Madam SPEAKER: I will put this question first.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will take that on.
Mr ELFERINK: I merely refer the matter to you at this point so you are aware of the issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 146)
(Serial 146)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I do not want to speak for long but I do want to say a couple of things. This bill, in so many ways, reflects Labor Party policy. They believe in affirmative action, believe in giving - it is a good question what they believe in, in that regard. However, for the benefit of members of the House, the Labor Party’s affirmative action policy for the preselection of their own candidates is probably not known by many people. For the benefit of everyone here, I thought I might explain it.
The Labor Party in Australia has a policy of affirmative action when preselecting candidates, and the way it works is 40% of candidates will be men, 40% of candidates will be women, and the other 20% are preselected on merit. You have to ask the question, when 20% of candidates of the Labor Party are preselected on merit, who are that 20%. I look around this Chamber and do not see too many people on the other side with any merit …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Obviously, the candidates preselected by the Labor Party on merit are not elected, because we can see they have a certain number of men, a certain number of women, but none would be here on merit. It is a shame, but this is the way the Labor Party tries to dumb down the electorate and our economy. One of the problems we have in the Northern Territory is we are rewarding mediocrity. It does not take much to recognise how this has infiltrated our community when you look at the ranks of the Labor Party members in the Northern Territory. Quite frankly, the members of the Labor Party in this Legislative Assembly have been preselected because they are either men or women. They were not preselected on merit, which is in stark contrast to the way the Country Liberals have always done their preselection.
Quite frankly, within the Country Liberal Party, the preselection process is quite simple: the best person gets the job …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: And that is the way it should be – the best person gets the job. We believe in rewarding excellence. We are not rewarding mediocrity. The fact that someone is merely a male or a female does not come into the equation. We believe in merit across the board. We believe in supporting excellence, rewarding excellence, and ensuring the best people get the job.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. It is good to see a lively debate about the amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I flag that I have an amendment which I will be moving during committee regarding protection from liability, as well as another motion in relation to removal of the diversity clauses within the act. I will talk a little about that towards the end of my wrap up speech, but I just wanted to flag those.
We had a number of speakers and the most constructive speakers were the members for Macdonnell and Nelson. The member for Nelson certainly went through the issues he had, and clarified the issues around the special measures provisions. I will turn specifically to that shortly. The member for Macdonnell talked about giving confidence and opportunity to people in specific groups, and linked that to a Territorian outlook. The member for Nelson also said he took a long time to come to his decision, and repeatedly made the strong point that these special measures or provisions apply in every jurisdiction in Australia to both the public and the private sector and, in the Northern Territory for a number of years, have applied exclusively to the private sector.
A specific issue raised by both Independent members and members opposite was in relation to legal advice as to why these provisions we are incorporating into the PSEMA could not be achieved through the Anti-Discrimination Act. I have the legal advice, which I will read, and I am prepared to table from Clayton Utz. They canvas the issues and then come to their conclusions. In paragraph 57, they say:
- For the reasons set out above, we consider that a CEO must [in bold] advertise and select in accordance with merit, despite the provisions of the ADA which grant employers the discretion to adopt special measures. The PSEMA does not give a CEO any discretion in the matter.
In paragraph 58:
- Accordingly, government agencies are not permitted to engage in conduct involving preference advertising and selection, even though such conduct constitutes positive discrimination and is permissible under the ADA.
I am not a lawyer. I know the member for Port Darwin is a lawyer, and I am sure he will read this legal advice carefully. That indicates …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister indicated he would table the document. I ask that he do so.
Dr BURNS: I will table it. This is the only copy I have, so could Tabled Papers return a copy to my desk, please. I am more than happy to distribute that advice, particularly to the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex, the member for Nelson, and the member for Macdonnell in particular.
As a layman, that indicates to me, speaking very simplistically, that while the Anti- Discrimination Act has these clauses and sections, the very nature of the PSEMA closes off the application of the ADA in relation to these things based on the merit principle. That is why it is necessary for us to amend the PSEMA to allow the implementation of these special measures.
The legal advice is an important issue to settle here in this Chamber. I am sure the member for Port Darwin will look at it closely, and I anticipate some questions during the committee stage. Hopefully, he will be satisfied with this legal advice, which goes back to 2003. However, we are talking about the Anti-Discrimination Act, as someone mentioned here, which was brought into being by Shane Stone and was a good step on his part. I hope I have dealt with that.
I turn to some of the arguments put forward by opposition members in relation to why they do not agree with it. It is difficult with some of it, which was all over the place and contradictory between various members of the opposition. It seemed to revolve around the notion that somehow through special measures we were going to grab people almost off the street. I believe the words used by the member for Greatorex were ‘unqualified black women’, and place them into positions and prevent well-qualified, long-serving, male public servants from getting that position, and, at the bottom of it, we would be putting unqualified people, people who were not suitable to carry out the work, in these positions.
My advice is, and my advice to the House in turn is, even though a position would be subject to special measures, there would still be a job description, and there would still be references in terms of people’s qualifications and abilities. People who applied for the position under special measures would be judged accordingly based on their qualifications, whether they were suitable for the position, whether they were able to discharge their duties of the position; and the best person from the field of applicants would get the job on merit. So, the merit principle still applies within the special measures.
Once a person is in a position, the general conditions and rules of the PSEMA then apply in regard to a probation period and whether they perform satisfactorily within the probation period. That is part of what we are doing. We are not saying to anyone off the street: ‘Here you go, you are a member of this group, you can sit in that position’. It is not like that at all. I hope it was not a misrepresentation by members opposite, but I am trying to clarify the situation. There are processes for special measures in recruitment, and a normal recruitment process, judging people based on their applications, their potential, their ability to do the job, just as it is with any public service job. People are deemed either suitable or unsuitable for that job, and the best person within that group who have applied will get the job. I believe that is very important.
The other issue the opposition went on at length about, and to some degree, it was a fear or a concern of the member for Nelson that somehow government was going to use these special measures changes to the PSEMA as a lever or machine to fill quotas of disadvantaged groups and employment across the public service. I can assure this House that we do not have such quotas. In the longer-term, we have targets across the public service, but we will not be using, and departments will not be using, special measures as a way to fill targets.
It is all about trying to identify jobs that people, whether they are handicapped, they could be Indigenous, they could be English as a second language, they could be people such as me who are seniors, and getting them in positions as a special measure. Tasmania has similar measures and, according to the 2009-10 annual report, they have 23 780.47 positions and, out of those, there are about 100 or 90 positions identified as special measures. I should do my maths; it is quite a low percentage, if you divide through. I have not had time to complete that particular calculation, but I think 90 out of nearly 24 000 is a low percentage. In the Commonwealth, I am advised only about 25% of departments have taken up special measures. It is important to note that where a department identifies a position as being subject to special measures, the department has to enter into a discussion with the Commissioner for Public Employment, who has to consider whether it is appropriate to apply special measures to that position. It is not a lay down misere that special measures will automatically be applied.
I understand if someone does have a quibble – I do not have it in front of me – but my memory from the briefing is if someone does have an argument about a declaration of special measures being applied to a position, they do have recourse to appeal through the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Those avenues of appeal are still open to the sort of people the member for Greatorex alluded to, who might not be happy about a particular position being subject to special measures.
In general, these positions will be entry-level positions in the public service as alluded to by the member for Nelson. It may not be restricted to those positions, but in general that is what is envisaged.
I hope I have addressed some of those issues raised by the opposition; I listened very carefully. The other thing to mention is - the member for Greatorex mentioned this - this is not about promotion. These are about identified positions. When people go for promotion, they go through the normal processes of the public service regarding selection and application and all the rest of it. This is about identifying particular positions for special measures. That is my understanding of it, member for Greatorex.
Apart from his discourse on Marxist theory and philosophy, which I found quite interesting - he is certainly a font of wisdom – the member for Port Darwin said there is a cogent argument for employment based on race. This was completely different from the arguments run by the member for Greatorex, so obviously the opposition needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I said exactly the opposite. I said there was no cogent argument for employment based on race and that was the point of my whole discourse.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: I apologise, member for Port Darwin. I misheard you, and I apologise for that. I will look at Hansard again when it comes out and go through the whole thread of your argument. However, you did talk about race as being a meritorious principle so …
Mr Elferink: No, you missed my point of order. I said race was not a principle of merit.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, there is no point or order, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: Yes, I accept that. You said that; I agree with that. However, you are arguing against race as being a meritorious principle and the point I was going to make, member for Port Darwin, is I am not arguing that either and neither is the legislation. What the legislation is all about is through the Anti-Discrimination Act - about those particular groups in our society who are discriminated against. Those are the categories we are looking at. We are doing it on a basis of discrimination and the Anti-Discrimination Act as being the descriptor rather than arguing race is a meritorious factor. We are not arguing that at all …
Mr Elferink: You are.
Dr BURNS: We will have to agree to disagree on that, member for Port Darwin; however, that is the way I understand this element of the legislation - the amendment in PSEMA we are discussing today is linked directly to the Anti-Discrimination Act, and to that particular section in the Anti-Discrimination Act that describes the attributes of people who are discriminated against. It is not about merit, it is about people who are discriminated against. I am pretty sure I have this quote right. You said:
- What is the mischief you are trying to remedy?
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Dr BURNS: It is exactly the same mischief, if you like, that Shane Stone mentioned in his second reading speech. I am not going to repeat it because the member for Nelson mentioned it; however, in 1992, Shane Stone mentioned, in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Act, clauses 51 to 56, about exemptions. He then talked about clause 57 being important as an exemption designed to allow for the development and implementation of special programs for disadvantaged groups in order to address past inequity. That is the mischief Shane Stone was trying to remedy. It has been embedded in statute and applies to the private sector and now we are proposing it apply to the public sector.
I was interested to hear you say this notion of race as a meritorious principle and employment based on race are things put forward by the left. You said that, so it is interesting that Shane Stone …
Mr Elferink: I have always thought of him as a soft lefty. I always thought that about him.
Dr BURNS: I am coming to that point. It seems the CLP has shifted even further right than Shane Stone. Poor Shane Stone is now a left wing ideologue of the CLP. I am sure he will be interested to read this and I hope it gets a run in Bushranger. It might tickle the editor’s fancy, member for Port Darwin, that you have now lumped him in with the left. I find that very interesting. Maybe it is more a commentary on how the CLP has lurched violently to the right as seen in the last two weeks of this sitting with the member for Fong Lim back in a driver’s seat. We have seen a range of items, policies, and positions - not too many policies, but ideological positions shifting since the big fella has come back. Shane Stone may well be on the left compared to the member for Fong Lim.
I have the Hansard rush the member for Port Darwin rushed to get as well about an interjection I made. I am not going to go to that …
Mr Elferink: Why not?
Dr BURNS: Because it stood for itself and I will leave it there. I read it carefully and I have nothing to answer for regarding any allegations of racism. As I said in a point of order, the problem emanated from what the member for Port Darwin was asserting in his speech, which partly had to do with the Aboriginal ACPO from the Gold Coast feeling uncomfortable in the Indigenous community with the sports day …
Mr Elferink: Because it was all about employing an Aboriginal person.
Dr BURNS: There was an underlying assertion that, somehow, this person was picked because of the colour of their skin; they had not gone through any selection process ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That assertion was not underlying; that was stated.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Well, there you go. I hope that person did undergo a selection process. It was a poor reflection on that particular police officer. The comments were ill-directed. I will leave it there; that is probably best.
As I outlined at the beginning, I have some amendments to make. One is the removal of the diversity principle from within the act because both the opposition and the Independent objected strongly to it. We listened. We have removed it from the act. That has been removed; we have stayed with special measures.
There is one other amendment based on advice from the Parliamentary Counsel. As they drafted the amendment to the act, a suggestion was made - or a strong view was put forward by Parliamentary Counsel - that something which had been in regulation under the act should come into the act to provide greater certainty; that is, the protection from liability aspect. I will read the advice I have:
- This is an inclusion based on clear advice from Parliamentary Counsel that this provision must be contained in the act itself, not in the regulations as it was previously. It is a provision similar to the one that previously existed in the regulations, giving protection from liabilities for members of an appeal board who are acting in good faith in the exercise of their power.
We live in a litigious age and it is appropriate, as suggested by Parliamentary Counsel, that we pull that provision out of regulations and bring it into the act to give more protection and indemnity to those good people who sit on appeal boards. That is a difficult job in itself and can be quite complex.
I want to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, by talking generally about the act. This revision was completed in a thorough way with a great deal of consultation and there have been changes as we moved forward. My advice from the Commissioner for Public Employment, particularly Ken Simpson, the former commissioner who brought these amendments forward to government, was all about enshrining the objectives of the public employment act, and what we are trying to achieve for the public service in the Northern Territory, in the legislation, and putting the process issues around things like appeals and disciplinary hearings, etcetera, within the regulations of the act. That was a strong recommendation, which we accepted.
There are a number of elements I talked about in my second reading speech in relation to changes to the act. It is all about making it a streamlined public service that is accountable and transparent in the way it operates - making our public service a great place to work. We certainly want to see that. There is clarification over a range of issues: administration and management, human resource management, merit, equal employment opportunity, and performance and conduct. It is also clarifying issues around performance and accountability generally in the public service, and clarifying the functions of chief executive officers. All these are important elements.
As I said previously, Ken Simpson has retired as Commissioner for Public Employment. There is currently a selection process under way, as people would be aware. I do not believe the results of that selection process have been finalised and announced. I give this pledge on the floor of parliament, given I believe the amendments will be carried, including the amendments we are going to do in committee stage. We have to streamline the PSEMA now, a contemporary PSEMA. We will have a new public service commissioner. What I want to see and will be working towards in the coming months, in the coming year, and I am sure government will work on it in the longer-term is ensuring we maximise benefits for our public servants regarding development, career development and growing our own, the next generation of people who are going to move through and be leaders within the public service, and streamlining processes within the public service, within the departments.
An issue I have been concerned about since I became minister the second time is there are many people who act in higher duties for far too long. Some people act in higher duties for years. It is undesirable for the person acting in that position, and the person who has left that position and is probably acting within another department, or in some other part of the same department. I think CEOs need to make management decisions about how that is going to work. It is undesirable to have people shifting on a regular basis, particularly in important positions. That is just an example; that is a hobby horse of mine.
What I want to do is work with the new Commissioner for Public Employment; and also the head of Chief Minister’s, as the head of all the CEOs, to ensure we are getting change within our public service, change that will benefit the public servants in their career development, in growing our own, and in streamlining processes. JES was mentioned in this parliament today, and it needs to be streamlined and brought up to date. There is a range of issues and I have mentioned just a few. There are many more. What I am undertaking to do is, with the Commissioner for Public Employment, the head of Chief Minister’s, and all the CEOs, to start to address these issues and make a great public service even better.
I am giving that assurance and promise on the floor of parliament today. These amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act are an important step, but I want to see things implemented on the ground, and the best way to do that is through the CEOs who have a statutory responsibility also.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this act. I have already paid tribute to Ken Simpson, and I am sure he is probably relaxing somewhere and not listening today; however, his old work mates will report to him, hopefully, that this bill has passage in this parliament today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 146), together with schedule of amendments No 59, circulated by the Minister for Public Employment, Dr Burns, and, as I understand, a schedule of amendments circulated by the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, has been withdrawn.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Greatorex.
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 59.1 standing in my name.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I am going to take this opportunity to set the record straight on a couple of things.
I advise the minister at no point did I suggest there was a cogent argument for race-based employment; in fact, I argued strenuously against that proposition. The philosophy engaged in by this government in relation to employment on special considerations and historic disempowerment - I believe is the quote out of the instructions given to Clayton Utz - is that I could not have seen a more stark example of the way this stuff operates. The passion this minister has to pursue matters on race-based grounds, which is what this is all about, and even the instructions given to Clayton Utz says that is what this is all about, special consideration for historically disadvantaged groups of people is exactly what caused the interjection that so annoyed me during the second reading debate.
I was being critical of the employment of a person because the only thing that qualified them for that job, apparently, was the fact they were Aboriginal; not local, they were from the coast, and have probably gone on to blossom in the job for all I know. But the grounds for employment were the fact they were Aboriginal. That is the allegation, and it is not an underlying suggestion; it is an overt statement that that was the motivation.
I am curious, however, that the minister saw fit to interject: ‘What about the member for Braitling?’ Why the member for Braitling, would I ask? What is so special about him? I turn around and I see a man, about six feet tall, probably about 100kg in weight, an excellent performer in every way and, by the way, he happens to be Aboriginal. From this minister’s perspective though, sitting on his side of the House with his lens on, the only thing that can be concluded and extracted from the minister’s attitude was the member for Braitling is an Aboriginal and, by the way, then he is all those other things. This goes to the heart of what this change to the legislation is all about; is putting that lens on.
If I were the member for Braitling, I would have found that comment condescending. If I was in the public service and I was an Aboriginal person and I was told I got promoted, the question would always be in the back my mind: was it because I was black? That is the thing I have been railing against, and that is the thing this side of the House is railing against. Is it because I am black that I am getting the promotion?
No matter how you dress this up, and what language you use, and I heard the minister say: ‘It is still all about merit, we are going to get the best person for the job’. If that is the case, why do you need these special provisions at all? If you are going to get the best person for the job, just stick to that.
But that is not the question that was asked in 2003 of Clayton Utz. The question that was asked of Clayton Utz in 2003 was quite clear: ‘How do we make the law operate in a particular fashion?’ And the answer was: ‘If you want to achieve these outcomes, this is how you do it’. That is what we are engaged in right now. We do not agree. We think it is wrong because it is a short-term solution which will have a long-term legacy. It is like the whole Stolen Generations thing in that sense – well-intended, poor outcomes. The residual of what you are doing here today, the mess will still be around in 20 or 30 years time.
I will finish on one more observation. I am unsure if members of this House are aware of a unit of the American Air Force which was trained at Tuskegee. It had an excellent record. The demands placed on those airmen were enormously high. They had to meet the highest possible benchmark. When they flew during the World War II in Europe as bomber escorts, not a single bomber was lost because the standards they met were so high. The bomber crews did not like them at first because all the pilots from that air unit were black. I have no problem with people, no matter who they are, being asked to meet a benchmark because you will always find those who are prepared to lead. Those who are prepared to lead will come up to the benchmarks and it is better you set the benchmark high and demand much and get a few through than to lower the benchmark and leave a residual doubt in the minds of the community and the very people promoted.
Dr BURNS: I hope, apart from the commentary by the member for Port Darwin, that the opposition is agreeing with the removal of this particular clause as requested. My only response to his philosophical position is to quote once again what Shane Stone said:
- Clause 57 is important as it is an exemption designed to allow for development and implementation of special programs for disadvantaged groups in order to redress past inequities. Such programs are often titled ‘special measures’ or ‘equal opportunity programs’. These programs may establish special training or benefits that will lead toward providing equal opportunities for those groups. Some of these programs could be directed at unemployed or homeless persons or persons from a non-English-speaking background. The exemption will allow the programs to be restricted to those people with the particular attribute for which the programs or benefits are designed. Subclause (2) provides that the exemption applies only until equal opportunity has been achieved.
Shane Stone, who is a luminary in the CLP, had a philosophical position. He supported special measures applying, obviously, to the private sector and they have applied for nearly 10 years in the private sector. I have heard no grumbles about it in the private sector and think they will be applied judiciously in the public sector. I hope we can move through these committee stage amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 37, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 38:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 59.2 to insert a new section 59G. As I said in my wrap-up to the second reading speech, this is the protection from liability clause we are bringing from regulations into the act. I appreciate the advice from Parliamentary Counsel that this will strengthen those provisions around protection from liability for those members of the appeal board who are acting in good faith in the exercise of their power. I commend this amendment to members in the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I want to wrap up the passage of the bill. I have to make a comment on the minister’s slur towards the member for Braitling. It is appalling that the minister who has carriage of this bill and is overseeing it has such distaste for the member for Braitling because he is an Aboriginal person. The minister said it, it is in Hansard. He could only be alluding to one thing; that is, ‘What about the member for Braitling?’, when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the ACPO from the Gold Coast. We know exactly what you meant by that, minister. You can weasel your way out of it any way you like. You have form. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not know where to start with you. Do we go back to your slur against the member for Port Darwin - the slur that has tarnished your parliamentary career, which you have written letters to newspapers about, saying: ‘It is the most embarrassing stage of my whole parliamentary career’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Third reading debates are to contain information referred to previously in debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Greatorex, would you please keep to the point as much as possible.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. There will be plenty said on this in the future - no doubt about it - because it is another string to the minister’s despicable bow. As I said, people in glass houses, minister, should not throw stones. We have quite a dossier on you when it comes to this sort of stuff.
We believe people should be promoted and employed through the public service based on their merit and their excellence - not cherry picking minority groups to fit some archaic affirmative action. That is what we believe, and we have said it on a number of occasions. Sure, Shane Stone came in here 20 years ago and said: ‘Maybe we need to be moving towards this special measures provision’. Well, that was 20 years ago. As I said, 20 years before that was the 1970s, and all the principles and doctrines were surrounding life in the 1970s. What about in the 1950s and the 1930s? We have moved on. Surely, it is about time we move on from this sort of thing? We are in the 21st century; indeed, we are in 2011.
I do not think it is a good law, Madam Speaker. This law sets the same people up to fail that it intends, or is trying to, protect. I agree with the member for Port Darwin. He talked about that bomber crew of World War II. It is about achieving excellence and setting benchmarks. I alluded to this in my second reading reply; about setting people up to fail and taking away their aspirations, or not encouraging people to aim higher. These sorts of provisions and measures do just that. There is nothing better we can bestow on people who might be from a disadvantaged group than to aim as high as you possibly can, and you will be rewarded for that.
The Beauty Myth and The Female Eunuch are no longer bastions for feminism. We have gone backwards, I have to say. It does nothing to improve the glass ceiling for women, and it certainly does nothing to improve the principles of self-determination for Aboriginal people.
I draw the minister’s attention to the legal advice. This was tabled, and the member for Port Darwin alluded to this as well. If we go to the conclusions and recommendations, it says:
- Recommendation 59: We see two possible ways of achieving your objective of advertising and selecting on the basis that preference will be given to a member of a historically disadvantaged group. These are: (a) amend the PSEMA …
Which is what we are doing:
- … or (b) create a regulation similar to the Public Sector Employment and Management (Exceptions) Regulations ….
Madam Speaker, the advice sought by the government has delivered a conclusion that suits its agenda; it is right there in the conclusion. This approach is an insult to women who have achieved and women who want to achieve. You are not there because you are good enough; you are there because you are a woman. How does that make you feel? I do not know how that would make me feel, to know I am only there because we need a white bloke. I would feel insulted, humiliated, and embarrassed about that. I do not know how members opposite feel, maybe government can remove itself from that, being part of this government.
I am sure there are women - in fact, I know there are, because I have spoken with many of them regarding this bill. Their initial reaction and instinct is offence. They take offence to the fact that they will be promoted because of their gender, because they are women, and the same with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people who want to work, achieve, climb the ladder, get as high as they can, and do everything they possibly can to better their life and their family’s life are highly offended by the fact that they are promoted as a result of their historical disadvantage, as it says in this, and we have a whole stack of others.
It does not sit ideologically well with us, or philosophically well, whatever you like to say, however you like to phrase it. It does not sit well with me at all. I feel uncomfortable about this sort of approach. I was never given a leg up. I had to achieve whatever it is I have achieved in life through work, and in this role as a member of the Legislative Assembly, privileged position that it is, through working hard.
That is the best example for people, to get out there and work as hard as you can, and you can achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. This bill and this sort of approach sends a message to people that you are not in this position because you are the best qualified, or because you have worked hard, or because you have set a high benchmark, or you have set a terrific example, that you are a wonderful employee, that you do your work, you turn up on time, you are an excellent employee. You are there because you are part of a historically disadvantaged group; you are there because you are disadvantaged. In the 21st century in 2011, it sends the wrong message.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Education in the Northern Territory
Note Statement – Education in the Northern Territory
Continued from 17 August 2011.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the minister’s statement on education. Most members of parliament in this House will agree that education is a top priority. We often hear members of parliament talking about how much they value education, how much they appreciate education, how much they care about education, because it is something we share in life. We all go to school, we are all taught, we all have broad experience in the education system as students, but our experience often differs from person to person.
I went to a range of public and private schools up and down the track: Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Darwin, and briefly, primary school in Adelaide. It was a rewarding experience. Like most people, one of the most important things about school is learning how to interact socially with other kids. Moving schools frequently was one of the more rewarding aspects of my schooling experience, which I enjoyed. I have spoken in the House before about my time at primary school in Adelaide before we returned as a family to Tennant Creek, and I went to Kargaru. Unfortunately, Kargaru no longer exists; there is only Tennant Creek Primary now in Tennant Creek, and I was in Grade 4. At that time, back in the early 1980s, I found I was already six months ahead of the class. We were doing a maths test, and were asked to look at the division times tables, and we were doing multiplication times tables, and I was the only one in the class who knew they were essentially the same thing anyway. It was a very strange experience.
We have made up much ground since then, particularly in the last 10 years as a Labor government, as we have invested time and resources into education, as we have made significant steps and revolutions. The middle school revolution which recognises that Year 7, 8, and 9 require particular attention; are an important time in children’s lives and require dedicated attention from a dedicated school, with a principal and teachers who understand the importance of what those children are going through in Year 7, 8, and 9 and are dedicated to that.
Darwin Middle School is part of the Fannie Bay electorate - depending on how you look at the boundaries of the recent distribution - but a school I spend a lot of time at. It has a fantastic principal in Marcus Dixon, and taking time establishing the school, developing rapport with their students, with their cohort, to deliver outcomes. That is because we said, as a government, we value education and it is critical that we focus on that period of a child’s learning. That is happening at Darwin Middle School, which is commendable.
It is amazing the differences between schools you go to now and schools you went to when you were a child. I have noticed many differences. The quality of the classrooms and some of the stuff in schools now is remarkable. There is also a very Territory thing - sense of shame, shame job, was a big thing when I was going through school. It affected many students in the sense that no one was prepared to get up on stage, no one wanted to speak publicly, no one wanted to dance or sing. I have noticed a transformation in schools lately where students are excited about getting up on stage and expressing themselves; whether by singing or dancing, playing instruments, performing, speaking; a remarkable transformation in the Territory and a sign of how we are maturing as a place, a real change of attitude.
We always have been a ‘can do’ place, but that was not necessarily reflected in students wanting to put their hand up, go to the front of the classroom, and write on the whiteboard. People should feel comfortable to make mistakes. We learn best through periods of discomfort and often people break life into two categories: comfort and pain. It is in discomfort that you often learn the most, when you put yourself out, put yourself in a position where you are doing something new or different or uncomfortable, when you get up to speak publicly. It is not a problem for us in this Chamber, but it is a problem that plagues many people. That famous survey which has gone around so many times - I do not know if it is an urban myth or not - about what are your greatest fears? People say their greatest fears are public speaking, followed by death. They would rather be in the grave than deliver the eulogy, which is a remarkable thing. If you presented it to them that way they would disagree, but people often say the worst thing they can do is speak publicly.
There is a real change going through the Territory, and the education system, and what is happening amongst our student body where people are much more comfortable about expressing themselves and performing. At Darwin Middle School, they do a regular talent show and it is a fantastic demonstration of the quality of the youth, not just the quality of the performance, but of their spirit, endeavour, and attitude. It is an impressive thing and I always walk away from it uplifted.
Often, the best days we have in this job are when we go to our schools. When we go to our primary schools, we spend time with the students, whether at assembly or in a class answering questions about civics, they are some of the best days we do in this job because schools are full of promise. Schools are where kids go to learn, to develop, to grow, and become the future leaders of the Territory, and it is a positive place to be. It is definitely something we value as a Labor government. As someone who was born and bred here, went to school here, when going to university locally - I could have gone down south. I looked at it, I thought about it, and I decided I did not want to leave the Territory. I stayed, and it is one of the most exciting things that has happened.
We talk about it a lot and we should keep talking about it because I still cannot believe it is happening in many ways. I find it very exciting that a kid in the Northern Territory can now go all the way from preschool through to a medical degree. That is an outstanding opportunity for people, to be able to stay locally. Obviously, if you want to have a local doctor, the best way to get one is to train a local. More than that, we know that if you dedicate four, five, six years of your life – in those late teenage years into your early twenties, in a jurisdiction, in a city, say you go to Melbourne; that is a long time in a person’s life. They will form new connections, a new support network, new families, and new friends. They possibly will even meet their prospective wife. They will stay, and we lose Territorians. Now we will keep them. More to the point, people will come here for that period of time training as a doctor - six years - and they will form connections in the Territory.
When I went through uni locally I had many friends in my group who came from down south and stayed at the completion of uni. Whether it be doing articles as a lawyer or moving into other careers or professions, they stayed. It is very exciting that you can now go from preschool all the way through to a medical degree in the Territory. That is one of the most exciting stories we have.
When you visit schools, as the minister was saying recently, they say: ‘Join us in our world’. It is amazing how quickly things change - adopting technology and changes of attitude. I believe I am still young, but I am older than the average age, and the minister was talking recently about some of the revolutions that are happening and the idea that you can have the world’s entire library almost on one device. I recently started using a Kindle, an e-book reader. I always loved the feel of the book, the smell of the book. I love reading and thought I would never move away from a proper book into a Kindle. However, it is a remarkable device for what it provides - its ease of use and the library that is at your fingertips when you use it. When the minister mentioned the adoption of iPads and the access that provides to the world library, the fact that you can take the library home with you and wherever you go that library will be with you is an incredibly exciting place to be. It is remarkable what those devices can deliver, and we are making bold steps into a new future and that is an incredible story.
Mum used to love to tell this story in our Tennant Creek days; I have not heard her tell it for a while. Maggie Hickey was the librarian in Tennant Creek and Maggie used to say that I borrowed enough books that they increased the funding to the library, which I was quite happy with. I love reading; the more you read the better. It is a way of expanding horizons without leaving your desk. The history of humanity’s exploration - we left the cave, we saw the fire, we climbed the mountain, we crossed the sea, we went to where the map said there would be dragons. The history of humanity is the history of exploration and you can do that through reading; you can do that through books.
We have given people the ability to take a library home with them. That is obviously happening in your electorate, Madam Speaker, at Nightcliff, and it is one of the most exciting things we are doing, on top of the ability to obtain a medical degree in the Territory. The ability to have that library with you, to be able to explore the world from the comfort of your home is an amazing opportunity, an amazing accessory, and very exciting.
I spoke about this in the House, last week; several weeks ago I attended the TEDxDarwin conference - ted.com, if members are not aware of it, is a powerful website. It is a place where people can share ideas, spread ideas worth sharing. The conference did not have an education theme, but several people who spoke at the conference were from an education background and they spoke about things they were doing in education and it was very interesting.
One was Adam Voigt, who has been in the paper recently because of Rosebery Primary School and its approach to homework. He spoke about how, as a school, they spoke to the parent community, looked at the data - he talked a lot about data - he believes in making decisions based on data and they looked at what they thought homework delivered. He summed it up, as you can often do, that he made his decision on research and data. He summed it up by saying he felt, generically, homework delivered three things; stress to children, late nights for parents, and no discernable outcomes necessarily education-wise. He said you do not necessarily get a benefit out of making a papier-mch volcano at 11 pm. There is more to homework than that. As kids, everyone hated homework. There were definitely times I did homework that I thought was helpful. There are maths problems you need to spend time on outside the classroom. There definitely can be a place for it in education.
It is always interesting to see people take a fresh approach to situations because often it is about the outcome you achieve. You always have to remember you do not go through the process for the sake of the process. He took a fresh approach to something at Rosebery and he promised the parent group he would deliver students with the same outcomes as if they were getting the homework. He made that commitment, and that is what they are working towards. It is an interesting, exciting approach to education.
Another person who spoke at the conference was Chris Garner from Marrara Christian College. He spoke about how they deal with their Indigenous students in Year 11 and 12. They took a step back because their graduation rate was at 2%. They said: ‘That is not good enough. We are obviously doing something wrong; we need to do something different. What can we do?’ They decided to take a path of a three-week induction in Year 11, where they sat down and talked with their students about where they came from, their expectations, their families’ expectations, what type of environment they would be returning to, and what they wanted to achieve. They introduced themselves and sat down for three weeks and, at the end of that, they tailored a program for those students for the next two years. The program delivered an outcome that obviously met the core criteria they needed to meet for Years 11 and 12 and, more importantly in many ways, delivered an outcome that was going to get that student something after high school. They turned their graduation rate around from 2% to 98%, which is an extraordinary outcome.
I have spoken to the minister’s office about that to find out if we are talking with them. There are lessons there for us. Sometimes, in the public system you have to do things differently to what a single school might do. We are talking to them about what they are doing and how to apply it. That is an interesting approach, and we should look at anything that achieves good outcomes. That is another way of looking with fresh eyes at an old problem.
One of the best things that has happened in schools in the last few years is Building the Education Revolution from the federal government and the physical investment made in schools. Obviously, the most important thing to come out of a school is a child’s education, but the new buildings, when done thoughtfully, as they have been done at the schools in my electorate, can contribute to the students’ experience at school and the educational outcome they receive.
Stuart Park opened their Assembly Hall last Friday with the community. They spent their money in couple of ways: they put a verandah on the lower early primary which allowed all those classrooms access to the grounds they previously could not access. Suddenly, teachers are able to use the grounds of the school - which are beautiful grounds – with their classes. Before, they could not access it, and it denied them the opportunity to get out into the garden and teach there. They have remodelled much of what they do in class to take advantage of that garden space. They are beautiful grounds.
What they factored into the hall was very thoughtful – after-school care and a few other things. An impressive, thought-through building that meets the school’s needs and has allowed them to provide better for their student cohort. That is to be widely commended. The principal, Bernie Bree, and the entire school make a tremendous effort. The opening of the BER building with the community – there were many parents in attendance and people who were part of the project returned. We had a moment when everyone said: ‘Job well done; this is good’. Obviously, it achieved a secondary or primary purpose – it depends on which way you want to look at it – of stimulating the economy and putting tools in tradies’ hands at the same time as leading to a benefit to schools. It was an incredibly well thought-out, economic and education program which was well received in my area. We have had a great benefit at the two schools – Parap Primary School and Stuart Park Primary School – from that investment.
It was good being at Stuart Park the other day because we were able to see some of the things as a government we have recently done. We worked with the council - obviously, it is a council road – to improve car parking on Ashley Street. There was a real problem that built up over the last few years - I have seen it in the paper a few times, too – where traffic was becoming congested and it was becoming difficult to navigate, and parental pick-up and drop-off was becoming a nightmare. We did a safe route to school study with the local school, sat down with the local council, gave the capital grant to council, and were able to get a real outcome, which was what the parent body, the school, council, and we, wanted. It was a win/win/win, which can happen sometimes when you sit down and talk things through. That is now done; it was done over the school holidays. It has already made a significant difference to the school. It had real impact on parents’ and school concerns about pick-up and drop-off and child safety. We have now fixed that before anything happened, and that was a good outcome from everyone.
We are going through a similar process at the moment at Parap Primary School, talking with the school, talking with the council, looking at what is happening around that school. Parap Primary School is an interesting place because of its location on a main road, near the village. It will always have a degree of traffic that might not be common around a school in the Territory. Many of our schools are more internal and in some ways the suburbs are not in the same predicament as Parap Primary School and the challenges we are going to have going forward, but the school community recognises that and there are little things we can do to ensure the traffic around that school works well. We are working on that with the school council.
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to support the minister’s statement. I want to say again - there is more than this - but two of the most exciting things we are doing with education lately are that you can now go from preschool all the way through to a medical degree in the Territory; that is exciting. In addition, the trial we are doing with Apple where you can take a library home with you. Having access to an entire library at home is an exciting thing. I wish I had had that as a kid. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and thank him for bringing this important matter before the House. As we all know, education is the cornerstone for the future of any community, and not least the Northern Territory. It is what builds the future for our kids, individuals, families, and communities, and it is education which is the necessary step to a job and economic independence and, with it, a future. This is a fact based on well-documented data and evidence.
More than two years ago, with the development of the Territory 2030 strategy, as the minister said, education was placed front and centre, and continues to be placed front and centre as the most important area of focus for this government. I acknowledge the continuing hard work of my colleague, the member for Arafura, in her role as Parliamentary Secretary for Territory 2030 in working with the subcommittee of Cabinet to drive the targets which have been set in the vision, in the roadmap, for the next 20 years. During her time as the minister for Education, especially her work in transforming Indigenous education, and as a bush member like me, the member for Arafura knows how critically important it is that all Territorians have access to quality education. Moreover, those children who go to school every day will benefit from an education system in the Northern Territory of which this government is proud.
This government has invested heavily in education since coming to government in 2001, after 27 years of the CLP. Unlike the CLP, we have worked hard to ensure that every child, no matter where they live, has access to an education, and we continue to strive towards meeting that challenge. It is a challenge the CLP either never cared about or did not regard as important because, prior to 2001, schooling for kids beyond their primary years did not exist in the bush, and that is a shameful record.
I am a bush member, and have been a bush resident of Nhulunbuy for more than 20 years. I would like to talk about what is going on out there with getting kids from remote areas into school. About working with these kids, their families, and elders in the communities about how important education is and why it is that we need to have kids at school every day; to complete school through to Year 12, so they have the best chance to go on to jobs and, with strong futures, be in control of their own destiny, rather than being amongst the unskilled and the unemployed, or even the unemployable, and certainly not welfare dependent.
It is about more than just building schools, although building schools and having appropriate facilities is critically important. It is about breaking through the rhetoric, and not just telling people they need to send children to school every day, but also having a workable strategy and tangible measures in place which will bring about real, sustainable, and lasting change. While my role as Parliamentary Secretary focuses on pathways within the middle and senior school sectors, I understand that we are dealing with generational change and need to be acting, and are acting, now. The pathway for education does start from birth and continues along a continuum.
The minister spoke about the report of Professor Masters and the acceptance of his recommendations. One of those key recommendations is around the need for greater emphasis on a child’s early years to get them and their parents on the all-important path for lifelong learning. The minister referred to child and family centres and Families as First Teachers, as well as mobile preschools, which are all fantastic initiatives. There is much good work happening on the ground in communities with children, their parents, and families actively engaged with the education process.
The East Arnhem Shire, as I am sure other shires do, has an active and positive role in the area of children and families and I congratulate them and highlight the great work they do. In the East Arnhem Shire, that work is led by Families and Children’s Services Coordinator, Diane Kearney, who is a committed and dedicated professional and advocate for children and families with many experiences in the sector. I have known Diane since she was the director of Nhulunbuy Community Child Care Centre where I worked with her for several years on the parent committee.
Recently, the East Arnhem Shire, in collaboration with Families as First Teachers and East Arnhem Shire Indigenous families, launched a children’s picture book written and illustrated for Yolngu children as part of the all-important educational and nurturing activity, reading stories. With the launch of their book, they included a CD, which I am advised is a fantastic resource and hopefully by the time I get home from sittings, I will have one on my desk. The name of this book is Nganapu Nguli Marrtji Diltiyi, and this means ‘we go out to bush’. I listened with interest to the contribution of the member for Macdonnell about how welcome the Families as First Teachers program is in her electorate, and the need for more of it, recognising that the teachers of the program spend a good deal of time travelling to remote communities within the electorate. As the minister indicated, where we see a need and we need to fill a gap, we will certainly endeavour to do so.
I have listened to many of the contributions of the member for Macdonnell during my time in this House and I have heard her speak on several occasions about how dependency on welfare and government services seems to have resulted, in some instances, in parents stepping away from parenting responsibilities and non-government organisations and the government stepping into the breach. She expressed this view in relation to sport and recreation officers and while I think we would all defend the role of sport and rec officers supporting our young people to engage in healthy and active lives, I certainly take her point.
I also listened with great interest when she spoke the other day about the proposal from a prominent Indigenous academic at Melbourne University about providing food security to communities with the location of families’ food stores in eskies in places like health clinics; I think that was how the story went. I am sure this individual’s proposal is well-intentioned, but I agree with the member for Macdonnell that it reflects a lack of understanding of the reality of life in our remote communities and such proposals sound quite impractical.
We are seeing success from the investment in early years’ education and we know that attendance of children at preschool and Transition to Year 3 is generally good. However, the success of these years and the Families as First Teachers program requires an integrated approach across government agencies, working with shires and non-government organisations and, most importantly, engaging parents, families, and elders, as partners. We have heard the health minister and the Minister for Central Australia talk about successful partnerships in Alice Springs highlighting some of the innovative work at Gillen Primary School, especially in the early years, with a program that outreaches into people’s homes.
A key recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report is there needs to be an integrated approach across government agency and service delivery, and not a silo mentality where agencies are not talking within and across one another. With this integration in mind, child and family leader positions within the Department of Education and Training - new positions as I understand - were advertised last weekend and these roles are focused upon and I quote from the description in the ad:
- Coordinating and implementing the integration of universal and targeted child and family services with the key responsibility for all early childhood development services from pre-birth to eight years with a community focus.
Already those ads have generated interest. I have had a couple of phone calls from home, from teachers who are interested in these roles and want to know more. Schools are the foundation and the hub of communities, as the Minister for Central Australia said. The member for Macdonnell also acknowledged this when she talked about Papunya and the efforts to engage parents and families with the school. To encourage them to be actively interested in what their kids were doing by attending school open days, listening to their kids about their schoolwork, looking at the work produced by their kids, and attending parent teacher interviews to talk with teachers about how their kids are doing.
I have attended many parent teacher nights over the years, both as a teacher and as a parent. Many schools are moving away from these being occasions that were once a little threatening and intimidating, sometimes for both parties. One of the first meetings I had with former member, Syd Stirling, was when he came to a parent teacher night to inquire about how his son was progressing in English. We had a difference of opinion about the grade I had arrived at, but I stood my ground and explained to Syd how I arrived at that grade and was sure his very smart son would progress well beyond that. I am pleased to say that he most certainly did.
Most schools I see do not rely, necessarily, on the old style of parent teacher nights. Schools complement that by creating a range of opportunities to encourage open dialogue. From an open door policy which encourages parents into classrooms to actively help out and participate, to e-mail contact, which is so helpful for busy parents and busy teachers for whom organising a sit down meeting or playing phone tag is not viable. I appreciate the e-mail contact I have with my children’s teachers and we continue to embrace new technology, not only to communicate – and I have to say the weekly newsletter of Nhulunbuy Primary School, the NPS Express, which welcomes community notices as well as school news, is probably more widely read than the local weekly newspaper in Nhulunbuy.
We also embrace that technology in the classroom. As the Treasurer said in her contribution to this debate, we have moved from blackboards to whiteboards, to Smart boards. I graduated through the first two; however, I confess I do not know how to work a Smart board, but am pleased my kids do. I was pleased to see kids at Baniyala Garrangali School using Smart boards with confidence, which they so clearly demonstrated when the minister and I travelled there for the opening of the school just a fortnight ago today. We heard both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Braitling refer to the community at Baniyala and acknowledge the school, which is great, because Baniyala has moved from a homeland learning centre to small school status, which means the school is staffed full-time, five days a week, and there has been an investment to house teachers.
I was rather curious about the comment from the Leader of the Opposition when he said there is something happening under the radar at Baniyala. I do not quite know what he means, but I might have a chat with him later to see what he thinks is going on down there. That community is very happy and delighted to have their full-time school and to see their children going every day. In fact, at the opening, the kids sang a song they had written, accompanied by Wendy Ellis on the keyboard, about every child, every day and the importance of going to school.
I was talking about the importance of the integration of services, especially in the early years, and the involvement of families and communities in getting kids to school and seeing schools as valued and valuable places in what they can offer to improve and turn around people’s lives. Some communities have been successfully doing that for a while. It would not be the first time I have referred to Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island doing fantastic work from preschool through to Year 12 as one of the Strong Start, Bright Future colleges. Within that college environment, they are also obviously looking after the Marthakal homeland schools.
Other colleges at Yirrkala and Groote Eylandt have achieved good progress and successful outcomes, and the 9 to 3 and 3 to 9 programs are gathering momentum. The 9 to 3 and 3 to 9 simply refers to schools being open from 9 am to 3 pm or 8 am to 3 pm and reopening or staying open in the evening to offer additional classes to anyone else in the community.
At Shepherdson College, working with the local police, several young people have acquired their learner driver licences and are learning how to operate vehicles. There are cooking and nutrition courses, there is a childcare course - forgive me if I have already mentioned music – and language classes being offered for non-Indigenous people within the community. It is fantastic to see schools being the hub of the community, and places where people are made welcome - not just kids in the community, but adults as well.
As we all know, we have seen positive outcomes for kids only when we see every school-aged child attending school every day. As the member for Nelson pointed out, it is about participation in the learning environment, not just attending. Remote communities, as we know, have special and unique circumstances. Several people in this debate spoke about building in flexibility of school terms, particularly in the Top End where there is a four-week stand-down period in the middle of the year. It is the best weather of the year, and people may leave their communities and not come back for some time and, yet, during the Wet Season, there is pretty much a captive audience. There is less mobility because there is water around and on the roads and, therefore, it makes good sense that we negotiate to keep a school open rather than close it for the six-week period over Christmas and New Year. That has been well received by the AEU.
I also want to add to that, again referring back to Baniyala Garrangali School, the week we went out, a fortnight ago, was just after the long weekend. On the Monday of the August long weekend, those children went to school. Pat and Wendy Ellis, as the teachers, were at school that day. They negotiated that with the community because, on the Friday, so many people were travelling into just outside Nhulunbuy for the Garma Festival. Rather than have the children lose a school day on a public holiday, on the Monday as well as the Friday with Garma, they had an arrangement and agreement in place that, on the public holiday it was school and business as usual, which was fantastic.
The measure of our success in education is not only about seeing attendance records above 90%; it is also about monitoring the results through NAPLAN testing. Schools are about many things, and students have the opportunity to participate, grow, and achieve, both personally and academically, in many curriculum areas. However, there is no escaping the core responsibility of delivering an education so kids are literate, numerate, and competent in English when they complete school. A national testing regime like NAPLAN has only existed since 2008. I confess at the start, I had reservations about NAPLAN and the pressures it put on kids in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9, especially those in our remote schools for whom English is a second, third, or maybe even fourth language - and pressures, I should add, on schools and teachers.
Sadly, there has been a skewing of the NAPLAN debate with the publishing and brandishing of league tables based on those results, aimed almost as a name and shame exercise. Quick to jump on the negative stories, too often the members opposite - often joined by media - peddle these stories about our schools, our teachers, and our kids in a negative way. They ignore both the positive highlights, and what the complex statistical data reveals about incremental improvement. The minister mentioned that when comparing our cohort gains from 2008 when NAPLAN was in its first year, to 2010, the Northern Territory recorded some of the strongest improvements in Australia. Territory schools registered above national gains in 11 of 15 testing areas. Uncharacteristically, The Australian newspaper reported this positive result.
Like members on both sides of the House, I work hard at keeping abreast of what is going on in schools in my electorate through principals, teachers, and other dedicated staff, as well as school councils, members of which have an enormous role to play in a volunteer capacity in school communities.
In my role as parliamentary secretary assisting our Minister for Education and Training, I take the opportunity whenever I can to visit schools and educational institutions outside of my electorate as part of my ongoing familiarisation to understand, at the ground level, how our schools are operating and the challenges they face. I mentioned in the CTC debate the other day that when I am out in communities, I always try to squeeze in the time to visit the schools. My visits in recent months have included a number of primary schools at Palmerston, including Driver Primary, Moulden, Gray, and Bakewell, and I have heard the member for Drysdale speak enthusiastically about those schools in his electorate, and with good cause, because they are fantastic schools. I have also visited the rural area, Batchelor Area School, Girraween, and Taminmin, and again, I have heard Taminmin talked about frequently, and the important role it plays in …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Mr Elferink: Standing Order 70 or 77?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Standing Order 77, sorry.
Motion agreed to.
Ms Scrymgour: Standing Order 77; I will write that down.
Mr Elferink: Check to see what you have actually passed.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Arafura for her support.
I think it was the member for Nelson who said Taminmin College must be one of the biggest schools, if not the biggest school, in the Northern Territory, and the important role it plays in offering VET in schools and, indeed, as an RTO offering those programs well beyond its school boundaries.
I have also visited Wanguri, Alawa, Manunda Terrace, and Karama Primary Schools. My school visits have invariably seen me greeted by student leaders or school captains, and how impressive these young people are. They are a credit to their schools and families, and are wonderful ambassadors. A meeting with the principal, and sometimes the assistant principal generally follows this. Afterwards, there is a tour of the school, visits to classrooms and students, and plenty of discussion whilst on foot around the school campus.
I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of principals, the clear vision and aspirations they have for their school communities and students, and their pride in that space. While our discussions can be wide-ranging, there are a few things I will always ask about on each visit, including attendance and participation, special needs, and NAPLAN results. Obviously, we talk about much more, but they are the key issues. Principals provide frank and fearless feedback on the subject of NAPLAN, and can clearly articulate school and student progress. The positive incremental improvement year upon year is based on hard statistical data across each of the areas tested, and captured and mapped in spreadsheets. This serves as a diagnostic tool to identify areas where individual students require focus and appropriate classroom support through literacy and numeracy programs, and QuickSmart is one I am familiar with.
Madam Speaker, I have mentioned principals, but I also acknowledge teachers. I concur with the sentiments of the member for Sanderson that teachers do a tough job because, well, they do. He has seen this firsthand, during his many years in schools as a school-based constable. I know about the tough job of teachers because I am an ex-teacher, I have many friends who are teachers, and I am married to a schoolteacher. Parents and families value our teachers and school staff, as demonstrated by the steady growth and interest in nominations over the last few years for World Teachers Day. If members do not already have it in their calendar, Friday, 28 October this year, at the end of our October sittings, is World Teachers Day. I trust members are ready to do something special for the teachers in their electorate.
I especially acknowledge the contribution our Indigenous teachers make in our remote and urban schools. In particular, I acknowledge three teachers from Yirrkala whose graduation I attended at the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in June. The three Yirrkala teachers, Dhalulu, Multhara, and Banbapuy, each graduated with their Bachelor of Education. They were teachers for several years, but under the requirements of the TRB, all teachers who were three-year trained have to update their qualifications to a four-year degree. These three teachers, with much experience, each returned to study to upgrade their diplomas to a four-year degree; something they achieved whilst studying and working full-time, and in addition to family and cultural responsibilities, and they were certainly the stars of the show at the graduation.
The Minister for Business and Employment was there with me. Dhalulu received the Higher Education award from the NT department of Education. Multhara received the Australian Association of Literacy Educators Award, and Banbapuy was chosen to speak, and very eloquently, on behalf of all students from the Faculty of Education, Arts and Social Sciences.
I want to go back to that subject again, and I know the CLP groan every time we say it, but it is worth repeating. Prior to 2001, Indigenous kids out bush did not have the opportunity to go beyond their primary years to a secondary education to complete Year 12. This is a reality now in bush areas. It will continue to be a reality. We will continue to invest in kids having access to education. We welcome the contribution from the federal government which will see a boarding facility constructed in East Arnhem Land to accommodate students from homelands and the surrounding area. This facility - after an extensive consultation process about the best location - is going to the Laynhapuy homeland community of Garthalala.
Garthalala is a couple of hours outside of Nhulunbuy. One of the reasons for its selection was because it has already operated a secondary boarding facility for a few years and seen students graduate with Year 12, so that is an exciting project. The federal minister has taken a personal interest in it and when visiting the Territory earlier this year he made a visit to Nhulunbuy, jumped in a hire car, and drove to Garthalala so he could see where this facility was going for himself, and talk with community members about what this facility would mean. I am particularly pleased for Multhara Murrungurr who I have just mentioned as one of our graduate teachers because this is her homeland and something she and the Laynhapuy homelands have wanted for many years. It will be fantastic when we see work start there.
I have a couple of notes that I scribbled whilst people were talking and I have circled here in bold pen ‘skate parks’. Without buying into whatever might be happening in your electorate, Madam Speaker, with skate parks, Nhulunbuy is fortunate to boast a fantastic skate park which is the envy of people of who come into our town. When driving down that main Matthew Flinders Way to the centre of town, people say: ‘Wow, what a fantastic skate park’. I pay tribute to a senior lady in my community, Eva Cantrell, who has no children in the community but is community minded and drove the cause to get a skate park and drove the fundraising efforts as well. I cannot remember exactly which year - probably around 2003 - it was definitely supported by the Labor government with the contribution of $70 000.
The skate park is currently undergoing a facelift. Nhulunbuy Corporation maintains it and some fantastic artwork has been reapplied. Kids have designed it, kids have painted it. There is enormous value in these sorts of community facilities; for young people to have somewhere they can hang out. Our skate park is really well-utilised. It is highly visible and has good lighting so people going past can see what is happening. The kids who use it have an enormous sense of pride and ownership in that skate park. I am all for skate parks and I do hope you will see one in your electorate soon, Madam Speaker.
I am going to leave it there, but I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. There is nothing more important this government can do than education and looking after kids and families and ensuring they have a strong future. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on education, which has been a focal point of our government’s agenda.
I want to clarify something; I thank the member for Port Darwin for pointing out that I nearly pulled the wrong standing order on you, member for Nhulunbuy. It was not my intention to cease you talking in any way. I want to clarify I meant Standing Order 77, and I thank the member for Port Darwin for suggesting I look at the standing order to see what it meant. I was shocked when I realised I had called the wrong standing order. That was not my intention.
Madam SPEAKER: I can assure you I ignored it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I wanted to clarify that.
Today marks 10 years of a Labor government in the Northern Territory. I recall the day Labor was elected, and even prior to being elected, the discussions when Labor was in opposition. I spoke recently about the passion of Syd Stirling, who became the Education minister, and Peter Toyne, who in opposition had the shadow portfolio; two men who pushed the then CLP government to look at the dire statistics in bush education; in both infrastructure and attendance.
A book I have close to my desk in the electorate office is Learning Lessons. Even now, I often refer to Learning Lessons and look through the recommendations and the urgency expressed to the then CLP government to do something in Indigenous education. I was working in the health sector at that time, running health services, and working with Aboriginal people and communities to build strong health services; trying to get Aboriginal people to take control of their health to a point where they could make informed decisions and choices about their health services. It was clear there was a huge disconnect between health services, the ownership of health services, and Aboriginal people’s rights to be able to own and control education, and be able to change and look at the flexibility we needed in some of our communities.
This has had much discussion and Labor, because of our commitment to education - I am pleased, as the Parliamentary Secretary for 2030, to have education as a central plank of 2030. To be able to go throughout the Northern Territory and consult with people about how we get better outcomes, not just for our remote Aboriginal communities, but through all our urban centres and our regions to do better, strive better, and have that partnership with parents and students.
The member for Nhulunbuy said something quite profound, and she is right: it is one thing getting kids to school; it is another thing to have them participate and engage in the education system.
I applaud the minister and the Education department. Particularly in West Arnhem, the changes in the Gunbalanya/Jabiru region where seeds have been planted and hopefully the tree will grow strong. Places like Gunbalanya - I pay tribute to Esther, and Sue Trimble, and all the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff in that community. If you compare attendance rates at Gunbalanya 12 months ago with current attendance levels, there have been profound changes at Gunbalanya School. Many members of the community, and I, look at the school with pride. Recently, we opened the science building at Gunbalanya School, constructed through BER and Northern Territory government funding. The school has received over $3m of Northern Territory government funding, which is very pleasing as a local member.
Old asbestos-ridden classrooms had been sitting there for many years and, during the Wet Season, children did not have airconditioning or appropriate facilities in which to learn. If anyone has been in places like Gunbalanya or Jabiru during the Wet Season, they will have experienced the heat in the escarpment, the stone country that borders this community. If you have not been there during the Wet, I suggest you should because it is about 42 degrees in the shade. It is very hot; the community retains the heat. The conditions in that school and in some of the classrooms prior to 2001 were dismal and appalling with kids expected to go to school under those circumstances. No wonder they did not go to school under those circumstances. Recently, I took some people there who had come out to Gunbalanya with me in 2001. We were there about a month ago and the level of the infrastructure and kids’ happiness absolutely threw them. This was just prior to the school break and it was great to see the participation, and kids enjoying the facilities that are now there.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about principals and good teachers, and that is true for Gunbalanya. When we opened the science building, Esther, who is the principal and has been there for such a long time, a student she taught in primary school who is now in secondary did a speech for her. I said to young Jamie, the student, that I would quote his speech. On behalf of students of the West Arnhem College at Gunbalanya, he invited all the guests; he talked about confirming the dedication of the school building to Esther and he talked with such passion and admiration for the support Esther provides to all the students. This young man expressed his gratitude to Esther as the principal for her ongoing help, not just during normal school hours, but also outside of school hours, to educating the youth of Gunbalanya.
One can see the dedication and the professionalism of these people. Sue Trimble, Esther’s deputy principal at Gunbalanya does a fantastic job. If you have an Aboriginal principal, who is competent and can do the job, one of the sustaining factors of those principals staying in the job is having a fantastic non-Aboriginal principal who can work with the Indigenous principal side-by-side to ensure they can deal with all those aspects of the school.
I congratulate the department, which has done a great deal of work. We often hear members opposite talking about the dire consequences, and talking down many of our bush schools. Yes, we have a long way to go with literacy, numeracy, and attendance levels, but those things are lifting. Rather than talking down those areas, we should all be working together and looking at the small improvements, the small steps taken by these communities to turn around a decade of neglect, and that is certainly happening.
West Arnhem College will go a long way. It is in partnership with ERA and Injalak Arts Centre is part of it. I have had approaches - and I have to talk to the minister to pass on to the department - from a number of tour operators who are interested in partnering in the West Arnhem College agreement to be able to provide that pathway where we talk about lifelong learning and going from learning into a full-time job. The interest is there, people can see the results, and see that things are turning around.
Integrated services at Gunbalanya with the child and family centres and the Families as First Teachers program which, when announced by the Chief Minister in 2007 or 2008, was a fantastic program and it is a fantastic program. It is working in Gunbalanya and has engaged many of those families. I pay tribute to the teachers who are engaged in the Families as First Teacher program. They have done a fantastic job on the ground, not just in Gunbalanya, but also at Maningrida, where the attendance was 30% or less.
Last year, the community was struggling to get kids to school. Maningrida’s attendance level has improved over the last year, and about 50% or more children are now attending and participating in the school. The CLP will criticise and say we are not meeting targets, and that is true, but there are attempts to turn that around, not just by the school, but also by the community. We certainly still need to do the partnership and work with communities to try to encourage and get parents to see the value of education for their children and get those children to school.
The infrastructure put into Maningrida School - I recall seeing the first lot, after the first mini-budget, and subsequent first budget of the Labor government in 2002-03 - construction of the needed infrastructure in Maningrida was finally coming. When anyone goes into that community now - the member for Braitling went recently with Senator Scullion and he criticised the BER construction there. The member for Braitling has failed to understand that Maningrida is a coastal community with cyclonic conditions every year during the Wet Season. The BER constructed infrastructure specifically to cater for a community cyclone shelter. The aesthetics might not appeal to the member for Braitling, but it is important and essential infrastructure for a community living with cyclonic conditions. He thought the building looked like an immigration detention centre. Next time I go out there I will let the community know what the member for Braitling thinks of their infrastructure.
I am not going to say what the community said about the member for Braitling and Senator Scullion regarding some of the comments they made to people. He went there during the school break, which was a pity; he would have had a better experience in the community if he had visited during a working week when school was on. It is one thing to stand in this House and talk down communities and say things which might appeal to a certain constituency and be absolutely demeaning and insulting to Aboriginal people, and it is another thing to go to those communities and selectively not tell them how you really feel.
We still have a way to go; something our government has never shied away from, but over the 10 years, we have made many inroads. The investment has been massive, it has been huge in education, and anyone working with remote Aboriginal communities prior to 2001, could see the level of improvement in many of our communities. If we put the infrastructure down on the ground, improve the infrastructure, communities will embrace that and will start getting their children to come to school.
A key area embraced, and I congratulate you, minister, and the department for negotiating with the Australian Education Union about flexibility and trialling school in the non-peak times, such as the Wet Season, for communities like Gunbalanya and Maningrida which are closed off for nearly six months of the year. During that peak time, we have a captive audience of students and families and it makes common sense to be able to target those children and those families and get those kids back into school. Gunbalanya School is looking at trialling a 3 to 9 program. It goes from 3 pm to 9 pm and that school has been able to re-engage and get those secondary children who have fallen out of the school system to come back, as well as the young parents and others in the community. Things are turning around. It is not a complete basket case, as often portrayed …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes to be able to conclude her comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Gunbalanya is trialling it and Maningrida School is looking at it.
I am keen for the department to look at homeland learning centres because it is an important part of our education system; how to get homeland learning centres back on the radar and achieve the needed outcomes for children who reside with their families on homelands.
At Minjilang in West Arnhem Land, Cyclone Monica demolished the school, which our government rebuilt. The new facility is much better than the building previously there for many years. Warruwi, which is another coastal island community; the school has had substantial repairs and maintenance.
From West Arnhem Land to the Tiwi Islands: the comparison between Bathurst and Melville Islands. Melville Island on the Tiwi Islands - both Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti communities have government-run public schools. In both those schools, Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti, we have over 90% attendance and the outcomes in both of those government schools are fantastic. You not only have kids attending, but you have kids in that school participating, and families as well. At Milikapiti School, Suzanne Brogan, as well as the Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers do a fantastic job. The childcare centre as part of these schools - because the focus is on early years of education - is having good results in that community. For Milikapiti and Gunbalanya, 90% attendance is fantastic.
We go to Wurrumiyanga as it is now known, or Nguiu, and there have been discussions for a long time about Nguiu, the biggest community on the Tiwi Islands. It has a population of 1800 people. It is no secret that I have for many years, even before joining politics, rarely seen eye to eye with the Tiwi Land Council. One of the areas the Tiwi Land Council and I agree on is the need for good education services happening for Tiwi children.
Whilst we have a college at Pickertaramoor, which is located at the bottom end of Melville Island, the Catholic education system needs to look at attendance rates at Nguiu. It is a non-government system on Nguiu, and the department has been having discussions with the Catholic education system to see how to get that partnership going better so we can start turning around what is happening on the Tiwi Islands. It is not bad teachers, because I have talked to many teachers and principals, Kathryn Van Egmond at Xavier and Leah Kerinaiua at MSC. Too often we point the finger at teachers, schools, or the government; however, at the end of the day, education starts at home. That is the message to ram home, particularly on the Tiwi Islands. Mal Brough and many federal colleagues, even federal Labor, often hold the Tiwis up as the trailblazers and yet, the Tiwi Land Council delegates and others will not take responsibility for getting their own kids to school.
I was fortunate with my parents. My father had a basic education and my mother was from the Tiwi Islands. My parents reinforced the need for a good education. We were not allowed to wag or to make excuses why we could not go to school and that value certainly needs to be rammed home in our communities or partnerships. Where there is entrenched absenteeism, partnership is sometimes code for not doing anything, and we have to reinforce the need for education to parents. The department does that and I would like to see that turn around on the Tiwi Islands because the issue of child attendance needs to change on the Tiwi Islands. It requires leadership: not in the schools because principals and teachers are doing the right thing. They want to teach our kids. Leadership and commitment needs to come from communities to get our kids to the schools, because if we can get them to school, teachers will teach. Much of the infrastructure has changed and Catholic Education has put substantial money into fixing Xavier College on Bathurst Island and MSC.
With regard to education, this Labor government should feel proud of our achievements. We have put infrastructure in place, not just in our urban centres, but also in many of our remote communities. We have worked with communities to look at ways in which we can achieve better outcomes with kids attending school.
I have to convince the parliamentary secretary and the minister to come out to Gunbalanya School, in particular, because they will be nicely surprised about what is out there, and to meet John Bray, the Executive Director of both Jabiru and Gunbalanya. They will see the good work that has happened in this area. We move forward because, as the minister said:
- There is no doubt that education is the key; that it is the vehicle that can deliver social, cultural, and economic development.
Madam Speaker, that is probably the most important area because we know our kids’ future depends on it, as does the future of all children of the Northern Territory. It is about building a safer, stronger education system. I commend the statement.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I know everyone is keen to get home, to finish here today and get going, wind things down. It has been a long fortnight. It has been an ordinary birthday for you. We rained on your parade. It is a sad day today. It is a sad day across the Territory anyway, but I know we rained on your parade. We spoilt your party today. Question Time did not go well for you. We again exposed the Health Minister for the culture of cover-up he presides over and, boy, didn’t he walk into it? That will be a story for another day …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw the member to the concept of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Greatorex, if you can come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: I have just started, Madam Speaker. Surely, I can develop my argument. I know the member …
Madam SPEAKER: It is about education, member for Greatorex, and if you can get to the point.
Mr CONLAN: No doubt about it, Madam Speaker, I will be talking about education. I will be talking about the concept of education. I will be talking about this statement, and importantly, I will be basing my argument around the competence of the Education minister, because that is exactly what is at stake and what is in question here today. How can we have a good education system with an Education minister such as the member for Johnston?
It is interesting. I know the member for Barkly likes to get up. He has discovered his sense of humour; it has taken him three years to get started. He has had a few false starts, and he is up today and wearing a shirt to celebrate his birthday …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The McCarthys are known well back into the traditions of Ireland to have a good sense of humour.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Very good, but it is not much of a point of order. Like I say, a sense of humour is pretty good; intelligence remains to be proven. Fair dinkum, the member for Barkly makes Humpty Dumpty look like a brain surgeon. He makes Mr Squiggle look credible. Seriously, if someone said to me …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Next.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr CONLAN: That is not a point of order, I was going to say …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, that is not very relevant to the education paper. If you can just get to the point, please?
Mr CONLAN: I have 18 minutes to prove relevance, Madam Speaker, and I can do that in the last five seconds …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you do not have 18 minutes.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seriously, if someone said to me Gerry McCarthy, a minister of the Crown, articulate and intelligent ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. You called me to account yesterday on this issue, and I draw your attention to Standing Order 67.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, and I did indicate yesterday that having asked the minister to cease digressing, that I would sit members down. After four minutes, the minister stopped digressing, so just bear that in mind in the latitude level. Thank you.
If someone said to me, the man from the moon with the pencil on his nose comes in a spaceship, it would be more believable, but anyhow.
The common theme from the government throughout this debate has been their obsession with the CLP. It has been CLP this and CLP that, and Country Liberals this and Country Liberals that, throughout your debate. There was not much on schools, not much on children, not much on playgrounds. It has always been about the Country Liberals, and you have the member for Barkly who says he has been in the Territory for a hundred years, and worked in the Education department for 50 years, or whatever it might be. He has spoken on several occasions about his successes as a teacher and the children he has taught over the years, and what a wonderful success it has been. Yet, in the same breath, he gets up yesterday and says it has been a disaster, and he has campaigned actively against the CLP for the last 27 years, or whatever it might be.
Madam Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. He has developed a sense of humour, as he says. As I say, intelligence is yet to be proven, and capability and competence has yet to be proven and certainly dress sense leaves a lot to be desired. He has worn the shirt today because it is the 10th anniversary. We have rained on his parade. It is a terrible day. We have spoilt their party. It has been a difficult fortnight for you. You have been unable to land a blow and, hence, your obsession with the Country Liberals. The obsession with the Country Liberals has not only been in these sittings, but during the Alice Springs sittings. I was on the flight to Darwin the other day and I had a transcript of Hansard …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, we are on the education debate. It is totally irrelevant to talk about a conversation when he was in transit from Darwin to Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN: I am not talking about a conversation. I am just developing my argument. For goodness sake!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you just come to the point of the statement, please?
Mr CONLAN: I am coming to the point, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, make it fast, please.
Mr CONLAN: … and to demonstrate, clearly, to be able to - I know you do not like it and you want to go home. That is the problem. You are not going home until I finish, okay? Then you can go home.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member well knows he has to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, member for Johnston. As I said, going through the transcript - at the Alice Springs sittings, government mentioned the word Country Liberals 300 times in three days, 300 times in three days; it was 101/99 and 101/100. I did it on the flight up, as I said, as I am sitting at 30 000 feet abeam Elliott, I thought I would run through the transcript and count how many times you mentioned the word Country Liberals and it was 300 times. You guys are obsessed. Can you just get over us and get on with governing the Territory.
That would be a novel concept. Ten years on and the minster over here, the minister for bad dress sense, the one who makes Humpty Dumpty look like a brain surgeon, this guy has the audacity to suggest that - it does not matter if I go there. I might save that for the final 30 seconds. We might try to go out with a bang.
Nevertheless, you guys are obsessed with the Country Liberals. It would be a novel approach to get on with governing the Territory and provide real outcomes for Territorians, particularly with education.
Another thing the member for Barkly continues to do, and it has become almost his catch cry, is ‘a new era’. We were having a conversation last night about this new era business. When Clare Martin won the election in 2001, you could credibly say it was a new era. That would bring it well within the bounds of credibility. Ten years on, to suggest it is a new era, after the appalling failures by the government and the appalling failures by the member for Johnston - you have had just about every portfolio there is to have. How many have you had? How many – five, six - what are you on? You have gone through them all just about and now you have the education …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has touched on education when he mentioned the new era alluding to corrections but I draw his attention to relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you at least try to bring in education from time to time.
Mr CONLAN: As I say, the minister for Education, I am referring to this statement. Just because I do not pluck out parts of this statement does not mean that I am not referring to the physical document and the government’s obsession with CLP failures in education. It is quite staggering. All we hear is how, on 18 August 2001, the sun rose for the first time on and across the Northern Territory. Those dark clouds and those evil, horrible CLP people were banished, and have been for 10 years.
Indeed, it was a new era, because literally by virtue, member for Barkly, it was a new era. Here we are 10 years on - by no means a new era - and it is a bit late to start a new era, mate. I tell you, people have stopped listening. People stopped listening to you a long time ago and here we are 12 months out from an election and people have switched off. It is over. The game is up. I say, 300 times you mentioned us in Alice Springs. It would be interesting to do a further count again on the flight home to see how obsessed you are with the Country Liberals …
Dr Burns: You could try writing policy!
Mr CONLAN: That brings me to the education policy by the Country Liberals. The minister loves to stand up here and say: ‘This little flimsy document put out by the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader, terrible, does not mention anything about Aboriginal education in there’. What he does know, and the mischief he likes to create, and he thinks it is somehow painting us in a picture. You notice the media has not bought into it at all. No one has picked up on it. That document is one little plank of a core comprehensive education policy. You will see comprehensive education policy rolled out over the next 12 months. To say the policy the member for Blain has put forward is all we have, and not one mention of this and not one mention of that, is wrong. It is mischievous and he well knows it. He likes to create mischief around non-issues and we have seen that today. We have seen him target a colleague in a very ordinary, bitter, low way. He has form in this area, as I have said before. It is not the first time.
We have this wonderful dossier on every ‘oops’ the member for Johnston has made throughout his parliamentary career. It is 10 years today since you were elected. How many things can we count? It has not been a glowing 10 years, has it? If we had to hire you on merit, you would not get a job. You would have to get your job through diversity because you would not get a job on merit; not at all. The amount of ‘oops’ that has happened with the member for Johnston over the last 10 years is quite extraordinary and, in most cases, the levels you have sunk to are quite despicable. A senior like you should have matured over the years. You have softened a little but a number of your jibes would fit well in the school playground. Hence, there is my relevance to education once again.
The fact that education has survived 10 years of Labor is not because of Labor’s wonderful policies, or their wonderful minister, or wonderful department. It is only because of the great schools and the great school communities we have in the Northern Territory. Much has been said about the wonderful programs, the dedicated teachers and students, and the dedicated school communities. We have heard it and I agree with most of it. We have wonderful schools, wonderful teachers, wonderful students, parents, and those school communities are terrific and an essential fabric to any community.
In my community in Alice Springs they are the heartbeat of it. I have Centralian Senior College, Ross Park Primary School – one of the best primary schools in the Territory, along with Sadadeen. Probably two of the best primary schools in the Northern Territory in my electorate of Greatorex in Alice Springs. There is OLSH and Acacia Hill as well. Who could forget about Acacia Hill? Oops, the government nearly forgot about Acacia Hill - left it with about 300 problems with regard to occupational health and safety issues. Serious stuff! Doorways you could not get a wheelchair through. Remember that? Was that the other minister? That might have been the other one. How many Education ministers have we had? We have had a churn of ministers, the revolving door of ministers in the Labor Party. The ministerial reshuffle has been quite staggering; the ministerial failure this government has presided over.
Acacia Hill School, if it was not for some serious - the opposition essentially dragged the government kicking and screaming, as it does on so many important issues, to this issue. If it was not for me and the Opposition Leader drawing attention through the local newspaper, the Centralian Advocate, who knows where that school would be right now. Those issues have been addressed. I cannot remember if you were the minister. You probably were. It sounds like you all over. It has your DNA and fingerprints all over it. Let us not do anything until there is an issue. Until someone makes a song and dance about it; then we might try to fix it. Acacia Hill School is a wonderful school. I know that school community quite well. I spend a fair bit of time with the schools in my electorate and many of them are well-functioning schools. They do very well; however, Acacia Hill needs a little help occasionally. It certainly needed help over the last year or two. I am more than happy to help them out.
That is just an example of the government’s attitude towards these things. I agree with most of what has been said in this Chamber about schools, and the efforts, and what has happened. Holy cow, how can you disagree with it? When a kid graduates from Year 12, it is a good thing. Yes, it is a good thing, no kidding. However, you have to look at the credibility and you have to look at the future of it. You have to look at the credibility of the minister presiding over Education.
We see the other minister over here, the former minister - it is like the Hendo show, this thing. Who is who; who is who in the zoo? You have Bungles over here and we have No-Show-Hendo and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: … you have Humpty Dumpty over there …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that we refer to members by their titles in this place, not by pejorative terms, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I know, Madam Speaker.
Mr Tollner: You cannot call him the chief psycho either.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! It is not necessary to interject.
Mr Tollner: Oh, sorry about that.
Mr CONLAN: I was going to suggest that we had another player. It is like the Muppet Show of the Territory, the Hendo Show. We have the Tiwi banshee up the back, Madam Speaker …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am finding the tirade from the member opposite quite offensive. You have already reminded him about using member’s correct titles.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, that last comment was extremely offensive. I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr CONLAN: A banshee, Madam Speaker, is someone who is hysterical and that is what it is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw it, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I withdraw it. No problem. I know you do not like it when someone actually …
Madam SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: I withdrew, Madam Speaker. I know you do not like it when someone actually takes it up to you. You cannot take it. You do not like it at all. All you can do is try to push, push, push, but when someone can resist and push back just a little, hoo hoo! I know it goes against the grain. We see it time and time again, so much so that you have this obsession with the Country Liberals.
We might need to take a restraining order out against the government because it is an uneasy feeling. It does not sit well, this obsession, the stalking by the government. What people want is for you to get over us and get on with governing the Territory. What a novel idea to get over the opposition! The first rule of any engagement when you have an opposition, whether it is sport or business or whatever, is do not let the opposition lead the way. All you are doing is letting us set the agenda. We are setting your agenda, clearly. The first rule is do not look over your shoulder constantly at your opposition, or whoever it might be; look forward and get on and set the pace yourself. But you guys cannot do it. You are out of ideas. It is all over. The game is up. You are out of ideas; bereft of any ideas. You have been for a long time.
As I say, with regard to the member for Arafura, there has to be one of the greatest disappointments in Australian politics. Not only was she the …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking of being bereft of ideas, could you remind the member that this is a debate about education?
A member: She is a former Education minister.
Mr Conlan: A former Education minister - exactly right, Madam Speaker.
Ms WALKER: I believe I have the call, Madam Speaker. Could you remind the member, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is about education rather than about the Education ministers.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I beg to differ.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She was the former Education minister that he was referring to. While I am on my feet, under Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: All right. I thought I might have been pushing it. I was going to try to wrap up in the last 30 seconds, but why not keep going. Why not? We might as well stay here. It is the last day and it is only 5.30 pm for goodness sake.
Madam Speaker, just to clarify, it is important to highlight the competencies of previous ministers. How can you have an education statement and a vision of 2030 and whatever it might be, how can you possibly have any credibility in a vision statement like that if you do not question the competency of the person leading the charge, the leader? Therefore, I do question the ability of the member for Johnston and the previous Education minister, the member for Arafura.
It is one of the greatest disappointments in the history of Australian politics. We had the most senior Aboriginal woman in Australian parliament, the Deputy Chief Minister, Education minister, and what did she do? Dealt herself out of the game. She has the audacity to sit up here and tell us about the failures of the CLP, and how evil and nasty the CLP are, and how wonderful things have been since 2001. Her credibility is in tatters. If we had to switch off the member for Johnston, his ministerial life support after he failed in Health, he is probably not too far away from switching off his ministerial life support in Education. This one was put out of the ministerial misery. She walked away from it. How many people did she let down as a result of that? Regardless of what she did to her own colleagues, let down all of them and scared the daylights out of those guys.
Margaret Banks - Waxgate, it was called for some reason or another. Whatever it was, but that whole era of Margaret Banks and the member for Arafura walking away, dealing herself out of the game, yet having the audacity to sit up here and lecture us and tell us how terrible we were. What about all the schools the CLP built? How many schools did the CLP build from 1978 to 2001? How many? How many schools? You guys say you have a new list of them in here, how many schools you built and how many things you have done, mind you, with Commonwealth money, but that is okay, because most of our schools were built with Commonwealth money too. It does not matter so much but, at the end of the day, hundreds and hundreds of schools across the Northern Territory …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the government’s statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is called. We have a quorum, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it is hard to draw a crowd when everyone wants to go home, isn’t it? I know it is hard to draw a crowd too when all people want to do is go home, knock off after a long, hard fortnight. It has been a hard fortnight for you. You have not really had any wins. We have exposed, here we go, here is the ministerial life support about to be switched off over here for the health. We have already had one over here switched off, and the member for Arafura up the back dealt herself out of the game, dealt herself into irrelevance. It is a voice from the past I sometimes hear up the back from the member for Arafura …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr CONLAN: You were not even here. I have been developing my argument …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that reference to the presence or absence of members is not in accordance with standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, withdraw that comment. You have a couple of minutes left and it might want to be only on education.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Only on education, member for Greatorex. You have stretched our patience.
Mr CONLAN: I would like to finish my argument and if the question is to be put that I am no longer heard, that is fine. That is a member’s prerogative, but you can let me speak for the next five hours or we can spend the next five minutes dividing over it. What would you like?
Madam SPEAKER: It is about education. Can you stick to the point?
Mr CONLAN: And I was talking about it, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the credibility of our Education minister and previous ministers, and that is very relevant to this debate. Extremely relevant to this debate, because how can you have a good education system with a failed, bungled minister at the helm. It does not go hand-in-hand.
We have seen the failures of the member for Johnston. He stands here in parliament and loves to throw stones at this side. He is more than happy to raise Ombudsman’s reports. I told you the other week, you show me that Ombudsman’s report and I will raise you 10. On your watch in 10 years, how many Ombudsmen’s reports have come your way? Damning ones? How many reports have highlighted you as the failure; several have. How come you are not Health minister any more? What happened? He loves to throw that one around. He loves to throw little jibes at the member for Braitling here today, and backpedals when he realises: ‘Oops, oops, another one’. Has not been a good 10 years for you, member for Johnston, and as a result, it has been a tough 10 years for schools across the Northern Territory.
The only reason those schools have survived is because they are great school communities. It has not been the wonderful leadership or the wonderful programs, or anything decent you guys have done. You are happy to launch assaults at the CLP because you are obsessed with the CLP. The CLP is leading your agenda. You say it constantly. They mentioned the Country Liberals 300 times in the Alice Springs’ sittings – probably similar – probably double that in these sittings. It has been two weeks and in three days he mentioned it 300 times so clearly the Country Liberals are leading the agenda. These guys know the game is up; they know no one is listening. Yet we have a statement talking about how great they are and how the sun rose for the first time and, in the beginning, as the member for Port Darwin alluded to, that day it all began, and all the evil, horrible ways were finished with, put to bed. The member for Barkly can finally go: ‘Hallelujah, I have campaigned hard for the comrades. I have got rid of that nasty, evil CLP government’.
The member for Arafura clearly has deep down bitterness and hate towards the Country Liberals, but she dealt herself out of the game, played herself into irrelevance. Her credibility is in tatters, left the party, came back, and now sits on the backbench. She had a great opportunity to do something in education, a wonderful opportunity if she could just hold her nerve and stay where she was. But no, it was not even based on anything ideological because she came back. She walked back to the Labor Party. If she had any guts or truly believed in what she was doing, she would have stayed on the crossbenches. But no, she had to go back because the nasty, evil CLP might get back in. Oh, we cannot have that. We could not have that.
Anyway, the game is up. It is all up. People have stopped listening. You guys are obsessed with us. The minister for Education had his ministerial life support switched of as Health minister and it probably will not be too long until it is switched off as Education minister …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, you have already spoken. The minister has the call.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is a hard act to follow, and the member for Greatorex talked about schoolyards. He talked about schoolyards and that was a puerile performance by the member for Greatorex. He talked about people dealing themselves out of the game. When you look at it, along with the member for Blain, he is the longest serving member on the other side and yet he does not seem to be able to get ahead. One would have thought, and I am going to mention that word ‘CLP’. Seeing Alice Springs is the birthplace of the CLP, one would have thought he would be deputy leader by now. Why is it that he is not? Because his peers do not recognise him for anything and he has not developed. He has time on his hands because he sits on the plane counting the number of times we mentioned the CLP. I would have thought if he was engaged in being the shadow Health minister, he would be on that plane writing policy. He would be meeting with people, he would be collating policy and, as I have said in previous debate, a year out from the 2001 election - we are talking about the 10th anniversary - that group of seven members of Labor had comprehensive policies including health and hospitals.
How long has he been here now? Five years is it? He has been shadow Health minister for nearly five years - since Richard Lim left - and has not written a policy. That is laziness. He thinks he can get away and float along the top by coming into this House and putting on the big show. The big show like the wrestlers! It is about as good as that. He almost, metaphorically, picks up the chairs and gets someone in a headlock and says - Steve Austin – ‘Steve, you are past it now. ‘I am going to turn off your life support’ and he will not speak to the very important statement.
I will pick up on one thing he said about Acacia Hill School. I wonder whether he has been to Acacia Hill School lately. I have been there two to three times in the last six to eight months - at least twice - and the government is investing in Acacia Hill School in 2010-11 with $2.56m and in 2011-12 with $1.5m. On top of that, the school and the school council came to me with a problem about some capital works, about some infrastructure services and we are able, with the department, to solve that for the school. That school has new toilets and bathrooms. The last time I was there I accompanied the principal who showed me the plans for new classrooms, for replacements. Much is happening at Acacia Hill School and yet the member for Greatorex can only talk about doom and gloom. He can only talk about the past. I am unsure of the issue he raised about occupational health and safety. It has not been an issue while I have been minister. I would have to say I have been very attentive to that school, as I have with all our special schools, since I became Education minister.
He can talk about my life support. As I go out, if they turn off the life support, I can look to Acacia Hill School, look to the $30m this government has invested in special schools across the Territory and something dear to my heart, Nemarluk School. He talks about failures and lack of achievement. I have to say to you, member for Greatorex, politics is a little like sport. You would not find one champion sportsman who does not have a few games they would rather forget, probably a few seasons they would rather forget, but some fantastic victories along the way. A few defeats, but that is the ups and downs of life.
If he had a word with John Howard, probably his hero, John Howard would have the same story. He was the Prime Minister of Australia who went out on the back of losing his own seat in an election. He did achieve things in his time as Prime Minister. I do not agree with everything he did; however, when you look at any career in politics and sport, you have ups and downs. It would be interesting to see the member for Greatorex in years to come. He showed promise at the beginning, but has not been realising that promise. I digress, Madam Speaker.
I turn now to the positive and good contributions by people in this debate. The member for Brennan talked about NAPLAN and about attendance being critical. I agree with that. Professor Masters has briefed the member for Brennan about our specific plans for literacy and numeracy. We are seeing incremental improvements. We have introduced strong measures around attendance and the proof will be in the pudding.
He asked about the Save the Children program - an attendance program – and asked why we axed the program. Talk about repetition! He asked the same question at estimates and Eva Lawler told him very clearly:
- … the Save the Children Program. As you said, it was a 10-week program the Northern Territory government funded but our Every Child, Every Day policy now covers off on every single one of those recommendations from that report.
Obviously he was not listening during estimates. He still comes in here and grandstands as he did yesterday about Nightcliff Middle School and a parent at Nightcliff Middle School. I am looking at what was said about that very carefully, as I look carefully at everything the member for Brennan says. Given some of the events in estimates where he tried to spin up that I had somehow misled the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory over Nemarluk School. He presented FOI documents he had cobbled together; two separate documents as one document, and tried to assert that I had misled the parliament, and then had to eat humble pie. I did not go after him after that because I thought it was a reasonable error. I am telling you now, member for Brennan, I am looking very closely at everything that has been said on this issue. I will just say that to you.
We have had the incident with his car and the story he told the newspaper. It certainly unfolded that there is much more to that story than he first said. So, the member for Brennan has form on this and people are beginning to realise how he operates. I take what he says now with a great deal of scepticism. He is into stunts; he is into the cheap shot; he is into making a political headline and a story on the Channel 9 news or ABC news but this is a longer-term game. This is not a sprint; it is a marathon. People’s character becomes evident with time, and that is what is happening with the member for Brennan. But I digress, Madam Speaker.
The member for Macdonnell made a positive contribution. She talked about education being something that makes something of kids. She is calling for more open days, more participation by parents and grandparents to get them engaged. I will be talking to the department about that and our directors of school performance and school principals. There is much engagement that goes on and I believe the member for Macdonnell had a very good suggestion.
The member for Araluen talked about truancy, which we are addressing. There were questions about infrastructure from the members for Goyder and Nelson. Comparisons were made between Nhulunbuy, Batchelor, and Tennant Creek schools and comparisons with Taminmin. I undertake to respond formally to those. I do not have that information on hand but I will respond formally to those members on that issue.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about a variety of curriculum approaches and I agree with him. I have said publicly that the curriculum is cluttered and I have said as much to principals. We need to be tightening up the curriculum. We do not want to confine students in their learning but reading and writing, literacy and numeracy is our number one priority. I want students to enjoy their schooling, to enjoy the arts, to enjoy other activities but, at the core, it is literacy and numeracy. That is why we have a literacy and numeracy strategy. That is why we are investing in it heavily and that is why we have engaged Professor Masters as an independent set of eyes to give advice to me as minister, and the CEO of the department.
The member for Nhulunbuy picked up, as I did, the strange wording and comments of the member for Blain regarding Baniyala School. I attended the official opening of Baniyala School with the member for Nhulunbuy about two weeks ago and it was a great occasion. Government has provided over $2m worth of infrastructure in that school. Much of it was due to the effort of the former member for Nhulunbuy who secured that funding. This arose because the community wanted teachers resident in the community, so it is not just the school, it is the accommodation for the teachers, as the member for Blain observed, or told the parliament. The teachers out there, Pat and Wendy Ellis, are great people. They are fantastic people and are doing a great job with that community.
Partly what the member for Blain may have been alluding to is the desire of that community; it is a very Christian community, they take their Christian faith very seriously and they are very strong in that belief, and that is a great thing. There has been much debate in this parliament over the last day about values and about Christian faith, particularly from the member for Nelson and, to some degree, from the member for Blain. I made it plain at the opening of that school that I encourage the community to bring their Christian faith within that school in that homeland. As I looked around the walls of that school, I saw wonderful images; the kids and other community members painted some of them. Some were health messages about tobacco, about alcohol - very important health messages. I saw others, clearly of a cultural nature, about the local stories and culture of the people in that community. They were beautiful. I also saw on the wall of that community some drawings of Old Testament stories. One was about Jonah and the whale, and the other was about Noah and the Ark. The motto of that school is ‘Strong and Proud’, and I encouraged that community, quite openly and publicly. I said: ‘It is fantastic what I see here, I want you to continue, and, as Education minister, I welcome that’.
There is no barrier from this government about that community out on the Gulf of Carpentaria near Blue Mud Bay, for the community values of culture, those health messages, and their Christian faith playing a major part in that school. I will place that on the record now. I am not sure what the member for Blain has in mind for that school, but he needs to place on the record exactly what he was he talking about the other day, because I am sure the local people would be interested in what he is saying. Certainly, I am interested as minister. Maybe he might tell me what he has in mind for that school.
I talked about special education, which is important. The member for Goyder asked me about the Exodus Foundation. I have said this directly to Reverend Bill Crews, whom I admire, he is a great Australian. He has come to see me about the Exodus Foundation and their programs in the Northern Territory. I had to be straight with Bill Crews and say that several schools were backing away from the program because they did not feel they were getting results with it. I encouraged him, and even arranged for him to go to a school, I am not going to name the school, but to a school here in Darwin’s northern suburbs, to talk with the principal and find out exactly what the problem was in their program, which the school, incidentally, had evaluated. I have been straight up and down with Bill Crews. He was asking for $2m for four schools. I have also said my priority is our literacy and numeracy strategy with Professor Masters. Two million dollars for four schools is a hell of a lot of money; I think it was over three years. We are investing our money strategically to have the same sort of care and attention that Bill Crews was having in a limited number of schools; that is, having literacy and numeracy tutors.
Our focus is on providing one-on-one support for kids who may be lagging behind. Professor Masters made it plain that we need to have a clear idea where each child is with their learning and what is required for that child to come up to the standard, or where they are expected to be, for that particular year. That is our effort. It is unfortunate I was not able to meet Bill Crews’ request but I also made it plain that if he was to get money from the private sector, from the corporate sector, from sources like that, he is more than welcome to carry on his program within our schools.
The other day I went to Millner School for the Jimmy Little Foundation, which is a great project, but that project runs in the schools from donations the Jimmy Little Foundation gets from its many sources, so Uncle Jimmy Little attracts funding and I do commend Uncle Jimmy Little. It is a great program about nutrition and health, etcetera. Buzz Bidstrup is taking the lead and the interface; it is a great program and there are other similar programs running in our schools. They are not necessarily asking for $2m over three to four years. I do repeat to Reverend Bill Crews, you are welcome to continue your programs here, but I do not have that sort of money.
The member for Sanderson used his experience as a school-based constable to talk about the value of early intervention, which is what we are doing with our Every Child, Every Day strategy; there are interventions. We have compulsory conferences with families and students to try to ascertain what the problem is and this enables us to link in with other agencies, if that is required, to provide services to those families and individuals. This is important in terms of what we are doing with individuals. I appreciated the offering in this debate by the member for Sanderson.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about his enjoyment at school and about what an important place school is for kids. He also talked about the thrill for someone like himself, who was born and raised in the Territory, being able to go from preschool to a medical degree …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: That is an important step forward and something that has happened under this government. Previously in this place, I have paid tribute to the CLP over the establishment of Charles Darwin University, formerly NTU. Paul Everingham lead the charge as someone said here today. I am not about standing in this place and not acknowledging the good work that did go on during the 27 years of the CLP. CDU is certainly one of those. What I am saying is that through the development of the medical faculty, the pharmacy faculty, and the other partnerships CDU has with other universities, this government is supporting further important developments in tertiary education within the Northern Territory. I commend the work of Professor Barney Glover in that regard.
The member for Fannie Bay also touched on the rather controversial subject of homework, which has been in the papers of late. What was not presented is that it is my understanding that in some areas and in some classes of that school, that is Roseberry School, kids do get some homework but there is an overall school view about an absence of homework causing less stress and the kids should be learning at school. I am a little old-fashioned. I grew up with homework and can remember sitting on the back stairs with spelling and geography and all the rest and mum and dad asking me questions about the homework. You would get to school and the teacher would ask you questions about homework. There was always pressure with homework, which grew and grew as I went through secondary school and university. I did a lot of homework at university. I can understand the view of teachers and the professional teaching staff at that school and, if that is their decision, if that is the decision of the teaching staff in their professional capacity, as minister, I back that.
I am sure there is discussion between the teaching staff, the principal, and the school council about this important issue, so I commend teachers. I also commend our school councils, which are autonomous, despite what some people opposite might try to argue. I try not to do anything to compromise the integrity or autonomy of school councils in my electorate. There have been times I have left the school council when there were issues I felt they needed to discuss without me there, namely letters from the Opposition Leader or other controversial issues and I did not think it was my place to be there and participate in that discussion. Autonomy of school councils is an important issue and I commend our school councils.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about sustainable and lasting change through education. I am fortunate to have the member for Nhulunbuy as parliamentary secretary, particularly in the area of training and VET in which she has immense experience. Many people like to think of the member for Nhulunbuy as a long-term teacher. She spent a long time as a teacher and was greatly respected as a teacher; however, we all need to realise she spent a long time in industry in training and employment, particularly with Indigenous people. Seeing the warmth with which company representatives, company executives, but moreover, the Indigenous community of Nhulunbuy greet her, reinforces to me the great respect the member for Nhulunbuy is held in within her home community. She is passionate about these issues and I commend her on that issue.
She mentioned the issue of NAPLAN and the My School website and it is regrettable that some media enjoy printing plans – I would call them a league table - which goes right against the spirit of the My School website and NAPLAN. It is all about comparison of like schools and it is important we understand that. What we have is people taking schools out of their context, both demographically and in a range of other facets, and making a direct comparison with schools interstate. In addition, there are people comparing averages in schools, and these averages, unless you have the standard deviation, the comparison of averages or means is essentially meaningless.
I have said in this House several times that what we have in a number of our schools, including our urban schools, is two populations of students: those who are attending regularly and those who are not. Those who are coming from disadvantaged backgrounds - and this starts in the early childhood area - an average in that situation is essentially meaningless and it is wrong for media, and the opposition, to be making those comparisons. However, we live in a free country and have freedom of the press. The New South Wales Education minister, at the last Education Ministerial Council, asked a question and sought advice about whether action was going to be taken against any newspaper that printed league tables, and that advice was forthcoming.
That debate will rage on but I welcome NAPLAN. I welcome My School because it enables parents and school communities to look at their school, look at their individual child’s result, and engage in discussion with their teachers, with the principals, about those results, and everyone welcomes that. It brings a great deal of transparency but it does not help to have people like the member for Brennan coming in here waving tables around, particularly for Nightcliff Middle School. This is a school which is on a path, a journey, but it has also been in the wars over the years and, as I have said on the public record, has struggled with enrolments. Most parents want to send their kids, for whatever reason, to Darwin Middle School or somewhere else, and to some extent …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! It would be the quorum. This is the minister’s closing speech on education. There should be quorum.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We have quorum.
Dr BURNS: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said it does not do the member for Brennan any good to be rubbishing Nightcliff Middle School. He told me he wants to go to Nightcliff Middle School and maybe he should be meeting with the school council as well as the teaching staff, and maybe he should discuss some of his comments and the fact he is waving around cards with the NAPLAN results on them in this place. Let us see if he has the courage to do that, if and when he goes to Nightcliff Middle School, but I digress.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, education is front and centre of our 2030 vision for the Northern Territory. Education is the key to economic prosperity in the Northern Territory. Education is the key for our social advancement in the Northern Territory and education complements our social diversity.
What do we see on the opposition? The member for Greatorex alluded to it before. We have not seen any policy on education. He has promised it, he has promised it here tonight. He said over the next few months we are going to see much policy development, many policies laid on the table. I look forward to that because I want to engage with the opposition in a debate about education policy.
In closing, this is a government that can hold its head high over our record in education over the past 10 years. We do have challenges. We are meeting those challenges and addressing those challenges, and I am proud to be Education minister in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Government’s Response to Fourth Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation - Recent Community Trips
Northern Territory Government’s Response to Fourth Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation - Recent Community Trips
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the Fourth Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation Report, which is about recent community trips. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Council of Territory Cooperation’s Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee Preliminary Report.
MOTION
Print Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Print Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
MOTION
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Sub-committee - Preliminary Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the Darwin Festival and arts and culture in the Northern Territory in general.
The bells are ringing. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was just standing on the lectern delivering a welcome speech for the crowd who turned up to celebrate the National Indigenous Music Awards for the Northern Territory. A three-year build, which is a sensational story, and the bells started ringing in a true musical sense, and I had to leg it straight off the lectern, around that corner, and back into the Chamber to be with my parliamentary colleagues. I will try to explain that to the crowd at some stage.
It has been a start of another Darwin Festival, and the Northern Territory government is extremely proud to promote festivals, not only here in the capital city, and the premier festival in the Darwin Festival, but right across the Northern Territory.
The 28th National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, sponsored by Telstra, was a wonderful, inspiring experience. It was truly wonderful to see the work that is going on in Australia, the premier Indigenous art, and to see the Territory representatives. It is great when you can walk around a premier national art award and see a finalist who comes from your electorate. I acknowledge Thelma Dixon, a Garawa woman, who has a superb painting that made the finals this year, reflecting the culture of the cattle industry, funnily enough; this year, a wonderful painting. It is well worth going to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory to have a look at the NATSIA this year.
I caught a show after that, and that was the wonderful Tracks Dance Company and their show for the 2011 Darwin Festival, Crocodile Man, Pineapple Woman, and then it was back to work. I have not been able to catch up with much of the festival, but there is plenty on, an 18-day festival, and members should take the opportunity to get to what they can.
The Aboriginal Art Fair at the Convention Centre was a fantastic event. Being there on Sunday, talking to all the different arts centre people who came in, and talking to the artists was certainly a great research opportunity for a minister of the Henderson government. It was good; good story, good sales, good vibrations, international tourists and international art buyers are attracted, as well as Territorians and people from the greater Darwin Region.
The Indigenous Music Awards are on tomorrow night, and to go out there in the courtyard and bump into the legendary Hall of Fame Tableland Drifters, Joe Davey and Lexie Holt were out there once again, up here to celebrate. I received a text saying: ‘Minister, get over to Kitty’s tonight, we are on at 6.30 pm, don’t be late’, from one of our celebrated bands from Tennant Creek, UBX. That is all about a wonderful exponent of music and an opportunity for young musicians, coinciding with the Indigenous Music Awards each year and that is the iNTune Music Conference which brings representatives of the national music industry to Darwin to provide opportunities for musicians to network, to connect, and pursue career opportunities in the industry.
Tonight, there are 14 Territory bands performing across three venues which gives everyone that real world stage. When you have young people coming out of Tennant Creek and regional and remote areas and they are gigging in Darwin tonight, participating in another sold-out conference, that tells government that is arts funding wisely invested. The festival will continue and festival funding from the Henderson government, the Darwin Festival funding, has hit $1m. That is considerable funding for a premier festival. Government is aware that when you are a holistic government, when you take into account the whole of the Territory, and you have progressive, bold, and challenging policies like A Working Future policy, you are looking at how to develop opportunities, and one of the opportunities our government recognises is the arts - the arts and culture.
It is not just about the creative element. It is not just about the culture and the cultural maintenance. It is not just about developing wellbeing in the communities. It is a serious economic driver and has the potential to continue to create jobs. I pay respect to art centres that are working right across the Northern Territory in regional, remote, and urban areas because the centres provide a focus area to give artists the support they need, the motivation, the meeting place, the keeping place. They are the ones that are going to be growing under our policy of A Working Future. They are the ones who are keen to take those opportunities, work with government, and grow another aspect of a remote or regional community.
It is great to be concluding the sittings in August. It is Darwin Festival time. There are wonderful things happening around the city and the festivals roll up and down the Track. I was talking to a young lady outside who told me about the Jabiru Festival and, of course, Desert Harmony in Tennant Creek, and the Alice Springs Festival closely following; festivals in the north, south, east, and west. It is a wonderful time to be here. It is a wonderful time to get out and celebrate with the community and, if you are inclined, perhaps pursue your own creative opportunity, your own creative edge, whether that is in the visual arts or in the performing arts.
I would like to make mention of the Tracks Dance Company. Tracks Dance Company is not only a premier dance company in Darwin, but they also work in remote and regional areas. They have a 20-year history with and have done fantastic work with the community of Lajamanu. Their shows at the Darwin Festival are big shows, they are premier shows each year, and I was lucky to see their show once again. It is a journey. A Tracks show is a journey. We were at the third act of a big, bright, and beautiful show, and I happened to notice Lynette Lewis from Tennant Creek performing in the Tracks Dance Company show, Crocodile Man, Pineapple Woman. For Lynette - my wife, Dawn, was with me and I tell you we both shed a tear. Lynette did not have any time to shed tears. She was working really hard. She had a major part. She was one of the lead dancers and she worked really hard that night. I cannot wait to get home and catch up with you and your family, Lynette, and share that experience of being so proud to see you! There is a Tennant Creek young woman whom we know, who we have seen grow up, and here she is performing in the big end of town. Well done!
I was privileged to open two exhibitions of Northern Editions at the Charles Darwin University. It was a wonderful experience, a great crowd, good turnout, and the printmaking was superb. As I checked the walls, once again, two Barkly artists, Thelma Dixon and Amy Friday, there they were - beautiful prints up in the ANKAAA Exhibition in partnership with Northern Editions. They are two people I look forward to catching up with when I get back to Borroloola and Robinson River and telling the story of how proud I was to acknowledge their art in what is a premier exhibition.
It is time we started to focus on the positives art and culture can bring and the positives needed to balance out the hard work. Infrastructure is one thing and programs are another, but there also has to be a time when we take stock and think about our wellbeing and having a bit of fun. That is what the arts can deliver.
Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Thank you, as a previous Arts minister as well in the Northern Territory, and one of a team that has been growing the arts and culture throughout our time in government.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by concurring with the Minister for Arts and Museums. The Alice Springs Festival has commenced in Alice Springs. On the weekend I attended the junior performance of the Wearable Arts Competition at the Araluen Arts Centre. It was an amazing display of creativity, liveliness, of kids with the most amazing creations strutting their stuff on the catwalk. It was truly impressive. It was fun. I took my 11-year-old daughter, Alice, and my 12-year-old son, Harry, and we had a fabulous time enjoying the wonderful creations of children in Alice Springs
Second, I would like talk about and pay tribute to the Alice Springs firefighters and volunteers. This week has been a hellish time in Central Australia with bushfires running out of control in and around Alice Springs. I acknowledge the untiring work and commitment of our emergency management crews, the firefighters, the volunteers, the backup staff, the families of the firefighters and, indeed, the families and people who have been affected by the bush fires in Central Australia.
The prison was threatened earlier in the week. Many pastoral properties have been affected. We have had people living on their homelands around the Golden Mile outside of Alice Springs. It has been a really tough time for some people in Central Australia and parliament needs to acknowledge the good work and the untiring work because it is a hard job; it is frightening, it is incredibly exhausting work. My father was a volunteer fireman in my home town for 25 years. I know how hard it is. You work through hours that are difficult on your family and work commitments. Congratulations to everyone who has been involved. It is an honourable and good thing to do for the community.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak on behalf of one of my constituents. I am going to read parts of a letter and will refer to that person as ‘constituent’, and I will refer to his business as ‘other’ as the minister for Fisheries moves around the Chamber. Maybe he should have stayed.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows reference to presence or absence of individuals ...
Mr BOHLIN: I withdraw that. As the Fisheries minister moves around.
This is a letter I wrote to Honourable Kon Vatskalis, NT minister for Fisheries. This is dated 12 July and is a recapped letter:
Dear Minister,
- I am writing to you on behalf of Mr ‘Constituent’ who is interested in the proposed caretaker position and kiosk proposed for the Palmerston boat ramp. Mr Constituent has asked your ministerial staff, your electorate officer, and your department staff for information about the position within, without success.
Mr Constituent emailed you on 6 April 2011 seeking this information. A copy was attached. I wrote to you in December on behalf of Mr Constituent and an ‘other’, asking if a kiosk was proposed for the development. You did not respond.
Follow up requests were made to your ministerial office in February and again in April. Information supplied verbally was provided to Mr Constituent and the other. Copy attached.
Will you please provide Mr Constituent with the information he is seeking. The other operator still wants to know when expressions of interest will be called for the provision of a caretaker and kiosk service at the Palmerston boat ramp. Will you please tell me when you expect to advertise for expressions of interest?
Member for Drysdale.
I will go through a time line, because it is important. This is a ministerial position we are talking about. This is a minister, who has good, hard-working staff, but the reality is, this is a letter to the minister and we still do not have a reply as recently as - I printed this off at 4.53 pm today, and my electorate officer is still in the office. We do not have a reply from your staff.
So, dear minister for Fisheries, the Honourable Kon Vatskalis, I first sent a letter to you on 31 December 2010 in relation to the Palmerston boat ramp kiosk and caretaker. On 1 and 2 February 2011, follow up phone calls were made to the minister’s office. We were told to expect a response in 10 days. That was February. On 24 February 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke said: ‘Security compound has not been erected due to record rain falls and will not be until there has been two weeks of dry weather and you will receive a formal response very soon, which will include this advice’.
On 13 May 2011, a development application was advertised. That is good to see. There is still no response from the minister’s office, though. We started in December and there was still no response at 13 May. On 12 July 2011, a second letter was sent. That is the one I just read out, to the minister with information regarding Mr Constituent. There were personal and determined efforts to get a response from the minister’s office.
On 15 August 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke from the minister’s office, said: ‘You will receive a formal response in a few days’. That was at the beginning of this week. On 18 August 2011, a follow up phone call was made to the minister’s office. A Mr Ray Clarke said: ‘Database is faulty.’ He cannot tell if the letter has been sent and he will call back. If it had been sent, he undertook to provide a scanned copy via e-mail. We still do not have that scanned copy. The letter has not been sent. This started in December and, you know what? We were just asking a simple question on behalf of a constituent and a local business: are there going to be expressions of interests called in a caretaker’s facility and a kiosk at the Palmerston boat ramp?
The compound is all fenced now. There is no caretaker facility but the point is, as a minister, that is poor, December until now, December until August. Your staff tried to put us off for another week so we would not speak about it here in parliament, but no. Minister, that is shameful. It is probably one of the simplest questions a minister will face. Is there, or is there not, going to be a kiosk and a security compound at the Palmerston boat ramp? It is not hard. It is a pretty poor effort from a minister who has been under fire about health all day. It is pretty shameful, really.
Whilst I am on my feet, I also managed to enjoy some of the Darwin Festival last Saturday night and thoroughly enjoyed Cantina. The function prior at Brown’s Mart was a fantastic event as well. I even found myself some dinner before I went there, so between various functions on the night, Saturday night was pretty flat out, I managed to get some food over here at the Darwin Festival Park, and fantastic to think that for $10 you can get yourself a good meal - absolutely brilliant.
The Lighthouse is spectacular in itself. It is a fantastic environment to be in. The performers are amazing, somewhat risqu in Cantina, but nonetheless amazing. The company for the night, the people I was chatting with, including the Leader of the Opposition and other Darwinites, fantastic. It was great spending some time with you guys, having a laugh, and even whilst I was having my dinner, listening to people sing from within the Lighthouse. It was a beautiful event and the organisers should be commended for their great effort. So, thank you very much.
We have a great weekend coming. Those who do not always remember, including the member for Nelson, the Palmerston Markets on Friday nights are a fantastic event. You should get yourself down there. Bring your family along, plenty of spots to sit down. Come along, say hello, shake my hand, and see how the rest of Palmerston and the rest of the world lives, because Palmerston is the greatest place to be.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, Coolalinga Markets every Saturday morning, Berry Springs Markets every Sunday morning, be there, you will find out how the real people live.
I would like to say something tonight in support of marriage, as lately it seems to be under threat by people who have other agendas. Marriage is a commitment, and I made that with my wife, Imelda, nearly 38 years ago. I married her because I loved her and still love her. It has not been an easy marriage, and because of this job she has now installed voice recognition equipment at the back door of the house, because she rarely sees me, but we are still together. My marriage was, and still is, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, until death do us part.
Marriage is a commitment for the rest of my life, but it is more than that. Through this relationship, we have had three wonderful children, because we are man and woman, we are mum and dad, and now a nanna and a poppa. Marriage is not a guarantee for everlasting love, or a recipe for eternal happiness as can be seen by the number of divorces and marriage breakdowns in this country. I know the pain of marriage breakdown in my own family. There are probably many reasons for that, but that does not make marriage a bad thing.
But marriage today is under threat. Some want to copy it. Some want to use it for their own purposes. Some want to change the meaning of marriage, but marriage for me is a special bond between a man and a woman, where a commitment is made publically and, in some cases, before God. I know there are other relationships. I am simply saying tonight that I have a right, which I think is under threat, to stick up for marriage, as we know it, as a very special relationship that has served humanity well. Even with its failings, it is the central core of our society for many years.
On another subject, I got a copy of this today, which is called, Have Your Say. I ran into Shane Stringer, who I have known for many years, and he has put together this comic, which is going to be available tomorrow as part of open day. It is a great production, teaching kids how to vote. It is all about some students who went to Gunnalearnya Boarding School and they were going to have a school election. It has a foreword by Bill Shepheard, the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner, and all the artwork, and I presume the words, are by Shane Stringer.
If you want a way for young people to learn about how to vote, this is a great example of how to do it. Besides all the cartoon characters in it, different kids from the school, it has little spots where it says:
- Know all the facts’. In Australia at 16 you can get on the roll, but you cannot vote until you are 18.
Know all the facts. The candidate is someone who is standing for election.
Know all the facts. As you approach the polling place you may be handed a how-to-vote card by the candidate or their helpers. These cards show the candidate’s recommendations. They are only a suggestion and don’t need to be followed. It’s your choice how you number the paper.
This document - this document! Too much parliamentary speak! This comic in plain speak is a great contribution by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. It is a means of getting information out to young people to help promote amongst them not only how to vote, but to promote the whole concept of democracy, which is very important. I thank Bill Shepheard, and I especially thank my old mate, Shane Stringer, for the usual excellent job he has done in cartooning. I am not sure this year, because he is working for the Electoral Commission, how our Christmas cards are going to go. I hope Bill can give us some exemptions …
Mr Chandler: I thought it was us on the front.
Mr WOOD: It probably is us on the front, member for Brennan. Once again, I say great job and well done on the work that they have done.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say a couple of things in regard to what happened this week with a few issues around the Nightcliff Middle School. I have learnt in this House that things very quickly become history after they have been twisted somewhat. That has already started to occur here with the minister for Education who has come into this House and made some accusations and so forth. I read Hansard and it was interesting to note the minister came in here and named the ministerial advisor that had made a particular phone call.
I just want to step through it. Yes, I was speaking to a young lady who had spoken to me both on the phone and through e-mail in regard to a few issues that had been raised at the Nightcliff Middle School. Interestingly enough, that same person was very enthusiastic and appreciative of what the department had done to alleviate some concerns within the Nightcliff Middle School. Even with the media the other day, she went to great pains to explain to the journalist that she was – in fact, that was how she started out her statement - very appreciative of the government department and its action taken with some of the issues faced at Nightcliff Middle School.
Nonetheless, there were still issues, including a lack of teachers in the science and maths area; that was how the year started out and it was not until recently that some of those things were addressed. The point is the school, the council, and this particular parent, were very impressed with the way the government or the department in this case had acted.
From there, the same lady contacted me again to raise some concerns about a particular staff member and some other people who had attended the Nightcliff Middle School council meeting. It was thought these government staffers were turning up to talk about some of the issues at Nightcliff Middle School; however, the strange thing was, and the complaint was, they were there to talk about the skate park. As soon as they had addressed the issue of a skate park and tabled letters from the member for Nightcliff, they left. People I have spoken to felt the situation was unusual given they thought they were there to talk about the issues around Nightcliff Middle School, not just about the skate park. What then happened was I received an e-mail from my electorate officer saying the same lady had received a phone call from a member of Dr Burns’ staff which made her feel very unsettled.
This is where I need to correct the record. I did not mention the staff member’s name in this House. In fact, I read from the e-mail and my electorate officer thought the person referred to was named Rod, and the e-mail referred to Rod. At that stage, I did not have any idea who the member might be. I figured it may be someone else, but I read from the e-mail and I said the name Rod. I do not know who the minister has working for him in his office. I do not know how many staff he has. I do not know who would be contacting this person, but I did not know at the time which staff member had contacted the person. It was not until the minister and I had a conversation in the Chamber where the minister mentioned his senior advisor, and I agree that it is out of character for the person I know.
In fact, I have never regarded this advisor as someone who would talk to someone as was described to me. It was the minister who used the word ‘bullying’. It was the minister who used the word ‘intimidation’. There was another word and it escapes me. He mentioned his ministerial advisor. At no stage did I mention him. I want to correct the record because things in this House get out of hand because the truth is often twisted when messages are repeated.
I have already drafted the letter. I will be taking the minister up on his offer to visit Nightcliff Middle School. I look forward to visiting Nightcliff Middle School and look forward to, in the future, people coming to me as local member or, in this case, shadow minister for Education. Will I be taking on their issue? Damn right I will, because that is what I do. That is what I have to do and, if they feel in any way unsettled by a phone call or whatever, will I be raising that? Yes, I will, because that is what we should be doing.
You might think this has got a little out of hand and I have been accusing Nightcliff Middle School of doing that. One thing I will say in this House is we have some damn good teachers in the Northern Territory. We have perhaps the best principals I have ever seen working in schools, and we have some very good school councils. Can we improve on education in the Territory? We can. Does it require changes to the curriculum? Perhaps it does to lift the level of our academic achievement. The minister agrees with this, I agree with it, everyone in this Chamber agrees that education is important, and the government calls it the number one priority; I agree with that; it is the number one priority.
To come into this House and twist the way things have turned out and all of a sudden push it across to this side that we are the enemy, it had nothing to do with education, and trying to put me in the frame that I might not want to front Nightcliff Middle School. I want to front Nightcliff Middle School and tell exactly what has happened. I am proud I stood up for a parent of the school. There is nothing that has happened here, nothing whatsoever, that I would not repeat because that is our job, and the job of members on the government side, to stand up for their local constituents, or, in this case, as the shadow minister for Education, to stand up for someone who raised issues about education. But do not try to twist it. That is how it happened. And I will do it again.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to do a review, if you like, of the last two weeks of parliament to ask those interested tragics who watch parliament and listen to parliament to the death throes of the final days of sittings, to examine what has occurred in the last couple of weeks.
In the last two weeks we have seen a substantial change in the sleeping leviathan that is the Northern Territory Labor government which seems to be have been aroused by something into a state of higher consciousness expressed by a lower quality of behaviour.
I have been struck by the focus the Labor government has brought to bear against their rivals, namely, us, the Country Liberals. What I find curious in this process is that the Country Liberals have occupied so much of the cerebral activity of the collective minds across the Chamber from us and doubtlessly on the 5th floor of this House. What it has produced is a change in style. The stylistic change will suit some of the members opposite. We are used to tirades of abuse from some of the members, but other members have chosen to read out the speeches shoved into their hands and to put in the barbs against the CLP.
There are the constant attacks about what the CLP will do in government, and what the CLP has done in government in the past, and how dreadful we are, and how the dark clouds of dismalness will return should the CLP government return to power. The government is using this interesting tactic because it is now starting to express an idea that the best form of defence is attack.
What I am surprised at, despite their best efforts, is how spartan the recent information, in particular, is at their disposal. It is surprising to hear the names of Denis Burke and Steve Dunham intoned by members opposite in reference to their attacks. They have to go back 15 to 20 years to find sources of attack on the current Country Liberals. That has a ‘stalky’ quality to it. It will not be long before they break into our houses, go through our sock drawers, or perhaps rummage through our rubbish bins in an effort to find some dastardly secret they might use.
It is an interesting tactic because it misses the point in one important area. A government, which is entirely focused on the people who sit opposite them in a parliament, is not focused on the job it should be doing for the people of the Northern Territory. I would hope the spin doctors on the fifth floor are cognisant of this because I have the hide of a rhinoceros after 11 years in this place collectively. They can abuse me all they like on that side of the House, but in truth, it means their focus is on the wrong place.
I will give you an example of this. I was upstairs and was interrupted on a couple of occasions, but I was listening to the adjournment debate of the member for Drysdale. The member for Drysdale, quite rightfully, raised an issue which clearly has been unattended to by this government since he originally raised it with the government back in December, I think you said, member for Drysdale. This government hears the member’s complaint and, lo and behold, the member for Drysdale informs me that as soon as he sat down, his electorate officer, who is at his electorate office - I notice, member for Drysdale, you have a dedicated electorate officer if she is there at half past six or whatever it is at night …
Mr Bohlin: She is great value.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that, pop, onto the screen came a letter from the minister saying: ‘We have sorted out the problem’, and it is dated 15 August. Okay. Presuming, just for one second, in the unlikely event this date of 15 August is accurate - presuming we have not just bumped a little and changed the rubber stamp a few days back so we can make it look like we were attending to the matter a few days ago. In truth, if you raise an issue with government in December nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens. Then the Country Liberals raise the issue in this Chamber and, within 10 minutes, e-mails are being sent around; ministers are running around assuring people that things are happening. It just shows you that the focus on the Country Liberals is justified - justified in the sense that the punters out there now know that to come to us is to get things done but, moreover, it means government is still responding to the issues of Territorians as political issues. Quick, get rid of the bad news story by whatever means we can. Work late. Send the e-mail as soon as the member for Drysdale, or member for Port Darwin, or the member for Sanderson, raises it. Make it look like we are doing something.
The Leviathan stirs into life based on a simple fallacy - to look like you are doing something is to govern. No more is that manifest than in the tender for the rebranding of this tired, lazy, arrogant Labor government, which still does not understand that its function is to govern for the people of the Northern Territory rather than to buy advertising space. We see that manifest and writ large across our television screens every night, as ad after ad after ad tells us not to beat our wives, to produce our driving licences when we are buying alcohol, and what a great job the government is doing in a whole raft of areas. The ads do not work, but the government does not care. It does not care that these ads do not work, so long as we have the advertising space. That is not good governance; it is a concern about what you look like.
The tendering to rebrand yourself is a concern about what you look like. Advertising ad nauseum, on television, radio, and in newspapers, is a concern about what you look like. It has nothing any more to do with governance. It has gone. The idea of governance has gone. That is something the public service does. We just have to stay in power come what may. We make ourselves a small target regarding things like the member of Drysdale raised in the House tonight. We make ourselves a small target in terms of doing anything. We try our hardest to make ourselves a small target on any other issue that we possibly can, and we buy millions upon millions of taxpayer-funded advertising and get the message out there that we are doing a great job.
It is all about the tag line: ‘written and authorised by the Northern Territory government, Darwin’. That is all it is about. It is cynical, it is facile, it is puerile, and it does not convince anyone. Just look at the comments in the Northern Territory News every time a story runs on government. There is comment after comment, people saying they are tired of being treated like that. If that is the only thing they have left in their locker, then they have nothing left. The problem is that taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay and pay until the next Territory election whilst they continue to produce nothing and leave governance up to the public service.
I am already starting to get the sense that the government has entered a caretaker mode. Their language, as the Labor Party, is becoming more political and they are doing less and less. They have tried to get their hard decisions out of the way early, and now they want to cover their tracks in all sorts of ways. They made sure the Ombudsman no longer has powers to investigate child offences. They made sure the Ombudsman no longer has control of the Health Complaints Commission. They made sure that crime statistical reporting will not be reported until after the next Territory election, with the exception of the June quarter this year. It is all about message management, and so be it.
The fact is that Territorians are starting to see through it. The constituent who Mr Bohlin, the member for Drysdale, was defending tonight, has been well-served by the member for Drysdale, but it is a shame that this government responds to that sort of prodding, rather than saying to itself, this is how we should do our job all the time, punctually, accurately, completely, concisely, and correctly.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the attendance of a bunch of young Territorians who came to the parliamentary sittings over the last fortnight and those are students from Wagaman Primary School.
Wagaman Primary School is in the northern suburbs of Darwin. It is in what we call the green belt. It is a well-established neighbourhood close to the Casuarina Shopping Square. It is one of the schools built about 30 years ago and it is still standing. It has been upgraded and modernised. It sits in a beautiful green area with well-established trees, ovals, a good little shopping centre close by, preschool, and a childcare centre, all wrapped up in the middle of the suburb.
These young people came to look at the Westminster system of democracy and this fine building in which we sit. They had a great time. I acknowledge the people in the Parliamentary Education Unit for doing such a great job looking after these young people and teaching them about what happens in this establishment.
I would like to acknowledge each of these young people by name, as they came here, they participated in all of the activities, and they were extremely excited to be in this building to look at the various aspects of what we do here and where we do it:
- Gracie Ah Mat; Daniel Ayoub; Jay Boyd-Latham; Patrick Kelleher; Jett Leong; Anna Nowlan; Michael Panatos; Quianna Ramos; Nicola Spencer-Houghton; Kate Stark; Colby Tiller; Bryce Walters; Felicia Wilson; Adrian Andan; Sophie McLean; Caleb Alcock; Evangelia Anapliotis; Nicholas Anthoulis; Latoya Collinson; Casey Faggion; Zach Groves; Tahni Kiely-Leger; Tyla Kingdon; Vanesa Mvuyekure; Charlotte Overson; Mitchell Stitfold; Tiani Lias; Dion Williams; Jessica Campbell; Katerina Kortesis; Sevasti Moores; Kebbeh Duo; Matalau Higlett; Manolis Maillis; Dominic Thompson; Maryam Razi; Jhester Ken Dela Cruz; Kenisha Dhamarrandji; Jericho Gill; Basit Onifade; Kateea Hodgins; Klubo Balah; Bernadette Bunduck; Joshua Costello; Nikolaos Frazis; Theologis Kortesis; Holly Rossiter; Savvina Skillas; Damien Vincent; Paw Wah; and Manolis Zaroufis
The other issue I raise is a send-off to a young lady who has contributed much to Darwin. Unfortunately and sadly, she has chosen to leave the Territory and move to South Australia where she will start a new life. The lady’s name is Lesley Ann Hodge and she is the daughter of long-term Territorians, Bill and Lesley Hodge.
Bill and Lesley both grew up in Darwin. When you talk to them, they tell stories about the old Star Theatre, the baths down at Larrakeyah, and the fruit and vegie farms at Nightcliff. They have much corporate history and have been trying to record some of that because they too, unfortunately, will be leaving the Territory shortly and moving to South Australia.
Lesley Ann holds a record in this country for being at one stage the youngest person to hold a pilot’s licence. Back in those days you could not obtain a pilot’s licence until you were 16 years of age. She completed her test on her 16th birthday and was given a pilot’s licence. There are some great photos of that event and it is something of which Bill and Lesley are very proud.
Lesley worked for Airnorth back in those days, not as a pilot, but as a flight attendant, and flew in all types of aircraft, one of which is an historic aircraft maintained and still owned by Hardy Aviation. It was part of the tour of the Tiwi Islands craft that was used to ferry tourists from Darwin to the Tiwi Islands. That aircraft, and she is very proud of having flown in it, is an old World War II DC-3. Its call sign is MMA, mike-mike-alpha, which is the flagship for what was MacRobertson Miller Airlines. The aircraft is an historic plane now and a flying museum piece. It is well and truly maintained as part of the Hardy Aviation aircraft stock. It is still flying. It is a regular in the skies of Darwin, especially at sunset when the flight crew often take it out to give it a run around the skies. It is something to look out for and I sincerely hope Hardy Aviation is able to keep it flying for many years to come.
In the meantime, we in the Sanderson electorate wish Lesley Ann the very best in her future. It is sad to lose people, but that is what happens in the Territory. Some people go, but I am sure at some stage she will return, as many others who spend most of their life in Darwin will return to what is the greatest place in this country.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016