2008-10-29
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is very nice to look out and see a sea of pink. I thank you for being involved in this Pink Ribbon Day. I look forward to us having a photograph taken later in the day at 1.50 pm, just before Question Time. I am also giving away four gift vouchers, but I think I must exempt members from being possible awardees, although I will see what the staff look like. I have invited staff to join us at 1.45 pm and we will get a group photograph which we will send to the Breast Cancer Foundation as a show of support from our parliament.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2972 petitioners relating to official birth and death certificates. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 659 petitioners praying that an independent review be commissioned to assess the adequacy of the resources, policies, procedures and systems at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Mr ELFERINK: I just wanted to make a few comments to the motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think so, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it is a motion, Madam Speaker. He has moved a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice, thank you. Member for Port Darwin, you can seek leave to speak.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak.
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, last week I gave a report to this House on the global financial crisis and the potential impacts on the Northern Territory. At the time, I pointed out that the Northern Territory was well positioned to cope with an uncertain global future; we have a sound financial position. Our economy is strong and the INPEX project adds an extra level of insurance against the crisis.
In the weeks since I provided this report, the Australian dollar has continued to decline in value against the United States dollar. Earlier this year, the Australian dollar was trading in the high 90s, up to around US98, and people were contemplating the possibility of crashing through the $US1 mark. The Australian dollar is now close to a five-year low and, while we still face the potential of it dropping below US60, it did rebound overnight to gain 3 to 64. Such volatility is not confined to the Australian dollar. The Japanese Yen fell 5% against the US dollar in yesterday’s trading session.
In recent days, the Reserve Bank of Australia has been intervening by purchasing Australian dollars to prop up its value. A declining Australian dollar brings mixed views for Australian and Territory businesses. For importers, a declining dollar can be damaging as the goods they import become more expensive, although it should be mentioned that large capital equipment items, particularly for heavy industry, usually have hedging contracts in place that limit the effects of currency fluctuations. Territory exporters can stand to benefit. Cattle exporters can expect a positive effect as their cattle become more competitively priced on international markets.
Tourism, in particular, has the potential to receive a boost as the purchasing power of international tourists is improved. There is also potential benefit from domestic tourism as Australians choose to holiday in their own country to avoid the increased cost of international travel. On a declining dollar alone, the Territory mining industry would stand to benefit, but there are factors at present that can potentially affect the industry. Territory mining will be affected to the extent that their contracts are set in US dollars. Their profits in Australian dollars may rise, but this could be offset by falling commodity prices and falling demand.
Growth in China is expected to moderate, and this has the potential to affect the Territory. However, there is also the widely-held view that the Chinese government will not let it moderate too dramatically and will step in with government expenditure to keep growth stable. China, like many other countries, has lowered its official cash rate to help stimulate economic activity. Like most aspects of this global crisis, it is not possible to accurately predict the impact it will have on China and the flow-on effects to Australia and our own Territory.
From a government perspective, borrowings in the Territory budget are not affected, as we did not, and do not intend to, borrow internationally. The Rudd government has continued to take the implications of the global crisis very seriously. They have proven they are ready to act as necessary to protect the interests of Australian families as best they can. Since my report last week, they have continued to act with further initiatives, including a package of measures designed to support small business through the crisis and an $83m funding boost to financial regulators to ensure they have the resources required to deal with the crisis and protect Australia’s interests.
Despite these recent changes, the fundamentals of the report I provided last week remain true. Under the Henderson government, the Northern Territory is in a very sound financial position. Our economy is strong and, with record low unemployment, we are well placed. The INPEX project remains an insurance policy against an uncertain financial future. Overnight, the Dow Jones went up 11% in the US, the second highest point gain ever. In early trading this morning, this rise has flowed on to the Australian market. It is encouraging but it really only proves one thing: things are still not stable and we continue to face that uncertainty and volatility. The Northern Territory government will continue to monitor the situation very closely and do everything it can to ensure Territory families are not adversely affected.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one dorothy dixer, two ministerial reports, and a holiday is this Treasurer’s response to the international financial crisis. This is a matter of great import for the Territory. It is all very well for the Treasurer to come in here and say INPEX will improve the numbers for the Territory because it is going to go up because of the lower Australian dollar. Whilst gas in/gas out through the proposed project is valued at $50bn, the ACIL Tasman report identified that, from a taxation income, a projection of about $10m a year is about it for the Northern Territory.
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - the Treasurer can do, in such a small economy as the one she is in charge of in the Northern Territory to, in any way, affect the international financial crisis. I do not believe that she is, in actual fact, trying to claim that she can. However, she should be keeping the House much better informed than two ministerial reports, one dorothy dixer and a holiday.
There are areas where this government is exposed and they are not talking about it, not least of which is the decision by government to place the Conditions of Service Reserve into the hands of financial managers, which are now playing out on the stock market. If the minister really wants to tell us about the exposure of the Northern Territory in relation to the current situation the government faces in terms of exposure to the stock market, then answer this one simple question: what was the Community Benefit Reserve worth 12 months ago, and what is it worth today? And, will you assure Territorians that you will not touch the Community Benefit Reserve other than for the purpose it was created, which is to offset against superannuation funds into the future? Otherwise this report, as usual, is a farce.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin beats his chest and likes to fling accusations across the Chamber …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … but the reality is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … the Northern Territory government is acutely aware of what it can do to ensure confidence - and confidence is a key issue during this volatility - in our local economy. Just as we saw the Rudd government come forward with a $10.4bn economic stimulus package around the confidence and the opportunity for Australians when times are tough, the Territory government this week came forward with a $6m economic stimulus package in our residential housing.
The member for Port Darwin is wrong in saying that we are doing nothing, but quite correct in saying that we cannot affect the global financial market. We take these matters very seriously. ACOSA is absolutely sound. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report will show the figures which the shadow Treasurer is so keen to see.
Mr Elferink: When is that going to be tabled?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I draw your attention …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, order!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Marrara Christian School Year 7 students, accompanied by Mrs Anna Clark and Mr Jon Russo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak of important developments under way since I assumed the role of minister for Workplace Health and Safety, in particular the creation of a forum to constructively resolve work safety issues in the housing sector.
The Northern Territory economy has been expanding rapidly over the past five years. Many construction industries, including the housing construction sector, have faced challenges to meet demand arising from this strong economic environment. The INPEX decision will inevitably heighten demand for the entire range of construction services in the Top End. The government is planning ahead to ensure this growth is managed efficiently.
There have also been substantial and ongoing reforms of work safety over the past 18 months at the national and Territory levels. Australian and national standards have been developed for particular matters, such as electrical installation, which form part of all jurisdictions’ regulations and can be found in regulation schedules. Other Australian standards are not referenced in regulations and have no primary legal status. They are developed to provide industry with information and guidelines for safe methods of operation, construction and design. Codes of practice are also in place which, while not having the same status as law, provide practical guidance on how to control risk and set minimum standards required to meet legal obligations.
Most importantly, in the Northern Territory, the Workplace Health and Safety Act commenced operation earlier this year, following extensive consultation with industry. The interaction of these various levels of regulation and guidelines can be undeniably complex, but the goal is simple. In this area of skills shortages across Australia, attracting and keeping skilled workers is a key issue for Territory businesses. A safe working environment is essential to attracting and retaining workers. We need to keep our workers on-site and working safely.
The housing, or cottage industry, as it is called, has expressed some uncertainly as to what these national regulatory reforms mean regarding enforcement of safe working practices on construction sites; and fair enough, it is a complex area of law. To assist in the implementation and understanding of these changes, and following discussions with industry groups and companies, I have formed the Housing Industry Consultative Committee. The committee will meet regularly to work through industry queries and concerns.
I am pleased to inform the House that the former CEO of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Mr John Pinney, has taken on the role of an independent facilitator and will chair proceedings. The committee is made up of individual builders, representatives from the HIA and the TCA, a subcontractor and Northern Territory WorkSafe.
The committee met for the first time on Monday, 20 October, with further meetings scheduled for November and December. I welcome the opportunity to meet representatives at the October meeting held in Parliament House and have made the commitment to attend all meetings to ensure all parties have the ability to raise issues directly with me. The committee will provide advice to government on how the Territory can continue to harmonise workplace safety regulations with national standards, while minimising cost to the Northern Territory housing construction sector. I look forward to the committee’s recommendations coming to me for action in December.
I conclude by noting that in the Territory we are lucky to have some of the best builders and subcontractors around. They are homegrown and have been on Darwin work sites, many of them, for decades; or, they are new to town, attracted by ready work and a great lifestyle, and we want those people to stay.
This government wants to work with industry to maintain appropriate safety levels, but ensure they are free to get the job done. Judging by the discussions from our first meeting and the positive feedback that I have had, I believe we are on track to ensure a strong, safe housing industry sector for the Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his statement. Of course, workplace health and safety is an important issue. We know the TCA has come out and said its concern is that the relatively new legislation will create an additional impost on construction. It is always a case of getting the balance right. I am sure, well, I like to think, that government, if convinced that it does not have the balance right in its ongoing meetings with those involved in the industry, that it would come back and amend the legislation. Government is not shy of amending legislation and certainly not shy of amending the legislation if it is wrong, which is happening on an increasing basis.
I note that the member for Johnston as Attorney-General is talking reasonably passionately about safety in the workplace. It is a shame that he and his colleagues do not regard safety in the community as important. We have on the Notice Paper, for instance, from 18 September, this statement of government increasing police presence to make communities safer. It has not been revisited since we came back to these sittings.
On the government’s present appalling form, it does not look like you are going to get to it either. On the one hand you say: ‘We are very concerned about workplace safety’. You should be concerned about the safety of all Territorians in every community around the Territory which is why you should not be so soft on crime, and why you should have supported our amendments to both the Bail Act and the Sentencing Act. You are a bunch of hypocrites. How you can sit there and spin the sort of diatribe you do is, frankly, beyond comprehension.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. The Leader of the Opposition and I met with some builders earlier this year and they certainly had concerns about the increase in safety requirements. As the member for Araluen said, we have to find the balance between safety and the cost of building. One of their concerns was that some of these changes were based on Commonwealth requirements for industrial safety on industrial buildings.
Another area they were concerned about is that some of these changes were based on figures regarding fatalities and injuries on building sites in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that when one of these builders asked for details of where these fatalities and injuries occurred, he was not permitted to have those details.
I ask the minister that when this committee is up and running that some of the questions the builders have put forward are adequately answered. I believe they are reasonable questions. No one denies the fact that we have to make sure that builders on building sites are safe, but we have to make sure that we keep our feet on the ground - it might to be the wrong pun to use in this case - but we need to make sure that the changes some people are putting forward are practical and reasonable and not beyond the scope of reality.
I welcome the minister’s idea of having this committee. If it goes to finding solutions to the problems builders have and still keeps our workers safe, it would be great.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that this is a government that is concerned with the safety of Territorians, whether it is on the streets, or in their homes. This specific report was about safety in the workplace and this is something that is of great concern to government. There can be nothing worse for a family than someone to come home from the worksite severely injured or, even worse, for a breadwinner not to come home at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: This is serious stuff, and I will say it again, this is a complex area of law. We have Commonwealth regulations and Commonwealth guidelines that, as I understand it, may have been implemented or moved along in consultation with national industry bodies and not the sort of engagement that really should have occurred at a local level. So that is one of the issues …
Mr Conlan: What are you saying?
Dr BURNS: Well, we are talking over a considerable period of time, members opposite. So that is one of the issues we are dealing with; and interaction between what is a guideline and what is actually statute. I have every confidence in this committee working through these issues. I also thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I thank him for his support for this particular committee and I will endeavour to get that information to him.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report on the inaugural elections for our new shire councils held on Saturday, 25 October 2008. This day was a truly historic day; a day when Territorians had their say on who will represent them as councillors in our brand new shire councils.
Two years after the announcement of our local government reforms we will soon see councillors take their place as the leaders of the shire councils, and our long awaited new era of local government in the Territory will properly begin. A new era with the great majority of the Territory now incorporated within the local government area, a system of solid and well managed shire councils replacing the inherently unstable mix of small, isolated and financially unstable local government bodies. It is a new era of consistent service delivery for Territorians living in the bush and a revised and refreshed Local Government Act.
There were 31 elections held across the Territory on Saturday: a popular election for shire president of the Barkly Shire and a popular election for the president of the Litchfield Council; and elections for councillors to represent the 29 local government wards.
Honourable members will be aware that there has been media commentary about some voters being unaware of the election or of the policies of candidates. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission was engaged by the shires to conduct the elections and to ensure the accountability and impartiality of the electoral process. Promotional work began in July 2008 with community visits and an enrolment drive. In recent months, the Department of Local Government and Housing regional staff, in cooperation with shire staff, have conducted many visits across the Territory, providing information and raising awareness of the elections and the opportunity of shire residents to have their say in the development of their shires.
More recently, there have been television commercials on regional stations; extensive radio advertising, including in local Indigenous language; posters; audio information in local Indigenous languages; information flyers; presentations, and using our local government reform website to get the message out.
In relation to publicity and information about candidates’ policies, there are four key issues: candidates are responsible for promoting their policies; voters have some responsibility to inform themselves and take advantage of information sources; the level of local media reporting of candidates and their views; and the role of government and the extent to which it might financially support candidates’ information being available, without becoming involved in promoting individual candidates. These are issues across Australia and I look forward to any comments the Electoral Commissioner, the expert in conducting elections, has in these issues following the review of the elections.
In recent days there has been media comment about low voter turn out. We need to ensure we are commenting on the facts, not speculation. I will wait with interest to see the final figures relating to voter participation. I expect the answer is that there will be some patchiness - high voter turn out in some areas and low numbers in other areas - reflecting the multitude of factors which influence voter participation.
A total of 211 candidates contested 117 positions for elected members in our new shires, as well as councillors for Coomalie, Litchfield, and Wagait Councils. I was impressed by many prominent and well-known community members nominating as candidates; Territorians put up their hands to be part of the future of local government in the Territory. I commend Territorians making the commitment to stand for election, and I congratulate those who will be announced on 3 November 2008 as the elected councillors.
I am expecting council meetings will be held within 14 days of the declaration of the results, and I am looking forward to meeting and working with the newly-elected councils.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Local Government for his report this morning. I join with him in congratulating the successful candidates in the election held on Saturday, even though those results will not be announced until probably late this week or early next week. I also commend the people who put their hand up to represent the people in their particular wards. It is important that local people in the Northern Territory get involved in their shires, bring to those shires their opinions and ideas, and have a say on how the local government system will work in their particular areas.
However, I note that there was an extremely low voter turn out on Saturday. If the government can be believed, that was the result of poor advertising or whatever; I do not know. Maybe the candidates did not get out enough and state their intentions and their policies. The bottom line is - and I am not a betting man, but if I were - I would put money on the fact that many people did not bother to vote on Saturday because they feel defeated. They feel defeated because the system, the new government reform, has let them down in so many areas. It was a rushed process. Although there was some consultation it is widely recognised across those shires that the consultation was simply not listened to by the government. I feel that the low voter turn out reflects the manner and the way this local government reform was implemented, at the beginning through its early stages and through until the present time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I make one note at the beginning. The minister keeps harping on the so-called fact that many councils were in a bad state, and obviously some were. However, when you make a broad statement like that, you actually put down those councils that were quite financially viable, who had hard-working CEOs and hard-working councillors working for their community. Nauiyu council, for example, was a good council, and there were quite a few others. The government, in its argument about having super shires, should ensure it does not denigrate those good councils which operated well but were amalgamated in the amalgamation process.
I agree with the minister that one of the problems with local government councils - whether it is a super shire, Litchfield Shire, or small councils - is that local government, unfortunately, does not rate very highly in peoples’ ideas of government or their concerns about government, until the rates turn up, or the pothole occurs outside their front gate. Therefore, it requires candidates to make more effort to go out into the community and say who they are. That is a big enough problem in Litchfield Shire, which has just four wards. This is one of the problems which will continue with the huge councils.
One of the northern councils in the Barkly Shire, at the last count I saw, 199 people had voted. There were three candidates. It is about a third the size of Victoria. Even though it might be easy for me to stand here today and say: ‘Go out and tell people who you are’, can you imagine the effort that is required to go out to all places in such a big area?
There is a role for LGANT - it needs to go out there as well. Because the councils did not have councillors when they started, the CEOs could also have played an important role in promoting the elections. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. It is very much about getting involved. These councils do a great job. They are on the ground doing the basic services they need to, and playing a key role in regional development. This process of local government reform has been coming for over 10 years. Both sides of the House, and the Independent, have said there is a need for local government reform. It was this government that delivered it and we will work with what we have and it will evolve over time.
I believe it is about moving ahead. We have a new structure, new legislation, and new leaders. We all need to embrace them and support them in delivering local government reform, but also playing a key role in regional development. I accept the comments made by the member for Nelson about Nauiyu Nambiyu. It is a good council. I hope that all communities within the Victoria Daly Shire come up to the standard that Nauiyu Nambiyu set within its functions. I look forward to working with them in the future.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is an important bill, though any attempt to explain this to members opposite will require an extraordinary effort on the part of opposition. The capacity to hear and understand beyond spin appears to elude this government. When we went to the early election that was called on supposed grounds, the good people of the Northern Territory assessed those grounds and found those grounds wanting. It was a spurious call.
The community was very concerned, and remains very concerned, about the need to shift the balance from offender to victim - to redress the balance. Those good folk in our community have weighed very carefully the attitude and the actions of this Labor government. In running a campaign, if your objective is solely and predominantly to hold onto power, as we have seen, a government - this government - will do whatever it takes to achieve that objective. And that comes to the issue of the messages that are delivered and the impression that has been established in the minds of the community. Fortunately, due to the good judgement of the community, they have found the message wanting in its credibility and believability. They know that there is a need for a firm and clear response to the issue of violent assaults in our community. They are on the rise, and the community is desperate for leadership to be exercised to send the strongest possible message to those who have the capacity to inflict violence on other members of our community.
With that in mind, and speaking in a political context, government recognised that and were able, with their significant resources – much of those not ethical resources – to draw upon the resources of government and to paint a picture for the purposes of holding onto power. That being: ‘We recognise your problem, community, we recognise there needs to be a strong stance taken against those who visit violence upon citizens and, make no mistake, we are going to get tough’. So said the glossy brochures and public messages.
Sadly, the substance of that was not matched by the spin. Fortunately, the community have made that judgment. They have seen the actions and have assessed the attitude of this government which is more inclined to side with the offender than to stand robustly alongside the victim and stand up for what is right.
This bill is an attempt to assist government to move closer to a place of credibility and restore trust in the government by the community. To say that you are going to get tough and to use words such as ‘actual prison time’, in substance, does not effect the changes that are required. There needs to be an absolutely clear, beyond reasonable doubt - or any doubt - message sent to those who commit violent offences.
The fine point here, which may elude members opposite, is that behind the rhetoric and the spin, there is still the capacity for a sentence to be imposed which is: ‘until the rising of the court’. At that point we differ. We want to be absolutely clear about that and ensure we make that beyond any possibility in the interests of standing up for what is right, that is: sending a strong message to those in our community who visit violence upon other citizens.
The bill amends the Sentencing Act and sets out specific, minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offences and all second and subsequent offences. The bill removes the ability for suspension of any of the minimum sentence and suspension of sentence for second and subsequent offences within 10 years of conviction of a previous violent offence.
The current arrangements provide for gaol time, however, this may simply be ‘to the rising of the court’. That is the concern. That is what is not revealed in any of the advertisements or the public statements of this government - to their shame. It is not beyond the capacity of this government, in the interests of political manoeuvring and the acquisition of power, to reach out and lodge deliberately an impression which is not true.
There needs to be a change. It needs to be beyond the capacity for a sentence to be imposed ‘to the rising of the court’. For those who have suffered violence and those who want to see standards defended and protected, they need to know there is a strong and clear response and consequence. That is what they expect. If you want to restore law and order, you need to have a strong position, such as this. Anything less than that creates confusion and resulting disorder within the community.
The amendments will allow the court to decide the outcomes for first time offenders, except where serious harm is caused to the victim. Much was made of this during the campaign. Perhaps it was a first time offence: a person glassed another person in a front bar in Mitchell Street, and inflicted serious harm. There should be no doubt. In that case, there would be six months as the minimum - no possibility of wriggle room - so the community can see there is an absolutely clear response.
The purpose of this is to defend a principle to not favour the offender in any way. The moment we move our attitude towards the offender, we have lost our connection with the levers necessary to strengthen the notion of consequence for action and developing a defence within our community. So that some security is developed within the community, there needs to be a minimum sentence. It could be more than that, but that is the minimum. At this point, it is possible for it to be imposed ‘until the rising of the court’. That is possible. I think the community needs better than that.
That is what this amendment provides and I will outline how this clarity can be established if this bill were supported. The support for this bill will salvage some credibility for government which said one thing and, in fact, did something quite different. It also goes to a Chief Minister saying: ‘I have heard the community, and I will now respond to what I have heard’. Here is another opportunity.
Principally, there is a new section called Section 78BA, which only applies to adults and it is as follows. It sets out who the act will apply to. It sets out that the court must record a conviction and impose a term of imprisonment. It prevents the court from suspending any part of the sentence for an offender who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence within the preceding 10 years - it makes it clear. It allows the court to suspend the sentence in part but not in part in other cases. It sets out the various minimum periods of imprisonment. It excludes the possibility of ‘until the rising of the court’. That is the point; the point that this government did not take the time to communicate.
If they were truly open, honest, and transparent, as they plainly are not, they would have made that clear. They did not, in the interests of establishing an impression for the purpose of holding onto power. And they are only holding on by the narrowest of margins. That is not something for us to gloat upon, but it is to reflect on the community that expects more. They expect honesty when you are dealing with matters of genuine concern to our community. They expressed that concern quite plainly and a Chief Minister said quite clearly he was now listening. Well, what else was he to say?
The community was judging the Chief Minister when he said that, and I trust the community were caused to check to see whether they could listen and respond to what the Chief Minister had to say at that time. How would they judge that? By the actions that followed. And what actions followed? Little. There were opportunities in the first session of parliament to act on that by bringing forward these changes, but they failed to take that opportunity, failed to follow through. There is a vast difference between saying something only or saying something and then acting.
People are beyond the point. You know that cynicism is increasing in the community with regard to those who hold office, and that cynicism is fed by those who say things but do not act. The community has had enough and they are calling out for real leadership. The government has had its opportunity and has failed. This Chief Minister has failed. Making a statement such as that to the face of the community, after leading them to an early election and not following through, is appalling. It will visit upon this government until the day we go to the polls again.
There are various minimum periods of imprisonment. For the second violent offence, serious harm - 12 months, full stop. The minimum for an adult first violent offence, serious harm - six months. That was an impression that was gained but not carried through in the substance of actions of this government in this Chamber. Adult second violent offence – (a) and (b) do not apply and aggravated circumstances - three months. And so on, Madam Speaker.
The principle of this is to actually deliver what you have said you would deliver. This provides the opportunity for the government to remove those blights upon their record in this community, to stand up for the victims, and to do something that reinforces the basic principles of bringing down a strong and clear response to those who visit violence upon citizens. Put it beyond doubt, so we can restore confidence in the decisions made on their behalf; restore their confidence in those who are charged with the responsibility of leadership, particularly in the primary issue of establishing a sense of order within our community, and that only comes through respect for law, so that games are not played. There is a minimum sentence.
I urge honourable members, in the spirit of those utterances which were made to the community, to support this amendment so there is a true strengthening of law and ensuing social order within our community by good and honest leadership, so that we speak plainly and act upon what we say.
Madam Speaker, I also table the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
1. Establishes a select committee to be known as the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee.
one Independent member; and assisted by a representative from the Australian Nursing Federation of the Northern Territory; a representative
from the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory; one person with experience in the public health sector. The Chair to be
nominated by the Leader of Government Business, and a Deputy Chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
3. The terms of reference for the committee are to:
(a) investigate acute care services in the Northern Territory, with particular focus on the required level of nurse staffing levels
to deliver patient care;
into the death of Mrs Margaret Winter; and
(c) provide an analysis of the matters and make recommendations to this parliament.
4. In establishing the select committee, the Assembly does so subject to the Speaker tabling in the Assembly for its adoption a determination
authorising the operational structure levels and terms and conditions of payment and meeting sitting fees, travel allowances paid to the
committee members in similar terms to that of the Statehood Steering Committee.
5. The committee be empowered to compel evidence in accordance with Chapter XXVIII of the Standing Orders of the Assembly.
6. The Assembly requires the Chair of the select committee to report to the Assembly no later than the final sitting day in
February 2009, including in its report any and all recommendations.
Madam Speaker, we have brought this motion because of the systemic failures in the Northern Territory health system which were highlighted in the last parliamentary sittings, on numerous occasions and, most recently, following the very serious and tragic circumstances surrounding the death of 65-year-old Margaret Winter. In fact, the Coroner has said that the Health department contributed to the death of Mrs Winter. He said on page 1 of his Coroner’s report:
I will just repeat that:
It did not take many pages in the Coroner’s report to indicate very clearly what the reason was for the preventable death of Mrs Margaret Winter. What is worse, not only was Mrs Winter’s death preventable, but so were the numerous policy decisions that led to the circumstances on 13 December and, in fact, the long-term issues surrounding nurse staffing issues at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The Coroner found that the numbers of nurses on duty that day were too low - far to low. The Coroner had to call in an expert on nursing numbers to give evidence, given the failure of the department to cooperate to determine the adequacy of nursing staff. The expert was Professor Duffield from the University of Technology who gave evidence that on the night in question there should have been 25 nurses for 33 patients. On that night, Ward 4A had 18 nurses, so they were seven short.
As we know, the crisis started well before Mrs Winter’s preventable death. My predecessor, the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Minister for Health, Dr Richard Lim, stated in media releases - I can go back to 5 February 2007:
On 14 February 2007:
Nursing Our Hospitals Back to Health.
Highlighted more than 18 months ago:
On 22 February:
Which one is it, Madam Speaker? The confusion in the numbers comes from setting the establishment figure for nurses at a very low number. The establishment figure is a bureaucratic calculation of the number of nurses needed to operate the hospital, based on projected patient numbers. The gap comes from a clash between the unrealistic bureaucratic estimate of future patient numbers and the reality of more and more patients coming through the door.
We have seen similar circumstances with police numbers across the Northern Territory.
Also on 22 February, ‘Perhaps Burns Really is Sergeant Shultz’ …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, on 22 February 2007:
This is not new, this is 18 months old:
Dr Burns: Who are you quoting there?
Mr CONLAN: This is a media release from former shadow Health Minister, Dr Richard Lim, minister:
At first …
Dr Burns: Is that in relation to payslips?
Mr CONLAN: This is in relation to your ability to perform as a minister.
Dr Burns: Well, we might move back to that.
Mr CONLAN: This is what it this all about. It goes to the heart of your credibility, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you keep as close as possible to the motion which you put before the House.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am demonstrating the systemic failures across the Northern Territory Health system.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it does not discuss the minister’s abilities in the motion. Please keep it as close as possible to the motion, thank you.
Dr Burns: That was 27 February 2007, that media release from Dr Lim?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: On 22 February 2007.
Dr Burns: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: You go and track that down. Nevertheless, whatever it is about, it demonstrates the inability of the Health Minister to get a grip on the health system in the Northern Territory, hence why we have systemic failures, hence why the opposition is calling for a review. It is very simple. There we have it, a highlight of examples going way back to early 2007.
We have two Executive Directors of Nursing, Marie Hughes and Professor Di Brown, both saying before and after the events of this crisis - that is the death of Mrs Margaret Winter - that it is harming patients. We have the NT Branch of the Nursing Federation saying that the safety and wellbeing of patients and nurses are being put at risk because of the crisis. The General Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital in the Coroner’s report, page 46, said:
One of the most appalling events of this sorry saga is the minister’s unwillingness, of course, to accept any responsibility for the nursing staffing crisis at RDH which led us to this health crisis and has led this opposition to call for a review. We have pointed out, in no uncertain terms, this death could have been prevented if the Health Minister and his department heads had done their jobs properly.
The Coroner also stated:
In the Hansard on 11 October 2007, the Health Minister says:
I believe someone needs to explain the meaning of the word ‘actively’ to the minister because he has clearly failed in his attempts to address the problems facing the Royal Darwin Hospital and, in particular, the nursing staffing crisis facing the Northern Territory.
Ms Carney: He has consistently failed.
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely, member for Araluen, consistently failed and, as we have pointed out, this is not new - this has been going on for a quite a while.
The Coroner has accepted, as we do, that there are problems securing nurses in the Northern Territory. However, he does not accept, and nor do we, the department’s position that recruiting difficulties, outside the department’s control, were the key cause of staffing issues in 2006. This goes a lot deeper. How deep? We do not know. This is the reason to establish an acute care review committee. How systemic is this? Is this just confined to the Royal Darwin Hospital? Are other health facilities in the Northern Territory stretched to breaking point? These are questions that need to be asked and we owe it to Territorians to find the answers to them.
Are other hospitals exposed to this crisis as much as the Royal Darwin Hospital, as highlighted in the Coroner’s report into the death of Margaret Winter, released on 4 September 2008? Does the Tennant Creek Hospital have the same issues facing the Royal Darwin Hospital, albeit on a smaller scale? Does the Gove Hospital have similar issues? Does Katherine Hospital? Does Alice Springs Hospital? Do they have the same issues that have been highlighted at the Royal Darwin Hospital? I suspect that there are issues.
I suspect there are some very serious issues facing these hospitals. I have toured these hospitals and spoken to health professionals across the Northern Territory in an official and unofficial capacity. I know that there are problems. How deep they go, we do not know, and that is the reason the Northern Territory opposition called for this inquiry.
The minister has criticised this, citing travel allowances and sitting fees and the like, as the motivation for the inquiry. Frankly, it just seems absurd and it is insulting to members of this parliament, some of whom will make up this committee, and to health professionals who will, potentially, be part of this select committee, not to mention the general public who deserve the answers and to view the findings of this committee if the government agrees to it.
Acute health care is defined as ‘treatment of a disease for a short period of time in which a patient is treated for a brief but severe episode of illness’. I turn to Aboriginal health, very briefly, and highlight this from an NT Review of Medical Education and Training. This report came out in October last year; it is about 12 months old. I will read briefly from this on Indigenous health issues.
Madam Speaker, we can see that Indigenous health in the Northern Territory and acute care treatment is staggering when you take into account those facts and figures.
I believe that the Northern Territory has not only the ability but a responsibility to be leading the way in Indigenous health. We should be punching above our weight and we should be showing the other states and territories that we mean business when it comes to addressing Indigenous health. We are a small jurisdiction, we cannot do everything, but we should be leading the way when it comes to Indigenous health and education. It is very hard to front up to school when you have glaucoma or gingivitis or any of those other diseases that these kids have.
Health is the number one priority and I believe we should be leading the way in this country when it comes to Indigenous health. I do not think we are doing that. I believe we have failed Aboriginal Australia. I believe previous CLP governments have failed Aboriginal Australia. Previous Liberal governments, previous Labor governments and current Labor governments have failed to show the way on Indigenous affairs.
There are problems facing every single jurisdiction when it comes to education, policing, all the other big issues, and Indigenous affairs. Our commitment to those other areas is always going to be tough, but we need to be seen, or be trying to be seen, to be leading the way in Indigenous health areas and Indigenous outcomes.
Looking at that report yesterday which was tabled, it was half of our expenditure – half the Northern Territory budget – into Aboriginal issues. I do not have quite the exact term; I do not have the report with me.
A member: 52.4%.
Mr CONLAN: Fifty two point four percent, so it is a lot. I do not think that we are seeing the appropriate outcomes. That is not a fault of this current government, necessarily; it is a fault of past governments way back, and current governments as well. I firmly believe one thing this parliament can be doing is leading the way in Indigenous affairs, punching above our weight, showing the rest of the country that we can do it, providing better outcomes for Indigenous Territorians and, in turn, providing better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
Sometimes I feel like just grabbing the member for Arafura and shaking her and saying: ‘Will you straighten up and fly right’. This parliament needs the member for Arafura. The Northern Territory needs someone of her stature; this country is looking to her for leadership. She is very good at her job and she is the most senior Aboriginal parliamentarian in this country. I am very proud to be in parliament with someone like that, but some of the other issues perhaps have tainted that, and that is a shame. Nevertheless …
Ms Scrymgour: Watch out you do not shake me because that will be assault.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Well, metaphorically shaking, that is. Nevertheless, I believe if there is one thing we can do as a parliament it is to lead the way in Indigenous affairs - and we are not doing it …
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, we are.
Mr CONLAN: Well, I do not believe that we are doing it. I believe we need to be seen to be doing more, and we need better outcomes for Indigenous people, particularly in areas of health. Once we can address some of those areas of health, then we can address some of those more serious areas of education. We cannot have sick kids turning up to school, because they will not go to school.
I wanted to highlight our review because it is a very important part of the Northern Territory; it should be part of our responsibility for the rest of the country. There would be some interesting information gathered in the review if we were out there talking to people about health outcomes for Aboriginal people, particularly in remote areas.
I met with the Professor John Wakeman from the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs who …
Ms Scrymgour: A fantastic bloke.
Mr CONLAN: A good bloke. He was telling me about Utopia and how the community is displaced or not close to – people are not living around the …
Ms Scrymgour: Dispersed.
Mr CONLAN: Dispersed, that is right. There is a lot more focus on bush tucker and the like, so there tends to be much better health outcomes. People are not presenting with these diseases we see in some other Aboriginal communities. So this …
Ms Scrymgour: It is called community control.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. I believe if we can get people off Chiko Rolls and back onto bush tucker, then we are also doing a great service to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Gingivitis is also something worth looking at. Do you know that gingivitis can be directly linked to heart disease? Aboriginal people are twice as likely to contract heart disease as non-Aboriginal people. We need to get people to clean their teeth - something simple. We all grew up with mum and dad saying: ‘Clean your teeth’. You can bet your bottom dollar, if your mum and dad do not tell you to clean your teeth, you did not clean your teeth. This is not happening out in the bush. If you are made to clean your teeth once or at least twice a day, then you have a less chance of contracting gingivitis and, in turn, possibly heart disease, than those who do not. There are some broader bigger picture issues which this committee can investigate while out there in the Northern Territory community.
Bed block and access block is also something this committee would be very interested in investigating on its travels. I read from Access Block and Overcrowding: A Literature Review. This was prepared by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine at the University of New South Wales. It says:
It also says:
That is a big problem facing our hospitals right across the Northern Territory - Alice Springs; Gove; Tennant Creek; Katherine, and, of course, Royal Darwin Hospital, where we have heard so much about hospital waiting lists which are absolutely appalling in the Northern Territory. In fact, we are amongst the worst in the country, in some cases only ahead of the ACT. We have seen the leaked report which came out of the Alice Springs Hospital; it was during the election campaign, so it was August, highlighting that figures for waiting times at the Alice Springs Hospital were, indeed, worse than they were reported.
They were already amongst the worst in the country, as I say, in some cases only ahead of the Australian Capital Territory, and this report has indicated that they are, in fact, worse. Some patients have been taken off the P1 and put back on to the P3, or put on to the P3 and put up to the P1. These are serious systemic problems across the Northern Territory.
Access block and bed block are real problems affecting acute care services in the Northern Territory, they are under enormous pressure. I have highlighted some of those Indigenous health issues. If we can go a long way to fixing some of those broader picture issues - getting kids to clean their teeth; getting people to eat properly; getting people off grog - we could go a long way to addressing some of these areas. However, it is not just Indigenous people causing bed block and access block. Clearly, it is happening right across the country, and it is happening in our own hospital system in the Northern Territory.
This is why the Northern Territory opposition is proposing this review into acute care services in the Northern Territory. I would like to read this motion out again for the record:
one Independent member; and assisted by a representative from the Australian Nursing Federation of the Northern Territory; a representative
from the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory; one person with experience in the public health sector. The Chair to be
nominated by the Leader of Government Business, and a Deputy Chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
We believe this a very serious and very pressing situation we are facing in the Northern Territory. It is about the health care of Territorians. Territorians expect their government to govern for them and to provide essential, core services for them. We all know that health is a big issue. There are problems right across the country. In fact, I believe there are systemic failures in our health system right across Australia, in every state and every territory.
I believe we have opportunities to stand out in health care delivery in the Northern Territory because of our unique demographic and the unique circumstances we have in the Northern Territory, particularly with Indigenous affairs.
That does not take away from the fact that there have been problems - problems that have been highlighted to the minister - which we believe the minister has not acted upon. Going back to 2006-07 there are some media releases which I am sure the minister will have answers for. They are political media releases, so there is some toing and froing. However, the point I was trying to make by highlighting those media releases was that this has been going on for quite a while and the former member for Greatorex was well aware of those.
Having said all that, this is why the opposition believes it is time, in the interests of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government, health care professionals across the Northern Territory, and Territorians, that the government support this motion and allow this review to take place so we can address the very serious problems facing Northern Territory health.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Greatorex. It is a very important issue as he has outlined, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about this motion to set up a committee.
Before I turn to some of the detail of what the member for Greatorex said, I welcome his comments about the need to improve Indigenous health. I gleaned from the comments the member for Greatorex made that he is very sincere and, as Health Minister, I want to engage with him on that endeavour. It is a very difficult and hard endeavour and I will outline my personal commitment in this area. I have been working in this area of Indigenous affairs and Indigenous health …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order; Madam Speaker! I am not aware that the minister has been granted leave to speak from a seat that he does not ordinarily occupy.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a second reading debate and it has usually been the practice for a minister to sit in …
Ms CARNEY: It is not a second reading debate, it is a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a motion. I allow the minister to sit in this chair. I have given my approval.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Much of my working life has been spent in this area, as a researcher and as an educator, educating Aboriginal Health Workers. I was involved in one of the first Aboriginal Health Worker courses at a tertiary level in Australia. It is probably where I first met the member for Arafura, who has also worked for many years in this area. It is a very difficult area and she and I might have even had a few disagreements over the years on this issue; such is the complexity of this issue.
I have endeavoured to make a contribution in this area and a whole range of areas. I believe if people care to read my CV, they will see my commitment over a long time in this area. It was probably, amongst other things, a big reason why I came to this parliament and wanted to be part of this parliament and why I aspired to be Health Minister and still aspire to be Health Minister.
I welcome the comments by the member for Greatorex - we have had our moments as well - but I believe the member for Greatorex has grown in his role as shadow health minister, and what he said today is very important and I accept what he said. I was very heartened to hear what he had to say last night about the Stolen Generations. I do acknowledge the work and the sentiments of the member for Greatorex.
If you talk to any state or territory Health minister, and we have a new one in Western Australia now, each one will tell you that being Health minister is one of the hardest portfolios - if not the hardest - of any Cabinet ministry. The reason why it is a very difficult portfolio is that there is an incredible demand on resources, and the member for Greatorex touched on that. With more technology in medicine, people are expecting more out of the system and the resources are struggling, as I believe the member for Greatorex alluded to, to actually keep up with this increased demand. I believe that is part of what Michael Costa said as he exited the political stage: that there are impossibilities around many areas in the delivery of public services, and he was probably talking in terms of health to a large degree, just meeting those competing demands and competing tensions.
It is a very difficult area. I have been Health Minister now for approximately two years and three months, and as I look around Australia at the Health ministers there is certainly a changing brigade. It is a very difficult portfolio; probably one of the hardest you can get. That does not stop me in my resolve to deliver the best possible services within the Northern Territory.
As the member for Greatorex and the Coroner said, the death of Mrs Margaret Winter was a preventable death; a very sad death. The member for Greatorex also talked about the nursing staffing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital, in particular, and throughout the Territory and for that matter, throughout Australia. He also acknowledged, as did the Coroner, that it is very difficult to recruit nurses. Nonetheless, there was a failure at Royal Darwin Hospital for adequate numbers to be on the ward the night Mrs Winter died. And, as the Coroner said, that was part of a wider problem. The Coroner also named very clearly in his report where responsibility lay. And responsibility lay, not with the hospital administration, as the member for Greatorex said, but with administration further up the line. The Coroner named one individual in particular, and did so in a fairly extraordinary fashion in a further media release to clarify his position on that particular issue.
We went back to some of the debates we had in October around this very important issue. The member for Greatorex quoted what I said about my role. My role as minister, and government, is to set policy and to ensure adequate funding for the agency. Ministers do not become involved at an operational level within an agency. That is not what ministers do. This is a government which promised in successive elections, 2001 and 2005, more nurses. That was one of our central themes and one of our central planks. In terms of the funding made available to Royal Darwin Hospital in particular, there is more than adequate funding available for them to recruit nurses. That is the disappointing aspect in terms of the Winter Coronial.
The member for Greatorex quoted from some media releases by the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Health minister. He was doing his job and he was pointing to difficulties within the system in recruiting nurses. He was also highlighting, quite rightly, the number of shifts that were unfilled and needed nurses to back up, either through overtime or through agency nurses. I have no problem with the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Health minister in doing his job and highlighting a very important issue.
The issues I had with the former member for Greatorex was how he talked about my incompetence and that I did not know what was going on in our public hospitals and that I was uniformed. The vehicle he used to do that was to stand up in this place - I am not sure exactly which seat it is now, I think the one behind the member for Goyder - and produced some payslips which he purported showed a nurse had worked 21 hours in one day. He had other ones which might have been for 19 hours and 16 hours, saying these were examples of nurses working 21 hours in one day, and it was clearly unacceptable. What emerged was that the member for Greatorex had produced payslips which, he had been informed by the ANF, were not for one day, but for a two week period; the nurse had actually worked 21 hours overtime in a two week pay period.
That was my issue with what the former member for Greatorex had to say. It was not long after that, I think it was at the April sittings in Alice Springs that I raised this issue – and it was not long after that the member for Greatorex exited the scene. He may have his own reasons for that but in my mind his credibility had been shot because he had actually been told by the ANF the real situation with these payslips. So, let us have a debate - I welcome debates - but let us stick to the facts. Let us not spin it out.
I have a prepared speech for responding to the member for Greatorex. Before I turn to that, he talked about bed block and access block. Once again, rightly so, member for Greatorex, they are very important issues within our health system and health systems elsewhere. However, if I could respond to that before I turn to my direct reply to your motion. You talked about a paper which quite rightly pointed out that hospitals have to contend with increased pressures without an increase in capacity.
If we are talking about Royal Darwin Hospital in particular, there has been increased capacity at Royal Darwin Hospital, including the Rapid Admission Planning Unit which has 24 beds, and there are now approximately 100 extra beds at Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power. That is a significant number, and includes the 24-bed RAPU, 18 currently in 3B, with another six to come within this term of government, if not this financial year. So there is a significant increase in capacity. The work that RAPU has been doing is cutting down bed block by keeping patients in that area, where decisions can be made and diagnostic tests done, whether they are to be admitted or discharged home. That has been a significant step forward.
The other issue which is really problematic in Royal Darwin Hospital and in other hospitals is the number of aged patients within the system. I am advised that, at any one time, there are approximately 30 to 40 people at Royal Darwin Hospital who really do not need to be in hospital; they really should be in an aged-care facility where they can get nursing and medical support and other care. There are 40 beds right from the start that are blocked. That is why this government is working to establish a facility on the old Waratah site to alleviate that. There has also been some increased capacity through the Masons at Tiwi. There are things happening in the community, but the last one I mentioned is a very important one in alleviating bed block.
I do not completely agree – unless I misheard what the member for Greatorex said – with the conclusions reached by the paper he quoted from; that lack of GP access is not a factor in driving demand on EDs. I am not sure that is what you said, that is what I thought I heard you say, member for Greatorex. There is other literature and other studies which have been done that clearly show the reason why many people lob into an A&E at night, in particular, is a lack of access to after-hours GP care. There are conflicting views on that, but my own view is that we need to build after-hours access to GPs. I believe that will have a beneficial effect on pressures on our ED and within hospitals ...
A member: We could do with a hospital in Palmerston.
Dr BURNS: Well, we are. So the …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, I am talking about our super clinic at Palmerston. I am not sure what you are talking about ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: …if you are talking about the hospital, which was about a third of the price it should be, that was announced during the election; we are certainly not going with that ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It is important that we have high quality, robust clinical governance processes in place to reduce errors in what is a very challenging work environment. It is also important when errors occur that we quickly learn from them, put improvements in place, and raise the standard of care for all Territorians.
The select committee proposed in this motion will not achieve these goals. The opposition seems to be of the sincere, but mistaken, belief that more committees mean better government. That is one issue I would like to highlight. If this motion had come up more or less by itself, for a discrete committee of the parliament to look into this, it would have had more credibility in my mind. What are we up to now - is it seven committees that have been proposed by the opposition? I would describe it as opposition by committee.
If this had been by itself, one off, it would have had a lot more credibility, but along with the myriad of other committees, it has just been drowned in committees.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, I might call you the Committee Liberal Party, or the Liberal Committee Party, or some variation of that.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is reflecting to the detriment of the committee system in this parliament. I ask that you caution him against that, being a member of this House, and knowing the faith we all have in the committee system.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: In reality, this proposed committee, this one committee, will most likely cost Territory taxpayers around $1m, and jeopardise or delay necessary reforms already under way. It will serve to second guess the Coroner, and replace expert reviewers with inexpert and self-interested politicians who will descend into political bickering when Territorians want independent, expert advice and clear government action. And that is what is going to happen – that is what is happening, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the minister table the figures he is reading from so the parliament can be enlightened on how it could possibly cost $1m.
Dr BURNS: It is an estimate.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is part of my speech. Inquiries have been made …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is quite right. The minister is reading from the document. Under standing orders, he can be requested to table the document. That is the request.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, this document has my own writing on it …
Madam SPEAKER: It does not need to be tabled, thank you, minister. Please continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Based on the operations of the statehood committee, which is mentioned in your motion, we have estimated that it would cost close to $1m.
It will serve to second guess the Coroner and replace expert reviewers with inexpert and self-interested politicians. It will, of course, all too quickly descend into political bickering, when Territorians want independent, expert advice and clear government action. For these reasons, the government opposes this motion.
As members are aware, upon the release of the Winter Coronial findings, I directed implementation of a comprehensive policy and procedural response. These directions provided the Department of Health and Families with a clear way forward to improve patient care across the Territory hospital system. This has been done in two ways. First, through the accreditation process, which has been brought forward, and second, by a specific review of clinical governance.
I will go first to accreditation. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards has brought forward a comprehensive Quality and Systems Survey at Royal Darwin Hospital; this will commence on 3 November 2008. As members would be aware, the commission is a not-for-profit and independent body respected throughout the world for its activities in the oversight and accreditation of health care providers. Many hospitals in Australia are accredited by the council, which was jointly established by the AMA and the then Australian Hospitals Association. Information about the ACHS members and hospital accreditation status is publicly available on its website.
This survey will conduct an in-depth examination of Royal Darwin Hospital and assess its operation against 45 specific criteria in three functions: Clinical; Support; and Corporate. This will be a very thorough survey of the capacity of the hospital to deliver quality health care for Territorians. It is not only RDH that will be comprehensively surveyed by the council. Alice Springs Hospital has just commenced its survey process. Gove and Tennant Creek hospitals will also be surveyed in November. Katherine is scheduled for its full accreditation survey in 2009. Any recommendations resulting from these surveys which require advanced completion will need to be implemented within 60 days of the completion of the survey.
Importantly, over the last year, the Quality and Risk Management Unit of Royal Darwin Hospital has been redesigned, making it well placed to respond to any newly recognised risks across the three functional areas I identified.
The second component of my response to the Winter Coronial is the establishment of a parallel, though separate, review focusing on clinical governance at RDH. Clinical governance is the proper integration of clinical decision-making within a management and organisational framework and it is the foundation of good quality and safety in hospitals.
The consultation phase of this review, also being conducted by the council, is already under way. This review is scheduled to report to the government by February, and I have undertaken to make the results of this review public. It is well ahead of any realistic steering committee time frame, despite the date listed on the original motion. I will be driving the implementation of its recommendations to ensure clinical governance at RDH is at the top of the tier of Australian hospitals.
One of the tools that hospitals use to assess its practices is the Root Cause Analysis process. By addressing the root cause of problems, rather than any obvious symptoms, there is a much better chance of reducing recurrence of that problem. In the Winter Coronial findings, the Coroner queried the Root Cause Analysis which had been completed by the department. The Coroner recommended the processes be improved. To address this particular issue, I have directed the department to engage expert Professors Cliff Hughes AO and Karen Lineger to review the Root Cause Analysis processes and swiftly implement their recommendations.
Ensuring our hospitals have adequate staff and facilities to handle the workload is a key component of proper patient care. Since 2001, this government has recruited an extra 433 nurses, 162 doctors, and installed an extra 127 fully staffed beds into our hospitals. There have been significant staffing changes specifically implemented at Royal Darwin Hospital. These include putting in place divisional co-directors and recruiting to the positions of Director of Nursing and Director of Medical Services. Most importantly, the nursing hours per patient day nursing workload and roster model is being phased in across all Territory hospitals.
As I announced last month, Professor Christine Duffield will conduct an independent oversight of the implementation of nursing hours per patient day to ensure it meets all staffing requirements. The Australian Nursing Federation is a member of the nursing hours per patient day Implementation Steering Committee and has agreed on the nursing workload benchmarks after assessing extensive data.
In contrast to this clear and comprehensive government action, we have received a six point motion from the member for Greatorex, seeking to establish yet another committee, at a likely cost of $1m - I am interested to know from members opposite what they think it is going to cost - and which will inevitably bog us down in endless process. Opposition members …
A member: $1m dollars, you are kidding yourself.
Mr Mills: To improve our health system?
Dr BURNS: … to this parliament on the difference between inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Yet here they are on general business day seeking to establish committee after committee - absolute opposition by committee. Of course, such a motion is much easier than actually developing a comprehensive alternative health policy when in opposition. The Labor Party did it, and there were many policy powerhouses in opposition: Peter Toyne, Syd Stirling, Clare Martin, Paul Henderson, and Jack Ah Kit, and they worked very hard in opposition developing alternative policies. This mob just want to have committees. I have talked about what the estimated costs may be. However, I have been informed that the …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek some clarification from the minister as to where he has derived this $1m figure, because I believe it to be misleading. He is comparing it to the statehood committee which has been around for a long time. This committee has not even started, and we have said that the Assembly requires the Chair of the select committee to report to the Assembly no later than the final sitting day in February 2009. At best, it will be a three-month committee. I ask the minister where he gets $1m for a three-month parliamentary committee …
Dr BURNS: That is a very ambitious time frame for a parliamentary committee.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, if you have details, please provide them.
Mr Conlan: He is making it up.
Dr BURNS: They are some calculations based on the costs of the statehood committee. I am interested to know what you think it is going to cost. The review by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards will be approximately $100 000. Point 2, list of proposed members, fair enough. He talks in his second point about the public health sector. I need to correct the member for Greatorex. The public health sector – he should say someone from the acute care sector or the hospital sector because the public health sector, if he just wants to turn to the budget books - Public Health Services: environmental health, disease control, alcohol and other drugs, health research. It is just a small thing, but I just thought I would point it out.
Point 3 was to seek to re-examine various models of nurse staffing to deliver patient care; but the debate has well and truly moved on. Everyone agrees that the nursing hours per patient day model is best suited to provide the highest level of patient care. This is being implemented at Royal Darwin Hospital and other Territory hospitals and is being overseen by independent expert Professor Duffield.
Points 3(b) and (c) pertain to the Coroner to a large degree, and intentionally or otherwise, also seem to call into question the Coroner’s investigation and findings in the Winter Coronial. I am acting to implement the coronial findings and I have given an undertaking in terms of the review that is being commissioned.
Point 4: we have already started to talk about the costs, the terms and conditions of payment, meeting and sitting fees. Do not forget, everything has to be recorded in Hansard and published, and you will be calling expert witnesses. There is a whole range of things that need to occur as part of this. I believe the Statehood Steering Committee is doing an excellent job and plays an important role in establishing viable statehood. I am not sure whether some of the committees proposed are a worthy use of taxpayers’ money.
Point 5 provides the power to compel evidence. The Coroner already has that power. Once again, is the opposition implying the Coroner has not done his job properly? I have talked about the time frame. I understand that debate of this motion had to wait for General Business Day and I question the time frame that is actually on the motion to do the work that is required.
For all these reasons, the government does not support this motion. The government knows we are carrying out the recommendations of the Coroner. We have also implemented and commissioned an expert review by people who are familiar with hospitals, familiar with what acute care is, who will take submissions, interview the major stakeholders and come up with recommendations around clinical governance, which is right at the heart of the issues raised by the Coroner in the Winter Coronial.
In short, Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am interested in the minister’s comments about the committee. I note that this year we do not have a Sessional Committee on Substance Abuse. I would have thought this would be a reasonable replacement for that, especially if it was only going for a short period of time. I would have thought the government had in its budget a certain amount of money for sessional committees. If it does not, we will be frozen out of having any committees during this term of office.
When this debate occurred in parliament, I made a couple of statements. One was that I thought that we should have had a public inquiry, which would have been slightly different to what has been proposed by the member for Greatorex, but was a similar desire to find out exactly what issues sprung from the Coroner’s report in relation to the running of Darwin Hospital. The Minister for Health announced that he would ask the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards to look at a review of Royal Darwin Hospital. I appreciate the briefing I received from the CEO of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. I am not saying that this review is not important, but I believe it is part of an overall strategy to make sure our hospital is being run as well as possible.
My concern is still, even though this review is on the way, that it tends to be dealing with a layer which will deal with professionals, etcetera. We need an opportunity for people who are either clients or individual health workers who do not necessarily want to be represented by a body - whether it is the nursing federation or whatever; and that is not putting that federation down - to put some ideas forward to this committee, which they may not have a chance to do under the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Review. The wider public may also have stories to tell on issues that have arisen from their contact with the Royal Darwin Hospital or other hospitals in the Northern Territory.
I see the two being complementary. One is, to some extent, dealing with the more professional outlook, the professional aspects of how the hospital is run. Considering the amount of interest, media attention and discussion being held in parliament relating to this particular case, and some of the comments made following the Coroner’s report, the community needs an opportunity to put forward some of its concerns. It may not only be concerns. If you are going to have committees like this, you should also be able to hear if people are happy with some of the systems that are working at the hospitals; they should also be encouraged to come to such a committee. There are times, and I get them in my office, where people do have genuine concerns about how they have been dealt with in the hospital system. I also have people who are very happy with the way they have been looked after. Sometimes, much of that can boil down to personalities, not necessarily the system. People deal with people in different ways and some people can find that most upsetting and some people find they have been well and truly looked after.
If we clear the air a little - I do not think it will cost the money that the minister said; the statehood committee has been going for donkey’s ages. We would have money, I presume, in the Legislative Assembly budget for another sessional committee. We do not have the substance abuse committee running in this session of parliament, so there is the opportunity here to fill that gap - at least for a short period of time. I believe it would be of benefit to Territorians, to people like me in parliament, to hear what people have to say away from a more formal review run through the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. I am by no means knocking what they are doing; that is very important.
I thank the minister for also bringing forward some of that review earlier than normally would have happened. The minister, regardless of matters gone by, is sincere in saying we have to do something about it - his opinion is this is the way to go. I believe it is complementary to what the member for Greatorex is doing and, because of that, I support the member for Greatorex’s motion today.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Greatorex, and also the member for Nelson, and endorse what the member for Nelson just said.
I take up a couple of points in relation to a number of things that the member for Johnston, in his capacity as the Minister for Health, mentioned. He said there is no need for an inquiry. It has always been my understanding that, as member of the Northern Territory community, inquiries have been held on a regular basis throughout the time I have been here and, in my younger days in Western Australia, I heard of inquires happening all the time.
The couple of quotes, if I heard correctly, were that the inquiry is going to be too expensive, it is going to be for self-interested politicians and just about political bickering. My understanding of inquiries is that you can actually ask people to come and give you information. They are the public, they are interested people.
I tabled a petition in this House this morning. In this petition there are 659 signatures - in fact 658, because one of them is mine - of people who just walked passed my office. In the time I was out the front of my electorate office talking to these people, they are angry, disappointed, and upset. They want an inquiry. They were very happy - in fact, people were so quick to come and sign this that we did not get a chance to even ask them. They simply saw the sign, came over and wanted to sign it. There are interstate visitors who have heard through caravan parks and travelling, about the condition of our health service.
I would be interested if the minister can actually have a look and see how many interstate people are on this petition, because these are the Grey Nomads who invest heavily in the Territory. In the winter months down south they come here on holidays - they take off; it goes to the road system, so many complaints. It was a great exercise, I found, standing outside my electorate office talking to them, not only about the health issues, but many other related issues which demonstrate that there are systemic failures in the government’s attitude towards many things.
As for $1m, well, I do not know. If you spoke to people like Mrs Winter’s family, $1m for an inquiry into why their mother, grandmother, and sister, died, would be nothing compared to the loss of a loved one.
Another comment from the minister was it is just going to bog us down. I understand the member for Greatorex has said we want a short, sharp inquiry into this, and I do not know whether bogging us down over a period of three or four months is going to be a bogging down issue.
Other things the minister raised, and he quoted – there were four, I only have three names- previous members of the ALP government – Stirling, Henderson, Ah Kit: ‘… worked very hard to develop policy, and this mob on the other side just want to have a committee’. I suggest that the previous people – Stirling, Henderson and Ah Kit – mentioned by the minister, have not actually done a very good job of developing policy, because there are still failures in the system and people are dying in our hospitals.
Maybe we really do need a committee, given that the policy they have developed, and the policy the government is working on, is actually letting the people of the Northern Territory down.
Other things the minister said included that formerly he was a researcher and an educator, especially with Aboriginal Health Workers, raising awareness, etcetera, with educational programs. I find that that sort of thing is about building confidence in the community, that they have trust in their health system, are educated and briefed on things through good solid research and medical evidence. If you really wanted to get to the crux of these things, I thought that the minister might actually take on board some of his own background and research these things, through a committee, and get the ideas and research done through the public having input into an inquiry; and he could take that and develop some decent policy and then implement it through his CEO.
The minister says that it is not his job to actually go in there and run the department. And I agree with that; I think that is a good idea. However, it is the government that sets the policy, and the minister said that you cannot go in and direct things; he said it on a number of occasions, both today and previously, that you cannot direct the public servants and the CEOs exactly how to run the business. That is true. However, the government sets the policy and, I am assuming, their Cabinet sets the policy and the minister can go in there and implement policy change. It is also my understanding that you communicate that policy change to the CEO, whose job it is to implement the change.
Mr Mills: Leadership from the front.
Mr STYLES: Exactly. There are a few more things. Twenty-one hours work a day that the minister raised in relation to it. I was talking to a person last night who gave me some information about the overtime worked. It is fine to come into this House and present figures and statistics, but the actual perception out in the community is that we do not have a very good system. Confidence is lacking. The government really needs to look at something, not only in fixing the problem, but also restoring the confidence in people out there, both local and interstate people. You know, the old saying, ‘when in pain, get on a plane’, is alive and well out there and people are saying that to me on a regular basis. These 658 people who came past the office all had a similar belief. Some of them were actually initiating that saying. We have been in the Territory for a long time; ‘when in pain get on the plane’ used to be 30 years ago. It got better and, for some reason, it is getting worse.
We always hear there is adequate funding; we are putting funding in. I pick up on something the member for Port Darwin said yesterday: ‘Money into these problems is an input, not an outcome’. You can put all the money in the world you into it, but if you are not going to get the outcomes then, obviously, the policy needs to be changed and we need a new direction for these sorts of things.
I was talking to someone last night and they gave me some information. The ABS figures out yesterday - and I have not actually seen these, but I am led to believe from what I was told - indicate that nurses in the Northern Territory have the highest workload and patient-to-nurse ratio. I would be very happy to stand corrected by the minister on that information, but they are figures which came out yesterday. The information is that they have the highest births per nurse and the midwifery staff, especially, are overworked and constantly having to perform overtime to cover the basic staffing requirements.
We have heard recently and in 2006, that staffing levels were capped; we have heard allegations of that. We have also heard the story from the minister who says: ‘No, they were not capped, it was just various things happened, and that was Mr Campos’ domain, anyway’. It is still my information, as recently as 24 hours ago, that there are still issues with calling out staff to cover increased demand for services. The hospital staff may say: ‘That is fine, we have a policy’. But the people who are at the coalface are the ones who have to work day in, day out with these sorts of restrictions on them, and if they are feeling the pressure of the restrictions, there is obviously something to do in educating them in relation to the need to work harder - and I find that that is going to be very difficult, given the number of nursing staff who are on this petition - because they believe they are being pressured not to call people in; to actually work harder and handle the situation.
They say this is one of the major issues and problems as to why it is so hard to attract staff to the Northern Territory. Some of the people I have spoken to, and who are on this petition, have friends who come here to work at various times during the year - they travel overseas, they are what is called semi-retired - and they come here because they used to love the lifestyle. The comments going around these days is that the lifestyle has changed and they do not really like the lifestyle that much; you cannot get accommodation; it is very difficult to get reasonable accommodation at a reasonable price; the salaries now being offered do not reflect the cost for these people to live here, so they are choosing to go elsewhere.
We hear from the Health department that they are trying very hard to recruit staff - and I applaud them and say that they do spend and there are people out there who are obviously very dedicated people - desperately trying to recruit quality staff to come to the Territory and then to retain them in the Northern Territory. However, some of the complaints are, and people are now looking for excuses to say to their friends: ‘Well, we are not coming back next year – it is too hot, houses are too expensive, I cannot even get accommodation at the nurses’ quarters at Royal Darwin Hospital’ - I am not sure what is happening in Alice Springs and other places, but this is a Darwin issue I am talking about – ‘the wages are insufficient compared to the cost of living here. We can go interstate, we can earn almost the same amount of money where there is better housing, lifestyle, family; all those sorts of things.
It may be we have to reapply things which used to happen in the past here, where people in our essential services were actually subsidised and assisted to stay here. It goes across the whole range of essential services, be it police, teachers, nurses, doctors. We need to do something to stem the tide flowing outwards from the Territory.
I hear numbers all the time in this House: ‘Oh, we have recruited this number and we have recruited this number’. What I do not hear is the attrition rates. In the police department, I recall when we hit 204, the Chief Minister stood up and said: ‘We have recruited 204’. Well, my information was that 202 have resigned in the same period, or retired. We are constantly required to recruit people at great expense to the Territory taxpayer - that is all of us here, that is my kids, that is my two grandkids. This is their future we are investing in, and the continual outflow of money in recruiting and into employment agencies to provide agency staff is astronomical. The cost of flying nurses in and out of communities because they cannot live there due to security issues and other housing issues is costing us a fortune.
It is amazing. People ring you up and they come along and talk to you when you stand outside your office. I am amazed that the member for Johnston, who stands outside at the Rapid Creek Markets every Sunday, has not also talked to 650 people. Even if you are the person who wants to advise him of a crisis, you cannot talk to him. If you stand out there with a sign saying: ‘I am looking at health’, you will find there will be hundreds of people wanting to talk to you. It is a little suggestion for the member for Johnston, if he wants to get some information as to what is really going on at the coalface in his health system - stand outside your office with a little sign. You will also find out all sorts of other fascinating and interesting things.
When the minister says we do not need an inquiry, I believe the minister has already determined what the outcome of that inquiry is going to be. He has already said that it is too expensive, there is self-interest and political bickering, it is going to cost $1m and it is going to bog us down. Do we apply that analogy to every inquiry we are going to have here? No, because if it is good for this, why is it not good for that? This is about people’s health. This is about people dying in our hospitals.
I note with interest that in January 2008, the New South Wales government, which had a similar set of problems to what we have, implemented a special commission of inquiry into acute care services in New South Wales public hospitals to inquire into and report on various matters concerning the delivery of acute care services in public hospitals in New South Wales. I ask that the government consider this and take heed of what their colleagues and comrades in New South Wales did and bring the public in, bring the experts in and get some expert advice. It appears to me that they are failing the Northern Territory people and failing us.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call on Question Time, I would like to congratulate the member for Arnhem, who might like to stand, and the member for Brennan, for winning the members’ competition for the pink hair. They are too shy to stand. Congratulations. I also congratulate the two staff members, Diana VIdotto and James Lantry. I thank all honourable members for taking part.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Greatorex, in his motion that this Assembly establishes the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee. The reason is quite obvious. We have all heard about the nursing staffing crisis in the Northern Territory. It has been on the front page of our local newspaper, it has made media headlines both on television and radio, and it is quite obviously a problem for all of those people who will require some form of health treatment in the future.
I have listened to this debate with some interest and heard some of the views of the minister in his opposition to setting up this committee. I find it extraordinary that the government would oppose establishing this committee. The committee, as outlined by the member for Greatorex, would be made up of members from a whole range of very well thought of organisations who have specialist abilities in the areas of health and who should be able to comment on the nursing staffing crisis and all matters of professional medical staffing issues that need to be looked at in the Northern Territory.
The minister made some bizarre comment that the cost of this committee would be around $1m. I do find that quite bizarre. I note you based your reasoning for that being roughly what the statehood committee is costing Territorians, bearing in mind the statehood committee does extensive travel, as you would hope this committee would you do. You would expect that this committee would want to visit hospitals in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Gove and other health centres around the Territory, in order to gain a proper understanding of the needs of the health industry and their staffing issues around the Territory.
However, the statehood committee, on top of that, does a whole range of shows and events, hands out bags and badges, runs petitions and competitions - an extensive amount of activities. The statehood committee has also been running for many years, as the minister knows. On the other hand, this committee proposed by the member for Greatorex would report in February next year …
Mr Conlan: End of February.
Mr TOLLNER: At the end of February next year. So, the committee would run for approximately four months. It would be a big task for that committee to spend $1m even if they were staying in five-star hotels in all those locations that I mentioned and were drinking Mot champagne every night before they went to bed. They would still have a big problem spending $1m in four months, no matter how extravagant they were.
The minister also made mention of his aversion to setting up …
Dr Burns: People representation - have you factored that in? No, you have not.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, I missed that one. I will continue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, I cannot hear you.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the minister’s interjecting on board but I cannot quite make out what he is saying. I do apologise, I cannot hear your interjection.
I do know the minister is also very averse, or seems to be averse, to having committees set up. He does not believe in committees; says they are a waste of time …
Mr Conlan: Does not like them.
Mr TOLLNER: He does not like them. However, in this Question Time, we heard of the wonderful new 2030 theme that the Chief Minister has knocked up. Great news; they are going to look, what? - 12 years down the …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, 22 years down the track; he is going to look 22 years down the track. He has outlined at least a couple of committees in response to questions during Question Time. Goodness me, minister, maybe they are all $1m committees too. Committees seem to cost a lot of money these days, going by your assumptions. It seems to fly in the face of what the Chief Minister is recommending with the 2030 committee and that you would be opposed to this committee.
I cannot see any reason why we should not be looking at hospitals and health centres in other parts of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: We have, member for Greatorex, through the Coroner, had the extent of problems at Royal Darwin Hospital highlighted - dreadful problems. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, minister included, is happy with the Coroner’s findings. I believe he has even stressed that he is intending to do something about that. I do not think there is any debate at all that there is a nursing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital. We have had another Coroner’s report released today and we know that we have a range of them in the pipeline. We have to deal with them. We also have to acknowledge that if these problems are so systemic in Royal Darwin Hospital, there is every likelihood those problems will have spread right across the Territory.
It is high time that such a committee was established and given the opportunity to get around the Territory, particularly bearing in mind the make-up of the committee. The member for Greatorex has suggested having people from the Australian Nursing Federation and from the AMA, with the Chair to be nominated by the government. I imagine the Minister for Health would have some input in advising the Leader of Government Business of who he would like to see as the Chair. I fail to see what his opposition to such a committee is - apart from the fact the committee may well uncover other problems and failures in their deliberations.
I am very keen to support the call by the member for Greatorex to set up the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee, and I encourage all members to support it as well.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers. I thank the minister for his response. It appears he is not going to support the debate, the inquiry and the review, which is very disappointing. I can only say, I wonder what he is worried about. Perhaps, as the member for Fong Lim has highlighted, he is worried that it might uncover some deeper, systemic problems in the health system right across the Northern Territory. We have seen the problems at RDH, they have been highlighted in detail by the Coroner; the staffing crisis, among other issues facing RDH. One can only imagine what other problems there are across Northern Territory health facilities – the Alice Springs Hospital, Katherine Hospital, Gove Hospital, and Tennant Creek Hospital.
There may not be such systemic issues facing these hospitals as there are at Royal Darwin Hospital, putting this into context, because the RDH is a much bigger facility than the others. Nevertheless, it augurs well to suggest that there are issues. We all speak to people, to health care workers, and many of us are involved, whether we have been in hospital personally for treatment, or our family and friends. We all speak to people who work in the health care sector. I know that they are very hard working, but they are also free to come forward with some of the issues. They speak to us, often in confidence as MLAs, and hope that we will raise these concerns in parliament.
There are problems - I know that there are problems - but the depth and the level of those problems remains to be seen. I believe we really do need to get out there and investigate the level of systemic failures in the health system. The minister has said it is not all his fault. Health is a big problem right across this country; it is a big problem in the Territory. It has been a big problem in the Territory for years, prior to this government, and prior to the CLP government, prior to 1974. It is a problem across the Northern Territory. It is now a matter of: can we fix these problems, and how do we go about addressing these issues - where do we draw a line and where do we start?
I believe it is reasonable to suggest that we have a review of Northern Territory health services across the NT. We have spoken on the cost of this. Perhaps the minister was being flippant and trying to be funny about the $1m cost. It is ludicrous. He knows it. How you can spend $1m in four months, I have no idea, particularly in the Northern Territory. There is no way in the world it will cost anywhere near $1m. I am sure the minister knows that, even though he is shaking his head at the moment. The cost is one thing.
I do not believe that Territorians should be deprived of the best possible health care and the best possible health outcomes because of the cost. London to a brick, it is not going to cost $1m, but if it cost half of that, it would be money well spent if we were able to uncover and find better ways to solve some of these systemic problems facing the health system in the Northern Territory.
I thank all contributors, the members for Sanderson and Fong Lim, and the minister for his reply. I urge all members of this parliament to support an independent review; a committee made up of both sides of parliament, an Independent member of parliament, and members of the ANF and the AMA. We believe it is in the best interests of Territorians, the government, the Health department, health care professionals, and health care facilities in the Northern Territory.
In closing, I urge all members to support this. The opposition supports our review into acute care services across the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That the new Darwin Correctional Facility be constructed on its present site at Berrimah and not built elsewhere, and that the government build prison farm facilities throughout the Territory as part of an alternative strategy to the existing prison policy.
I have some photographs and I must, before I get into trouble, recognise that they came from Google Earth – there are two there from Google Earth - and one from the Northern Territory Planning department. I put them there for anyone who is interested. There is one photograph which relates to the second motion as well. For those who do not know the area, there is a picture of Berrimah Farm and the prison and the dots represent – the yellow one is Don Dale Centre, the red one is the low security prison, the orange one is the main gaol and the green dot is Berrimah Prison Farm. So people now have a bit of an idea what we are talking about.
I am sure the decision about the prison is already made. I do not know why I think that, but I know that sometime in the future I will be told where it is going and all the reasons why it should not stay where it is. Regardless of that, I still believe that moving the prison is quite a silly idea. Why? Because the prison is in an ideal place and it has not been a problem. It has only been there for approximately 30 years. The last prison we had is the one at Fannie Bay, which is probably not a bad place to have a prison, with all the sea breezes that the government talks about. It has been there for about 100 years. This prison has only been around for 30 years and we are already talking about demolishing it and moving it.
Why do I think it is a good spot? The prison is not near suburban residential areas. There are a few residents nearby but it has not caused them a problem. It is close to industry and I think there is potential for a prison to find employment for people outside the prison in nearby industries or to bring industries into the prison to help skill people.
I refer to a website which is related to a correctional centre I visited in Ohio a couple of years ago. It is called the West Central Community Correctional Facility. It is a therapeutic community. I will not go into that at the present time, but it allows residents of this facility – they call them residents – to work outside in the Marysville city, nearby in areas like the lumber yard, on the local council, and various other places in the community. They work there during the day and come home in the afternoon and are locked up for the evening.
This particular facility has many other fantastic programs. I was most impressed. I would recommend anyone who is visiting America to have a look at these therapeutic communities as a real option for changing people’s lives. If I have time today I might mention it, but I will not go into that just now.
Not only is the prison close to industry, it is also close to where people go to be told they will go to prison - the courts in Darwin, and the legal system, where the lawyers work, that supports them. We know there is a remand centre there and you do not want a remand centre too far away because people in remand are waiting to go to court, so you do not want them too far out bush.
It is also close to public transport which is essential for families who visit friends or family that are incarcerated. I say that because sometimes people can lose sight of the other side of the tragedy of people going to gaol. Whilst many of us – most of us – do not have much sympathy for people who end up in gaol, because they deserve to be there, many times that will be someone’s father, someone’s wife, someone’s brother. There is an effect on those who live outside as much as the person living on the inside. There needs to be a connection between the prison, the prisoners, and the families that need to visit. That is something we should not lose sight of. Most prisoners have to leave the prison one day. They need to be attached to their families, and you would hope that the attachment to their family may also help convince them that life back in prison is no good because they are separated from their loved ones and their children.
This prison is on a large block of land, in fact, it is 82 ha. If you look on the map you will see it is surrounded by an industrial block which is on the right side of the land. That has been developed as industry. You will now see more and more industry being developed there. Below it are some environmental areas which are planned for future development. To the left is the Berrimah prison farm, and to the north is Knuckey Lagoon Wildlife Reserve.
I have visited the prison twice. Obviously, the reason why the government wants to demolish the prison is not because of its age, but because of its design and because it is not big enough for the increasing number of prisoners. I saw a notice today saying we have record numbers of prisoners now in our gaol - we are up to approximately 900 - and this prison was not built for that number. I am not necessarily against building a new prison if it makes it more efficient and brings it up-to-date with some of the facilities we would expect in a modern prison. As the minister said yesterday, the education facilities are pretty woeful. Education is a very important part of a prison facility.
One reason I have been given for moving this prison - and this is something I heard on one of my tours and I accept it may not be official – is that the rest of this land is too wet. I find it difficult to believe, if that is case, because one of the reasons the government has said they want to shift this prison is to develop housing there. If it is too wet for the prison, it is too wet for the housing. You cannot have it both ways – it is one or the other.
Just for argument’s sake, let us say that the land is too wet in the lower portion here. The government also intends to sell off Berrimah Farm. If you look at the planning map, below here there are two yellow portions of land and an orange portion of land. Portion 2173 is the prison, Portion 1168 is Berrimah Farm, and the orange land is section 4195. Section 4195 is also part of the Berrimah Research Station. That is equivalent to 38 ha of high ground. That land is mainly under the flight path. If you look very carefully, you will see a waving line going across the land, and that is the 20 ANF contour for the airport - one of the reasons why some of the land at Berrimah Farm is not suitable for housing.
If the land is too wet for redevelopment of the prison, that land could be used. If you look at the photograph, you will see there is very little difference between where the prison is now and where it will be in the future. Although you might move it from the site it is on now, with the government saying that it no longer wants to use the Berrimah Research Farm as a farm, there is adequate land for the prison to be moved a couple of hundred metres to the west.
The other problem I have is that we have two buildings on that site which are relatively new. We have the low-security prison - which is where the orange dot is - that cost $7.6m and was only opened two years ago. Why are we destroying it? We have the Don Dale prison which was expanded two years ago and cost around $2m - I am not sure of the exact cost. I imagine it is going to be demolished as well.
The strange thing is we are still spending money there. I have the tender documents: ‘Tenders close 29 October, Tender: Darwin Berrimah Correctional Centre, Construction of New Visitors Centre’. I am not saying we do not need a new visitors centre, however, I struggle with the logic. If we are going to pull this whole place down, why are we spending money on a visitors centre? I know the government is putting money into some demountable accommodation because the prison has reached bursting point. I still believe it is strange that we are going to start building permanent structures, when we know we are going to pull them down in a short time.
I find it interesting that the government says one of the reasons it needs to move the farm is that it needs more land and we need to develop a bigger prison. I think part of the reason it wants to move it is because they want to put houses on Berrimah Farm, and they are not going to sell houses, especially a suburban-type development, right next to this correctional facility. I believe they are saying that the best thing to do is move it. They need to demolish it because it is not up-to-date, so they will move it. They may not agree with me there; they will say that is not true.
I still believe the prison is going to go to the east of Robertson Barracks. I do not know whether I should put some money on it, but that is where I believe it will go, somewhere near the so-called new regional waste facility site. It will cost a lot of money to put it there. There is no infrastructure, no water, no mains power, and there is no decent road up there. I understand it is a fair distance from any residences, and the site has been used for mining in the past. Surely it would be cheaper to develop this block of land where the infrastructure is already in place. It has the power, water, and the sewerage ponds. If you look at the bottom of this block of land, you will see a set of sewerage ponds which were built for the prison because, prior to that, there were problems with sewage overflow into the creeks below.
I am concerned that the government seems to have a policy which says we only have one alternative for prisoners - that is a big prison. In this day and age, we have to look at options. That is not to say we do not imprison people, but we need to look at how we imprison people. The sad thing is we did have a prison farm - we had the Gunn Point Prison Farm. My understanding is that Gunn Point Prison Farm closed down simply because of industrial action. The government at that time did not accept some demands by prison officers, I believe for increased wages due to the remoteness of the area, and the government decided to close down the Gunn Point Prison Farm.
We have had nothing like that since. We have had the town of Katherine asking for a facility like a prison farm. We have had people in Tennant Creek, even the previous member for Barkly, wanted a prison farm, however, that did not happen. Prison farms are not out-of-date. The Port Lincoln Prison, about 650 km west of Adelaide, can accommodate 90 medium to low security prisoners. It says here that the prison property totals just over 200 ha of which around 150 ha is dedicated to crop farming each year. Sheep and cattle are also raised on the property, and low security prisoners are an integral part of the workforce involved in running the agricultural areas of the prison.
Recently, the farm also began producing both hydroponic and naturally grown vegetables. The majority of the produce is supplied to local businesses within Port Lincoln and the surrounding area. Port Lincoln also runs a woodwork shop where medium security prisoners are currently constructing outdoor settings for the National Parks and Wildlife Service - and this is the most important part - as well as creating nesting boxes for a local chicken farm. This is what should be happening.
The Cadell Training Centre is for 145 low security prisoners. All the prisoners work, either on the prison farm where the focus is dairy production and packaging, citrus, and the new development area of olives; or in the prison service areas where prisoners can participate in maintenance, kitchen, laundry, grounds or servery work.
In New South Wales there is the Brewarrina Centre called the Yetta Dhinnakkal. This is a minimum security institution for Aboriginal males located 70 km south of the township of Brewarrina. The centre is a working, farming property maintained by inmates under supervision; they also do various TAFE courses. That is another example of what can be done.
I do not know why the government is not looking at these options; even the option of a work camp. I visited the Wyndham Work Camp two years ago and was quite impressed by the amount of work they do there. It is similar, to some extent, to the low security prison in Alice Springs, but I believe it is much more formalised and it is run by, I believe, the Department of Justice. They have six work farms operating throughout Western Australia.
What I am trying to highlight is: why are we concentrating only on this form of imprisonment? We know with the new laws coming in there will be an increased number of people in prisons. If these people go to these prisons there is a chance they will meet up with people with the same sort of violent tendencies. I do not know whether that will be any good for those people when they come out. In fact, I am of the understanding that if you are not in for six months or more, there are no specific courses to help you in the management of your problems.
I refer again to the West Central Community Correctional Centre. They have programs such as: a chemical dependency treatment program; a relapse prevention program; a healthy relationships program, which works in cooperation with local domestic violence shelter programs; rational emotive therapy; anger management; men’s issues; health and wellness; parenting; communication counselling; grief counselling; social skills; co-dependency; continuing care; career choices; and thinking errors. I recommend that people look at the options behind these therapeutic community-type courses.
In the same town as West Central there is the Ohio Reformatory for Women. They have short term offender units where they do daily classes of life skills; coping strategies; family services; health and wellness; recovery issues; and job readiness, etcetera.
I am concerned that we are going to put a lot of people into these prisons - they may only be short-term, they may have some issues we need to deal with - but are we giving these people options when they get out of prison not to come back?
Prison farms and work camps are alternatives. There should be short-term plans for people who are first time offenders for violence. They may not be what you would call recidivist violent offenders; they may have done something stupid. They may have got on the grog one night and clocked someone and they are going to spend a couple of weeks in gaol. Should we be ensuring these people have an alternative form of imprisonment, if it is possible? If they are imprisoned, should we have the processes and the programs which will help these people?
In this attempt by the government to build a new prison they seem to want to build an efficient prison. I am not saying the Correctional Services department does not have programs - they do have programs and many people try very hard. There is Wildcare NT, there are people training to work on boats, crocodile management - they do have some great courses. However, if we only rely on this big, concrete version of a prison - and some people deserve to be there - but if that is the only alternative, I do not believe we are going down the right path.
Eighty per cent of our inmates are Aboriginal, and I cannot believe that 100% of those people are dinky-di criminals. Many of them are in there for foolish things they have done. Much of it is due to alcohol and that is a fact of life. We need to be using our prisons to educate these people.
In the Women’s Reformatory in Ohio and the West Central facility, education was the main strategy. In fact, in the Women’s Reformatory, they have very modern classrooms. They wanted every woman they had to reach the high school standard where they would have been able to move onto other jobs. If we are going to go modern, that is, we are going to build an efficient, ‘you beaut’ prison, we need to go modern in other ways. We need to go modern in alternative forms of imprisonment. I agree that people who are violent should go to prison. Does that mean just a standard prison? Or does it mean something useful? You are going to work in the hot sun. You are going to weed the sweet potatoes, harvest the tomatoes and bananas, and bring in the cattle in the afternoon.
What is wrong with that? You are teaching people to be productive. They have lost their freedom for doing a silly thing. They will be giving something back to society. That is one of the tenets of the work camp system in Western Australia. They work there because they believe they need to give something back to society for the wrongs they have done.
I ask the government to reconsider demolishing the site. There is land there that can be used which will not cost a huge amount of money to the government because the infrastructure is already there. The public transport is there for those who cannot get there by car. It is close to the ports. It has industry close by. It is not affecting residential areas and it is an ideal site.
I ask the government to consider this: do not put our prison somewhere unsuitable. Look for alternative options. I would love to hear from the minister, when he is responding, why we are not looking at the option of at least one prison farm. I would prefer five. There are very few Aboriginal communities that have market gardens or a commercial enterprise, in fact, I do not know of any, except maybe Ali Curung. I used to run a market garden at Daly River and at Nguiu on Bathurst Island. They are all gone. They are all finished. The poultry shed on Bathurst Island is a Woolies shop, as far as I know. That is all there is.
If we could use the resources of those many Indigenous people who are in gaol, in a commercial sense, they will get paid. That money goes into the prison. Some of that money may go to the victim, and some of that money may go to prison and be put in a trust account. They could work on these farms, from Alice Springs to Darwin and to Nhulunbuy, which gives you a climatic area, where you can grow just about anything at all times of the year. You could have a commercial body – it might be one of those outback stores or the Arnhem Land Progress Association, ALPA, and they could supply those communities with fresh fruit and vegetables. Then you would not have the complaint that you are subsidising by using cheap labour. That is one of the arguments about prison farms. That is one option. One is we can give people good employment. They can earn some money, and we can supply good fruit and vegetables to those communities that otherwise have to get them from down south or elsewhere.
We need to think broadly. The government is talking about a 2030 vision. Well, if it is a real vision, then we have to think further than a big concrete block in the way we treat our prisoners. People need to be punished for things they have done wrong against society. However, when they come out we want them to be better people. We do not want them to come back again, and we want them to help our society, rather than hinder it. To do that we need to look further than what we are doing at the present time.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government not to knock this prison down, but to put a moderate size prison there and put the rest out in prison farms.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. The Berrimah gaol and its associated facilities do not need to be relocated. It is relatively new establishment. It opened in 1979, as the member for Nelson stated. The Don Dale Juvenile Centre was only upgraded recently, at cost to government and the community. The minimum security centre only opened two years ago. If this government had a plan to upgrade, renovate and remodel gaols, then surely they have been thinking about that over the last term, and not just suddenly come up with this idea that, oops, we need a new gaol because we cannot have the precious people living at the Berrimah Farm being close to a correctional facility.
A tender has gone out - it is currently in the commercial arena - for a new visitors centre. Why would this document be released - why would the government be committing to spend money if they are looking to relocate the gaol?
I have had constituents and other people come to me regarding the Berrimah gaol. There is speculation in the community, and the business community, as to where it may relocate. If the gaol is to move - and I urge the government to reconsider their decision to relocate the gaol - then they are going to have to be very careful. I do recall their comments that the gaol was not going to be near any domestic or residential areas. If that is the case, then the gaol is going to have to be further out, and that is going to cost a lot of money - more than the $300m that the government is talking about.
The gaol is on approximately 82 ha, which is approximately 200 acres. That is a fair sized piece of land. There is ample room for this gaol to be expanded. I can distinctly recall when the government announced that they wanted to redevelop Berrimah Farm. In the morning, the minister for Planning said they did not have any land to release. By that afternoon, the Chief Minister was on the radio saying that Berrimah Farm was going to be developed for residential. I believe the quote was: ‘It will be a lovely place because there will be prevailing winds’. The fact that it is a contaminated site probably escaped the government’s attention at the time.
It is located in an industrial area, or a semi-industrial area. There is Wongabilla, the pony, equestrian and rodeo to the east. What is going to happen when the gaol does move and we get this residential area? People are going to start complaining about the noisy rodeos, as they complain about everything else about Darwin when they come from down south. We have industrial areas to the south, the farm to the north and a major arterial road to the west. It is a prime place for a gaol, given its location to services and infrastructure and, more importantly, as has been pointed out, to public transport.
Members of the Chamber may not be aware, but there is an enormous amount of traffic that goes to and from the Darwin gaol and the Don Dale Juvenile Centre. The prisoners go to court, hospitals, dentists, and they have special leave for funerals. The minimum low-risk prisoners go on work camps and work expeditions. The ancillary staff, who attend the gaol, are large in number. There are doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and health professionals. If a gaol is to be relocated and developed in a location that involves more travel and time, then that will add costs to the contract price these people charge the Northern Territory government and, ultimately, additional costs to the taxpayer and consumers.
We are also overlooking the fact that the prison officers will have a large say in what happens with a new correctional services facility for the Top End. They are a strong union and association and, rightly so; it is good that they represent their members accordingly. This will be a greenfield site and, as a consequence, the prison officers will want to have state-of-the-art facilities which benefit their members.
The original quote the government came out with was $300m. I argue, that by the time a gaol site is selected - if it involves acquisition of land, compensation, introduction and development of infrastructure and services - and then the actual building of the establishment, that the cost will be far in excess of $300m. I do not believe there has been any modelling done. There has probably been a figure plucked out of the air for what this facility is going to cost. I have not seen any information on the planning to accommodate the increase of prisoners, if we are going to have that as our population grows. Berrimah gaol, as I understand it, has approximately 800 prisoners, and that could grow if we have the law and order problems that we have currently in our community. That is not a good sign.
I urge the government, and I support the member for Nelson in saying let us not have a knee-jerk reaction - as this government is so good at doing - let us plan properly. If the gaol does need upgrading and expansion, then look at it seriously and consult properly with the community and all concerned so that we do get a proper facility and we do not have a situation of moving it to a location which, ultimately, costs the community and all the stakeholders a lot of angst and upset, and extra money to the taxpayer.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson. I have spent a bit of time around the Don Dale Centre and the gaol, located in Tivendale Road, and also, I have been fortunate to have a number of tours through the Berrimah Farm. I agree with the member for Goyder. The prison has a few design faults, but if one is going to expand, we could expand further in the same area and save ourselves an awful lot of money which could then be spent on, for instance, housing or developing blocks there.
My understanding is that the extension of Tiger Brennan Drive will go smack through there, and we are going to lose maybe a third of the Berrimah Farm anyway. Also, if the government want to develop some residential blocks, there are issues. One is the soil situation and the contaminants in the soil and the work that will have to be done to ensure that there is no danger to kids playing in the dirt. Second, there has been no mention of schools. I do not see a school close by. I do not see suitable shops. I know there is a nice shop going over there that sells clothing, factory clothing, Harvey Norman, etcetera, but I am talking about access to other shops.
The current scheduling of buses is of great concern to numerous people. There are no bus services here, so I am assuming we will have to get some more buses to adequately service that area. The top part of this particular parcel of land, they call the Berrimah Farm, is within the noise - the line that they have here, what term do they use?
Mr Wood: Noise contour.
Mr STYLES: That is it, the noise contour. We hear of people who buy homes and put them on land next to airports. They buy the land at a good price, because they are close to the airport, and then, a few years later, they are agitating to have the airport moved. The people from around that area who have been spoken to have recommended that light industrial use of this land might be more appropriate.
If there is no reason to shift the gaol, apart from a design issue - the last time I was out there, it looked like the building was strong enough, it was not about to fall down - then perhaps we need to redesign and build adjacent to the existing infrastructure at a far reduced cost rather than build a complete new one.
There are powerlines that run through here, and there are health risks associated with living next door to high voltage power lines. There are a number of issues that have not been raised by the government in their haste, obviously, to develop this land. I would be really interested to know why they are not pumping any development costs down into Bellamack, and getting these so-called 500 blocks that were mentioned yesterday, that are currently on the market. I am very interested to know exactly where those blocks are and whether they are on the market, or if they are vacant blocks owned by people who may be sitting on them for whatever reason. It is just another interesting aspect of what the government is providing in relation to house blocks, or so-called house blocks, on the Berrimah Farm. I believe there are other issues, and some serious planning issues that have not been explained in this House as yet.
I commend the motion from the member for Nelson.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I believe he is very right: the prison is fine where it is. I have taken many clients to that location, and it is still fine. To date, none of the clients I have taken there have run away.
On the basis that it is sound and structural at the moment, I believe it is fine. It does need some routine maintenance, as did Power and Water. However, as we have seen with Power and Water, if you do not maintain it, it fails. We need to maintain the property to ensure that it has a long life of service.
It is the same with this great building that we work in here. We discussed only the other day that we have been in here for 10 plus years and we are rewiring it for the upgrade of technology. What have we done to the current prison? Probably not much in that time other than basic fixing of the sewerage as it gets broken or fixing a gas pipe that leaks. If you do not put the maintenance in, none of our buildings will be sustained for a long time. Yes, it is overcrowded and we do need to increase the space. However, some of that space needs to incorporate educational facilities so that we can reform, as a prison should do, and rehabilitate the people who are in there, so that they do not continue on this cycle of recidivism, as do many of our prisoners.
I come from a family of tradespeople and, shall we say, of correctional services. My father was a correctional services officer for many years in South Australia. I have visited the Port Lincoln gaol and it is a great facility. It is a great method for dealing with people who know how to work with their hands and if they do not yet, they can be taught how to work with their hands - so they give back to the community. I have visited the Port Augusta gaol and in fact, when I first moved to Port Augusta, I lived in the gaol, not as a criminal but I lived in the old part of the gaol as a little kid, I cannot remember how old I was. When we moved to the old part of the gaol it was still being used. It was built around the1850s and it was still, in 1981, being used as a women’s prison.
We have a gaol that is only 30 years old and we want to bulldoze it. It is ridiculous. It is farcical. It is a great waste of Territory taxpayers’ money and should only be expanded upon to benefit it. An argument they have put is that the prison cannot be near residential areas, yet we have a maximum security prison in Adelaide, within the central region cornered by North, South, and East Terrace. There is a prison right in the middle of Adelaide. What is the problem? It is called The Block, because it looks like a block. Everyone knows what it is, but no one runs away from it. Everyone walks past it every day to get their cappuccino. It is not an issue.
In addition, we need our low security prisons to develop. These are areas where we begin to pass on some thoughts and our trust to those who have breached everyone’s trust in society. Places where we train the people, and reform the people - that is the idea of work gangs. We have them going out of the Berrimah gaol and they are brilliant – you see them everywhere, and they do a great job. However, we need to expand on that and we need to increase our ability to train people.
Port Lincoln and Port Augusta are role models. Port Augusta has a small portion, and I cannot remember the correct name, where they have self-contained units away from the gaol. They only have cyclone mesh fences and some barbed wire on top that contains the prisoners. It is very low security - a series of little bungalows. They supply their meat and food; they put in the orders to the head kitchen for what they need for the next couple of days. They are taught the vital life skills that will help close the gap in society and that is what they do there. That model can be used in the Territory quite well, particularly somewhere like Katherine, where you could have the work gangs and they all come home to nest - crocodile nest, perhaps - and they learn life skills during the day and come home and learn other life skills, that could help them in their life beyond gaol.
I commend the member for Nelson for his motion. It is a very wise move for the government to follow a motion like this. You do not have to be foolish, you can change your mind and move forward with a better plan - if you are genuine about supporting Territory people.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the member for Nelson in this motion.
When it was first announced that the government would be spending $300m on a new prison, I was quite stunned. If you look around the Northern Territory, and while we have the Treasurer here telling us the Territory is in a great financial state, you do not have to be a genius to work out that the Territory has some significant bills coming its way.
The Minister for Essential Services tells us they are about to spend $1bn addressing the power crisis. Goodness knows what the nursing staff and health crisis is going to cost us; what the education crisis is going to cost us; what the law and order crisis is going to cost us, and yet the government seems to have a spare $300m to throw away on a facility which already exists at Berrimah Farm. To me it seems like complete madness that the government would be spending this money on something which is already in existence.
I also note that the government said back in September they would announce where the new $300m prison would be located. I sit here and look at the minister and I do not know if he is going to jump up during this motion and tell the crew exactly where it is going be placed. I very much doubt it, but we sit in hope.
It is a very important matter. People here are chuckling at the minister’s obvious discomfort, but it is an important matter. There are a range of people who currently work at Berrimah prison, who have literally had their lives put on hold since the announcement of the new prison. Those prison wardens and other correctional services personnel who work at Berrimah prison are, quite rightly, up in the air as to what their future holds. They do not know if the new prison is going to Yuendumu, Ayers Rock, Alice Springs, Katherine or Tennant Creek, maybe in the member for Nelson’s electorate or maybe even in Fong Lim. Goodness knows, no one knows, it is …
Mr Bohlin: Fannie Bay raceway.
Mr TOLLNER: Fannie Bay raceway is the suggestion from the member for Drysdale.
In all fairness, it is a rather serious issue. People who work in prisons are obviously dedicated, hardworking people and they have families. Those families require certainty, in order to make decisions for the future. People need certainty to know where they are going to buy their house, where they intend to live, and a lack of certainty disrupts people’s lives. I feel for those people who are currently working at Berrimah prison. They have been left hanging regarding where their new workplace may be, whether they need to find alternative employment or if they can get to the new prison, etcetera.
Understandably, Berrimah prison is now overcrowded. I notice that the member for Nelson’s motion includes a provision that the government build a prison farm facility somewhere else in the Territory, as an alternative to the current prison strategy. That is a great idea. I was a bit wary, in the lead-up to the last election, about our law and order concerns. I have seen a number of elections over the years in the Northern Territory where it becomes a question of who is the toughest on belting the daylights out of criminals, and very little attention has ever been placed on the rehabilitation or correction of those criminals.
I was extraordinarily proud to be part of the Country Liberals’ campaign on law and order aspects because, finally, we were addressing that crucial issue about how we facilitate the correction and rehabilitation of people caught up in our judicial and prison system. The idea of prison farms and getting people working, giving them real skills, giving them education, teaching them to read and write whilst in prison, I thought was admirable. I encourage the government to seriously consider going down that path.
I am very glad to support the member for Nelson’s motion, for that reason alone. In addition, I am very glad the member for Nelson is also advocating that we do not waste $300m on a new prison. That money could be used to set up a prison farm somewhere else - or a boot camp, whatever you want to call it - a centre that would, in some way, rehabilitate and educate prisoners, and give them some sort of work ethic when they come out of the prison system, in the hope that we can turn them into contributing citizens of our society which is, ultimately, what we all want. We do not want people constantly re-offending and going back into gaol. Member for Nelson, I support you in that regard.
I have an inkling that the reason why the government is considering getting rid of the prison at Berrimah is because they want the land to build some houses on. I am sure the minister and his ministerial colleagues on the other side have flown in and out of Darwin on numerous occasions. When you fly in and out of Darwin and you look out the plane window it is very hard to understand why there is a land shortage in Darwin. There does appear to be a lot of vacant land. However, we seem to have to pick the one spot, where we have a large existing piece of infrastructure, which only needs a bit of a spruce up, and it would do sufficiently for years to come.
I encourage the government to consider spending a bit of time planning. Maybe this 2030 thing, whatever it is that the …
A member: The multi-million dollar plan.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, the multi-multi-million dollar committee that the Chief Minister is proposing, could look at the planning concerns and at some areas that Darwin can expand into in years to come, rather than ripping down existing infrastructure. Goodness me, I am quite stunned that the Territory Treasurer would support a move to waste $300m on something like this. But, then again, she is the minister for Planning; she is the one who is actually lacking the planning skills. I suppose this is a bit of a way out for her.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very glad to support the member for Nelson’s motion. I am extremely glad that he has brought it on for debate. This is an issue that should be debated further in this Chamber. I encourage all members in the Chamber to support the member for Nelson’s very thoughtful motion.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the motion by the member for Nelson; it is a very important issue. Governments are charged with providing necessary public infrastructure; that is part of what we do. Whether that is hospitals, power infrastructure, or schools - prisons are part of that public infrastructure.
I share members’ concerns. It is a lot of money to be spending on a gaol, but I am convinced it is necessary. We have heard comments opposite: all it needs is a coat of paint, a bit of a working bee on the weekend, and it will be right. But it will not be right. It is aged infrastructure. The member for Goyder said it is only 30 years old. Well, it has had a hard life. Moreover, the design of the current gaol is completely incompatible with what is required for a modern facility. It is completely incompatible, not only for the lack of capacity to offer rehabilitation and education programs which, laudably, was a central part of the opposition’s plank in the election. I agree with the member for Fong Lim, that this was a very important issue that was raised and is something the government agrees with, and has been putting forward, for some time, as part of our rationale for a new prison.
It is not only that. It is the inefficient use of resources, namely, prison officers, and the ratio of prison officers to prisoners in this facility, currently, is far in excess of what is accepted practice all around Australia. The prison officers have lobbied the government very strongly for a new prison on a greenfield site. I am not sure if the member for Nelson or members of the opposition have taken time to discuss this matter with the prison officers. Colin Edwards put to me, very strongly, that this is what the prison officers want. Why do they want it? There are safety and supervision issues, and the issue of modern correctional facilities which rely on many types of modern technology, to assist the flow of prisoners around various areas of the gaol. That certainly cannot happen at Berrimah as it currently stands.
The current prison is a bit like Topsy; it just grew. There have been parts grow here and there, and it is a very difficult institution to implement modern correctional policies. It has had its use-by date. I have talked about the inefficiencies, and the difficulties in being able to provide education facilities for prisoners. Moreover, there are difficulties with having a working correctional facility as a construction site. That is a major difficulty.
I want to assure this House that government has looked very carefully at this issue. I will talk about the new site and the processes involved later on.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: There are a number of sites - well, there is actually one more now. The member for Drysdale said he did not really mind if there was a correctional facility built in a residential area, so I think you can add the electorate of Drysdale to the list of sites we have - maybe right next door to the member for Drysdale. He seemed to enjoy having a correctional facility next door to him.
The one undertaking I have given, in terms of the new site, is that it would not be proximal to housing, but I will discuss that in more detail later.
There was one issue - I do have a prepared speech – raised by a number of speakers regarding the issue of the new visitors centre. The member for Nelson raised that, and the member for Goyder. I have been advised, that with short-term expansion, for security reasons, we need a new visitors centre for the next several years. We have to bear in mind that this is a long-term project. The basis of a new correctional facility, I believe is for 800 to move there by 2012, and a further 200 to be there by 2016, and decommissioning of the Berrimah site by that time. We are talking about quite a time frame.
The current visitors centre would not allow family members expected access, and due to overcrowding, could lead to the transmission of contraband, drugs or weapons into the facility. The new centre includes appropriate searching areas. I am also advised that some fixtures can and will be moved and installed into a new facility. That is the advice I have had specifically about the new visitors centre.
I will now address the issue as a whole and specifically address the motion put forward by the member for Nelson. It is true that the member for Nelson has had a very strong interest in the planning and future development of the Berrimah site, including the Berrimah Correctional Facility. I believe it was the member for Nelson and the member for Goyder raised issues about a residential development there, which the member for Karama, as the Planning minister, has addressed on a number of occasions.
In terms of the process, there is always an assessment of land suitability, which takes into account many factors, including the ANEF levels of topography - a whole range of issues are part of that process. That is happening for the current site and the farm. Someone also mentioned that there are large power lines and a significant area under those power lines that cannot be developed, and would separate the two sites that you are talking about, member for Nelson, which would complicate matters further, including transport of prisoners to and from a prospective prison farm.
We are currently in the process of finalising a preferred site and design for a modern, expanded 1000 inmate correctional facility for the Darwin region. Despite what the member for Nelson has said, a final decision has not been made. I will talk about that a little later, member for Nelson.
This facility will be based on best practice architectural design to allow maximum access to rehabilitation and education programs, as well as artistic, sporting, and cultural activities. I inform the House that government did not sit down and say: ‘Oh, let us have a new prison’. ‘How much is it going to cost?’ ‘Oh, probably around $300m’. It does not work like that. We have consultants, specialised consultants, people who have been involved in designing and building correctional facilities in the Australasian region, who have advised government. Moreover, further advice always comes from Treasury and DPI. There are a number of sources that government has received advice from on the prospective costs of a particular facility.
Members are aware of high recidivism rates in the Northern Territory and we have all spoken about that. This is largely due to a high Indigenous prison population. A correctional facility needs to be daunting, in some respects, but it also needs to be structured to encourage offenders, as much as possible, to avoid committing further crimes and returning to prison. Any member, who has visited Berrimah prison, would be well aware of the pressing need for a new, much expanded facility. The structure is poorly designed, old, oppressive and at capacity and it reminded me of footage of the Bali Nine. That is what I thought of Berrimah, when I visited there. It has definitely reached the end of its use-by date.
We cannot keep on adding new blocks and hope it holds together forever. The opposition has argued that halting construction of the new facility will save the entire cost of construction, which is not true. The opposition refuses to take into account the much higher maintenance costs, prisoner numbers, and staffing expenses, which are quite considerable, in keeping an old expanded facility running. Over the years extensions have been made to cater for growing numbers, but have subsequently impinged on educational and outdoor spaces. Prisoners are required to stay in their cells for much of the day, not as a punishment, but because that is the way it is in the current facility - this creates intense boredom. It is difficult for officers to monitor and interact positively with inmates.
In my discussions with the Prison Officers Association, members have very strongly supported the new facility and believe it will improve their work environment and raise staff retention rates.
The crucial question is: where to place this new facility? Choosing an appropriate site in the Darwin region is a complex undertaking. It is being managed by the Departments of Planning and Infrastructure, Justice, and Health - obviously of interest to the member for Drysdale, who would need to really look at the midge and mosquito issue. These are very important issues and something that I have insisted on. It is also very important for both the prison officers and other staff, and also the inmates. That needs to be done correctly. Also, Treasury is crucial in this undertaking.
The central criterion for a prison site, conferred by myself and the Chief Minister on several occasions, is that it should not be close to residential land. The member for Drysdale will be glad to know, I am not going back on that undertaking. I will not be building it in the park next door to his house. He seemed to think that they were pretty good in residential areas.
While agencies were scheduled to report back on a preferred site this month, I have directed, with the support of the Planning Minister and the Chief Minister, the agencies, that they ensure all relevant considerations and concerns are taken into account when presenting their final findings to government.
This is a very complex undertaking. There is much data that needs to be collected and assessments to be done. I want to be satisfied, as minister, and government, when I go out publicly with these assessments, that the right site has been chosen; that it stands the test of public scrutiny. It is a major government infrastructure that will be operational for the next 30 years, at least. We are not just planning for the next five years but assessing Darwin’s population growth and expansion for the next generation.
In order to keep this process transparent, and provide comparisons, which I believe, is crucial, the present site is being assessed as part of the site selection process. I did not want to say: ‘Here are five or six sites, and this is how they have been assessed, this is the criteria by which they have been assessed’, and for someone, probably the member for Nelson, to come back and say: ‘But you did not really assess the current site using those criteria.’ That is why the current site is being assessed with another five or six sites. I want to keep it transparent, so the member for Nelson can say: ‘Okay, this is how the current site and the other sites are being assessed.’ That way we can be comparing apples with apples. That is why our government has directed that the current site be assessed in the mix with the others, to keep it transparent and to satisfy everybody.
Berrimah faces several large challenges as an option for the new facility, such as: insufficient space for a larger facility, limited further expansion option, low lying land in some sections of the site, required buffer zones, and prison security, when we have a major construction site in the same location as a working maximum security prison. Member for Nelson, with some of those issues, the constraints are shared by some of the other prospective sites. It is not clear-cut; however, government is looking at all the options and including Berrimah as part of the process.
I am advised that this last issue would reduce educational and vocational placement for prisoners during the five year construction phase. The Northern Territory government has also made a firm commitment to developing a wider site of Berrimah for residential and industrial purposes. Advice I have received, member for Nelson, is that the models proposed by the Opposition Leader and yourself - slightly different models - at the current site, would fail by 2012. They would fail because they would be overtaken by the increase in prisoner numbers. There has been some detailed work done on the increase in prisoner numbers over the next seven to eight years. That modelling suggests that the proposal put forward by the opposition and your own proposal, for an expanded gaol on the current site, would not meet the increase in prisoner numbers. That is a debate we will continue to have, and I am very happy to have with you, member for Nelson. I welcome your input and I want to continue the dialogue with you. When government releases the report or the recommendations of the report and the assessments, it will be quite clear why the prospective site has been chosen and why others have not been chosen.
I know the member for Nelson has been quite passionate about prison farms. It is a very good issue. The way you have been consistent with this has set government thinking. As someone pointed out, the former member for Barkly has been a great advocate for regional prisons, as is the current member for Barkly and the member for Katherine. It is something government needs to consider. While developing a government prison policy, a full assessment was conducted of constructing and operating a small, minimum- security facility in either Katherine or Tennant Creek but, unfortunately, the high construction costs, transportation issues, and expensive doubling up of infrastructure meant this was not a viable option. The Prison Officers Association also very clearly argued earlier this year a regional facility would be difficult to staff.
I am pleased to inform the House that the government is currently investigating the concept of permanent and temporary regional work camp programs - as you alluded to visiting in Western Australia. I have some information and it is my hope that I can travel there in the near future, possibly in the company of others, and have a look firsthand. From what I have read, they seem very positive and they do a very good job. This would provide an alternative to traditional punishment, and allow prisoners to undertake a range of worthwhile projects while improving employment skills. Similar projects have been operating in Western Australia for over a decade, and prisoners regularly improve national park access, and rehabilitate remote areas and community spaces. Training would be available in chainsaw operation, first aid construction, and building maintenance, and camps, can provide prisoners with living skills, as someone else alluded to, as they would be required to self-cater, do their own laundry and, generally, maintain themselves in the camp.
There could be other opportunities in some of our regional centres for regional work camps to do similar work currently done by the community work parties in Darwin and Alice Springs. I am very supportive of this idea. We need to do some more work on these proposals, as they are in a preliminary stage. I have asked the Department of Justice to assess options for Corrective Services’ work camps and develop a submission for the consideration of government in the near future.
I am very happy to discuss these ideas further with the member for Nelson. Regrettably, member for Nelson, given what I have said here today, government will not be supporting your motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not often I jump up like that; it is hard to know how you add value. However, the member for Johnston said something which made me think I should get up.
I am very keen for him to explain, at a later date, exactly what he meant by his comment - and I do not have the exact quote – in words to the effect: much is said about the recidivism rate and we know that because they are Indigenous - implying that people are going back to gaol because they are Indigenous. I have not checked the Hansard, to clarify exactly what you said, but I am pretty sure I heard you say that people go back to gaol because they are Indigenous. I would be happy for you to clarify that.
Based on those comments – and that is exactly what I heard - it is very important for me to support the member for Nelson in his motion about the new prison facility.
There are many reasons why people end up in gaol. I know a little about the Alice Springs correctional facility which currently has 400 beds with about 448 prisoners. Many of them are Indigenous, and I believe there is a 66% recidivism rate at that gaol. I spend a lot of time talking to those prison officers, and they tell me a number of things about why people go into gaol, and some of the issues and concerns they have, because many of these prison officers live in my electorate.
We need to get back to the reason why people are going into gaol in the first place. There has been a little talk about alcoholism; the members for Nelson and Fong Lim spoke about alcohol. We keep putting these people into gaol, without having appropriate facilities to deal with alcoholism. Until we deal with the issue of alcoholism, our gaols will continue to get filled. I believe $300m could go a long way to deal with the issue of alcoholism and keeping people out of our gaols in the first place. The fewer people who are in gaols, the more people are able to work and better support our economy. At the moment, we are just letting alcoholism continue, and we are locking people up all the time. Sure, they might have committed an offence, but we have to deal with the issue in the first place.
I spoke last week about the issues in Alice Springs such as lack of housing and overcrowding, how that creates antisocial behaviour, and the vicious cycle goes on with alcohol consumption and people end up in gaol. However, instead of trying to deal with the lack of housing, providing more police, or trying to deal with the issue of alcohol, this government wants to spend $300m building a new gaol. I am not talking about the site at Berrimah. Spending $300m building a new gaol in the Darwin region beggars belief.
I find it very concerning that many members on the other side are from regional areas, and many spoke about the economic direction of the third Labor government - which has been held off again - and they talk about the support, about how great the economy is in the Northern Territory, how great Labor is doing, how great the government is doing with the economy in the Northern Territory, but I never hear anyone demanding economic opportunities in the bush.
We hear these little fluffy ministerial reports in the morning: great. The economy in the bush is booming. We never hear anyone put anything into the bush. Not once. I am a town member, and many of the people over here are town members …
Ms Lawrie: $286m for Closing the Gap.
Mr GILES: … as I hear some dribble from the other side. I sit back and ask: why do I keep trying to support the regions? I am not sure. The people who should be supporting the regions are the regional members. When you have a $300m prison and evidence that we need another gaol - because the government is clearly not dealing with the numbers of people who are being picked up and going to gaol - I wonder why the members, who represent the regions, are not standing up and saying: bring it to our area. Let us try to get some economic development in our area.
I heard the member for Johnston say something like the prison officers do not want it out in the regional area because they cannot find workers. The member for Nelson and many other people on this side of the parliament, including myself, join with what members on the other side say about getting Aboriginal people working. Here is an opportunity to create some jobs in the bush; because that is what is clearly lacking.
We have a $300m opportunity and we have no vision to put this out in the bush, which is exactly where it should be going. I do not know how many jobs there are in a gaol that costs $300m, but I assume there would be at least 100 jobs that are not all fully skilled jobs, that could go into the bush to create jobs for people. The people who have jobs are not the people who are going to gaol. If we get people trained and working they will not go into the prison system in the first place. As opposed to not creating jobs for people, who are not going to school because there are no jobs, and they are ending up in the gaol system.
I cannot see that this government has any vision. They stand up when the cameras are here, and they will talk about all fancy little things with slogans and acronyms and, oh, our 2030 - we are not going to do anything until 2030. Never mind that they have done nothing for seven years and things are going backwards, and hang on a second, we better look to the next 22 years. Here is something right now, where the government can make a difference - $300m. We cannot even get $3m for headworks in Alice Springs to get new land released, and you are going to pump $300m into a gaol. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Why not focus on stopping the people going to gaol in the first place? Why not stop giving people $10 for a bus fare when they leave gaol? Where do they go? They go back to the same old thing. You wonder why, as the minister for Justice says, it is the Indigenous people coming back. Ten dollars and a bus fare, plus the sweetener on the other end: ‘I have no food or smokes, if I go to gaol I get $25 and a packet of smokes for $10 - that will be great. I will get three meals a day and a bed’. You spoke about trade school in gaol and carpentry and all of these different things - that is great. I have inspected Alice Springs gaol a few times and I am just about to go on another inspection and I think it is great. However, we give people $10 and a bus fare when they leave. What about a halfway house or some type of structure? So that when people leave gaol, they can go to this house, which is completely managed, and have a bed, food, and accommodation - the type of things that they get in gaol - but they go to work at 9 am and they come back at 5 pm. They could put their skills to use and help grow the economy. It could help reduce the rate of re-incarceration of people.
What about spending $300m on a school? We know the kids who do not go to school are the ones who will more than likely end up in gaol. There are a thousand reports that will tell you that. But no, we will lock more people up and they will re-offend because they are Indigenous, apparently.
What about using the $300m for the bush? If we really want to build the bush, let us put it out there. Let us have a tender that says: which community wants this prison project? If you are going to have it, you will have to provide employees and you cannot provide employees unless your kids have gone to school. We are prepared to give you this project. We might start building it small, to see how you go. Send your kids school, get them trained up and then they can have a job - first preference. There is a real regional economic development opportunity for a community in the bush in the Northern Territory.
However, what do we have? Put it at Berrimah. Instead of realising that the majority of the members of the government come from the bush. You stand there and preach to us about how smart you are with regional economics and how much you commit to the regions. Yet, not one person from the regions on your side has stood up and said, bring it bush. That is absolutely disgusting. It is appalling. To sit here and listen to the comments made - as I have said, I am happy to be corrected through Hansard - about recidivism rates and the correlation between them being Indigenous, I find highly offensive.
I believe that this government has a lack of foresight about what to do. I am not going to talk about the committee because there are no ideas on the other side; it was just announced as some sort of report or announcement during Question Time.
The comments made by the member for Johnston - as I sat here and stewed about whether to stand up - absolutely disgusted me. I support the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the government that today they have been promoting the 2030 vision.
My 2030 vision for prisons is that one day we will not have to build bigger prisons. We will build smaller ones because we do not have as many people in our prisons. Unfortunately, society as it is, the problem appears to be getting worse because the numbers are growing; they are not getting smaller. I believe we should be doing everything we can to stop people going to gaol and helping them during and after they have been in gaol. We cannot look at the issue about prisons without looking at the whole picture.
I believe that early intervention is the key. It has been proven overseas, and in parts of Australia, that if you can intervene, especially with young children when they appear to be first at risk, you can save - if you want to look at the economic side of it - government a lot of money. However, it is not just about economics - it is about saving people from ending up on the wrong side of the tracks.
I put this up today to look at alternatives as well as the basic issue of the whether the prison should be moved. I thank the minister for his statement which contained some good things, and what I have heard, especially from members on this side, was also encouraging, because I heard more, for a change, about what are we going to do about rehabilitation.
It is easy to say we will put them in gaol. I am not saying we should not put people in gaol, but I believe we would be very narrow-minded politicians if that is all we did. This job is more than a headline. This job is more than agreeing with the fellow leaning over the bar, who says lock them up and put them away forever. That does not happen. We want to make sure that a person who goes through the prison system comes out a little better, or a lot better - more educated and able to put something back in to society and never comes back again.
The prison farm should not be looked at from a viability point of view. The member for Braitling mentioned the economic advantages for a town. For example, putting a small farm in Tennant Creek or Katherine would create employment. I agree with the member for Braitling. Why not employ local people to look after minimum security prison farms? I am not disagreeing with the union, which claims there has to be some changes to the existing prison. However, I believe it is fairly narrow-minded to say that we cannot find people to employ in those areas. Are they saying we cannot find people from outside those areas who will come to these communities? I am saying let us look at those communities and see if we can employ people locally.
There is an area that is not being brought up very often these days - deaths in custody. From memory, one of the recommendations from deaths in custody was to try to have people as close to their families as possible. Approximately 80% of the people in the Northern Territory gaols are Indigenous. Are you telling me that 80% of Indigenous people live in Alice Springs and Darwin? Because these are the only two prisons we have. I am sure they live in other places. Why not use these prison farms so that we are able to relocate some of these people to areas where they are closer to their families?
That is not about viability; it is about social issues and creating employment. A prison farm will create employment because you will need suppliers of food, clothes, and basic items that everyone requires to live. There are economic benefits for local communities, there are some benefits for the prisoners and there are some employment opportunities for people in those areas. It is a system we should try. It is an alternative to the big, hard, cold, concrete prison that we put many people in, which I believe has a better chance of rehabilitating people and give them some life skills. It will not solve all the problems.
I agree with what the member for Braitling said: where would you rather be if you were in a house with 15 people, where people were humbugging you all day for money, you could hardly find a quiet place to sit, and you were never sure where you were going to get your next meal? Prison looks a nice option sometimes. We have to remember that these issues are not just isolated to prisons. They are also about the conditions in which people live and we have to make the effort to try to change that. We do not have the time today to go into all those issues.
Minister, the issue of work farms has not been thought through hard enough. If the main reason the government has decided against this is because the prison officers say there are problems employing people in those areas, then I believe that is too narrow. I am interested in talking - maybe it is too late in this debate – to the members for Barkly and Katherine about the unemployment rate in these communities. You do not have to be a PhD to be a corrections officer in the community. That is not saying they do not need some qualifications, but I believe that those people could be trained in the Territory, just as we train police officers and ACPOs. We should be able to train and employ them locally and that would be good.
Many of the people in the communities, like Tennant Creek and Katherine, would probably know some of those prisoners as well. Maybe it would help some of the prisoners because they would find it hard at times if they had no-one they knew, in an environment different to what they were used to.
I differ a little from some of the speakers. I have visited the prison, not because I was forced to go there but because I am interested. I visited prisons in Ohio in America, and I visited Alice Springs, Wildman River, and Wyndham Work Camp. I have tried to educate myself about matters regarding prisoners. The last time I went on a guided tour of the prison, I saw it is a strong prison; it is not going to blow over. I must admit it does have some funny designs. There are places where there is no roof and prison officers have to walk in the rain to go from one place to another. They have a ventilation system which is just a piece of arc mesh. I am not against it being redeveloped, if that makes it better.
I recall going to the women’s prison, which is on the outside of the main part of the prison. That was what the member for Braitling was talking about - the idea of halfway house. I am fairly sure - and I will be corrected if I am wrong - that the buildings at the front of the prison, on the right-hand side as you come in to the prison car park, were to be a halfway house. They were motel-type units. That did not happen and they have become the women’s prison, and it is unsuitable. They have expanded it by putting some demountables there. I was very disappointed last time I was there. Unfortunately, the little garden they had for the women’s prison had a building put right on top of it – goodbye garden. People do not have much to do in prison. If you can give people a little work, encourage them to do things during the day, learn some skills and not be bored, we should be promoting that, not putting a big building on top of a garden. However, people had other ideas. I might be wrong there.
I looked at the education facilities in the prison, and they are certainly not up to standard. There was a hall in Berrimah prison where they had concerts and meetings, which is now full of classrooms which are not really adequate for the job. When I went to the Ohio Reformatory for Women, there were modern classrooms and women sitting at desks. They were keen to change their lives because they had good education facilities. The people in Ohio realise the importance of educating these people. I do not think it is a trade secret that many people in gaol are from the low socioeconomic and low educational section of our society. We need to give them assistance.
I thank the minister for saying that they are going to look at the existing site. I suggest the top part of the Berrimah Farm as a possibility, because there is room on Berrimah Farm. There is also room on the existing site. It concerns me that we have a $7.6m low-security prison that was only just built. What is going to happen to that? Is it going to go? There is the Don Dale Centre. There was no response to that, so is that going to go? I have not heard about those things.
I can draw an area on this map, approximately the same size as the current prison and put that in at least two places on existing land. While I was sitting here I received an e-mail from someone who must have been listening to the debate. They said: ‘For horticulture there are two sewerage ponds where we could recycle water and turn that into a garden. We could use some of the effluent, treated and pumped back into a garden, to create a garden for the prisoners’.
I understand where the prison officers are coming from. I know that the reception area of the prison is hopeless. It is not a good system for anyone. It is not safe for prisoners or prison officers. The facilities for the recreation area have been upgraded. When I first went there it was terrible, it had not been upgraded since it had been built. You have to look after the people who work in prisons. They need to be given facilities. When they are having time off from work, they need a pleasant place to sit and, if they want to play a game of pool or something, they need good facilities - at least that has been upgraded. These are areas that we need to take into account.
My argument is not about whether we need to keep this prison, but if we are going to build a new one, let us build it on the existing site because there are many advantages. It has the infrastructure, it is close, it has industry - where we could possibly create employment, it is close to the courts, people on remand can come out here, and families can visit because of public transport. It is not causing a problem for people. No one will go crook if it is built next door.
However, we are making a decision that it has to go somewhere else, and the main reason for moving the prison, from what I have read in media releases, is that the government wants to use it for housing. We will get on to that debate later but I do not believe that is a good reason to shift it.
I thank all the members who have contributed. I am encouraged that this has raised a little more awareness of an issue that is a major scourge on our society: that we have huge numbers of people in prison, and the highest rates of Indigenous people imprisoned in Australia per head of population, is a disgrace.
If we have a 2030 vision, it should be to reduce that number and keep working on it. We need alternatives. This is the prison that has been here since 1979. Alice Springs gaol is no better - in some ways it is, at least it has a roof on it - but it is concrete and steel and it has a small minimum security area. If things are working, why do we have so many people in prison? I believe it is part of the law and order policies that the government is putting out. We need to audit them to find out if they are working. We are getting tougher - is that going to solve it? We have to balance it with finding ways for rehabilitation, ways to intervene early, or look at work camps. How many years did I argue about the retention of Wildman River? It was closed down and then Hamilton Downs starts up about six months before the election, and the government puts out a nice brochure saying: ‘Look what we are doing for youth’. That is correct, in the last six months, but not in the last six and a half years.
I thank people for supporting this motion. If nothing else comes of it at the present time, I hope it highlights to members that this issue is not going to go away. I will continue to raise it. Regardless of where the prison goes, I still believe we need prison farms. Why build a 1000-person prison, when we could build a smaller one, and put other people, low-security people, elsewhere in the Northern Territory? Why are we looking at only one option?
Madam Speaker, I move the motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That plans by the Northern Territory government to demolish the Berrimah Research Station buildings and turn Berrimah Farm into housing should be scrapped and that a proper long-term plan for the area involving Berrimah Farm workers, community and industry participation be developed to set in place future long-term development of the facility and surrounding farmlands.
There are two important elements to this motion. First, that the plan to build houses on Berrimah Farm should be scrapped, and second, that a long-term plan should be developed which will govern the use of the area.
I will comment on the first element. The minister knows that I do not believe you can put housing there. However, I am trying to put something more positive than: no. I am putting forward reasons why I believe we should be very careful what we do with the Berrimah Farm. My personal feeling is that it should be used for light industry, on an industry-related report. I will give you my reasons for that. I am trying to put out something that the government may agree on: that we need community input into what should happen to this area because there has not been any to date. That is a great part of what I am promoting tonight.
The government has decided to include Berrimah Farm as a housing estate, using arguments that the previous Chief Minister highlighted in a press release on 8 October 2007 that this new development, and I quote:
The present minister added a few other reasons such as: it is needed for in-fill; the costs of infrastructure; it is a beautiful location, it has harbour breezes and beautiful views; and a new reason was added with the announcement of Harbour Town near Harvey Norman.
Then I looked at the reasoning the government has put forward. It said it would ease the pressure on the housing market. Good planning would have meant that Weddell, the future town next to Palmerston, would have been designed and have the headworks in place, and even future suburbs would be ready to be turned off. Of course, nothing has happened. The only thing that has happened in this debate is whether Cox Peninsula should be developed instead of Weddell - an idea which, when you look at the infrastructure requirements, has rocks in its head. What all this means is the government is looking for short-term fixes to cover their lack of planning. This is a repeat of the Glyde Point heavy industrial estate fiasco.
The second reason is: this will help Territorians into more affordable accommodation. There is no doubt that housing for many people is becoming harder to acquire. The government claims that its plans for housing in Palmerston and Lyons will alleviate the problem. Without too much debate, Lyons will not be the place for those trying to establish themselves on a HomeNorth loan, with land prices of approximately $300000. It has yet to be seen if Palmerston will be any better, as the government will not say what the prices will be in the new suburbs. Why should the opening of Berrimah Farm mean there is now going to be affordable housing? There is no reason - it is just spin.
Berrimah will still require major infrastructure on top of the cost of removal of any contaminated soil, which the member for Goyder has mentioned a number of times, already estimated at - we do not know. I was talking to someone who worked there just the other day, and they said for every tree that was planted, they poured in Dieldrin - in the old-fashioned way. Every tree planted on the farm had Dieldrin administered to it, and that will not have gone away.
Unless the land at Berrimah is sold directly by the government to Territorians, I do not believe the blocks of land will be any more affordable or unaffordable, than other places like Palmerston. If it is, then the government has not supported that claim with any facts. It has not told us how affordable this land will be. If you go to Berrimah Farm and look across the sea, you can see across to the port. If the government is going to build the houses where there is a nice view, I can guarantee that people accessing HomeNorth will not be buying those properties; they will be top of the market.
The government says we need to have infill and the cost of infrastructure is probably cheaper if we use existing infrastructure. There is some logic with the infrastructure, but the infill argument is really an excuse for lack of forward planning. There is a general plan for Darwin. It is under the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan. The government has never rejected this, but it is now saying: we have this corridor between Palmerston and Darwin. I do not have the larger version of the Google map here, but if you look at this coloured map, the blue areas are industrial - there is the industrial end of Palmerston and Winnellie. We are going to put houses in there with the idea of joining Darwin and Palmerston along the corridor.
Most of the land is unsuitable for housing, it is already industrial, and you are going to have a little ghetto, on a restricted portion of land, surrounded by industrial land. You could probably argue infill for Darwin where you have old suburban blocks and now you have high-rise. You are increasing the density of the population in the CBD and it is replacing old Darwin house blocks. That is infill. This is not land fill, but it shows a lack of vision and it shows a lack of desire to keep the concept of Darwin and Palmerston as distinct entities. Why do I think that is important? If you limit the size of the population of your city, you keep a sense of community. I came from Melbourne. I could not say I had a sense of community with some parts of Melbourne; if I went back there now, I would have less. The country town where I used to stay with my aunty and uncle is now nearly suburban because the sprawl has continued.
There are important reasons for trying to have discrete cities - not too big - and that those cities be broken up with green areas, industrial, defence or rural blocks. There is good reason for not allowing an urban sprawl. Cost of infrastructure may be an argument, but surely if Weddell had been laid out by now, we would not be having this argument. We have expediency. We have a government which has basically dropped the ball when it comes to planning ahead for housing, and it has to think of ways to counteract the criticism that there has not been a good supply of land. This is not the way to go. You need to stick to your plan. You need to stick to a vision.
The government says that infrastructure costs may be cheaper here than Weddell, but they have not taken into account the cost of relocating the research facilities of the farm. What are the costs of the new buildings or staff relocation? Their time to travel to different places - has that been taken into account? Infrastructure might be the pipes and the power lines, but this is a farm where government research already operates.
The fourth reason the minister gave is that it is a beautiful location, with harbour breezes and beautiful views. There is no doubt there are. However, some of that is right next to existing industrial land. I am not sure if many people on the industrial land are going to like people on residential land backing onto them. There is no doubt that is the case. If you look clearly at the map and look at these photographs, the second photograph shows, roughly in the middle, there are three Ws on the left, which is the Hidden Valley racing track. The mud racing is the closest one to Berrimah Farm. There are going to be noise issues. There is the airport - the contours go across the top of Berrimah Farm. There is also industry. Why do you want to get close to industry? There are companies like BHP who operate from Berrimah, and they put on their overhead lights at 5 am to load up equipment for the oil rigs, and you have people living close by – there will be problems, there will be issues.
There is a four-lane highway. If you want to see how big the four-lane highway is, look for the bright red line going through the property - that is Tiger Brennan Drive which will cut the property in half. If you look at the planning, below that is not planned for housing, it is planned for future development in relation to the port.
I have been told by fairly reliable sources that, at the bottom of the farm, you will get midges. You will get them badly because the mangroves are just here, roughly where Berrimah Road and Tiger Brennan Drive meet. There are midges in the valley like you would not believe and, yet, we are looking at putting housing there.
The last thing the minister spoke about was Harbour Town and how convenient it would be for the people who live there. Harbour Town is not going there because of Berrimah, the same as WOW did not go there because of Berrimah. They are going there because: (1) there is a good piece of land, and (2) it is a convenient place between Darwin, the northern suburbs, and Palmerston for people to visit. It is in the midway region.
Minister, as you would know, the land around Berrimah Farm has a number of uses and constraints: it has industrial land; it has a recreation reserve, Robbie Robinson; the Stuart Highway; the flight path; the high voltage line; and as the member for Sanderson said the prison - still there; the Hidden Valley race track; the East Arm port; and a four-lane highway. It also has Kormilda College nearby …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is further on. There are some wet areas that feed into Hudson Creek, which need assessment. Of course, you have the farm consisting of many buildings; many of them are not old. However, they are old if you are looking for a reason to destroy them.
Berrimah Farm is a really important place. I quote from the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines website:
We believe it is 220, because if you do a search on the NT government telephone numbers, you will find 220 people whose names relate to Berrimah Research Farm. It goes on to say, it:
The Berrimah Farm was also a communication facility during the war - a very important facility that provided communications between planes which were coming to and from Darwin. It is called the World War II RAAF Operations Room and is on the NT Heritage Register. I quote from the NT Heritage Register:
It goes on to say that it was:
It was rediscovered only a few years ago. I do not have the details of the person who found it, but you will find a concrete slab, which I saw the other day, with details of what the site was. So, there is heritage value, as well as a number of other important facilities for primary industry.
I again quote from the department’s website regarding the farm’s role, to:
provide secure farm land, machinery, animals, and farm infrastructure required to conduct research and demonstration extension projects;
industry training programs, industry development programs, fisheries research and management programs, fisheries licensing activities and various
relevant extension programs.
Some of the projects are, and I quote:
National Arbovirus Monitoring Program - is an integrated national program funded by the sheep and cattle industries, and the federal and NT governments
to monitor the distribution of economically important insect borne viral diseases.
Maternal Antibody Arbovirus Trial - investigates the role played by arboviruses infecting cattle during pregnancy.
Sentinel Pig Project - Early warning detection system for exotic virus diseases conducted in cooperation with Australian Quarantine Service (NAQS).
Horticulture Genetic Collection Orchard - Securely retain potential horticulture genotypes for future use in plant breeding programs for the NT.
Horticulture Ornamental Breeding and Selection Program - Provides and tests new ornamental plant varieties suitable for commercial production in the NT.
Strategy and progress of the genetic improvement of African mahogany in the Northern Territory of Australia - The establishment of series of clone tests on
NTG Research stations at CPRS, Katherine, DDRF and gene conservation facility at Berrimah Farm for identification of superior genetics; and then
commercial deployment of clones.
Improved Pasture Species Selection and Cultivar Seed Maintenance - Tests and evaluates improved pasture species for potential for NT conditions and
maintains viable seed supplies for crop and pasture cultivars that the NT is responsible for.
It is not just the Berrimah Farm. There are many things there which I have highlighted to show people how important the farm is. The government has done an audit. I have not seen this audit but my understanding is that nearly all the buildings there are to be demolished - I think that is a disgrace. We really need to see what this audit says because the government has said there will be only be 8 ha of land left. If you look at the first map I gave you and take out 8 ha, there will be many buildings going. The African mahoganies are going; the mangoes at the bottom end will go; there are many buildings which will go. Has the public had a say in this? Have the people who work there had a say? Has anyone seen an environmental impact statement? The member for Goyder mentioned the contaminated land, and I have heard there is some contaminated land. We need to look at that, but we have not heard of a statement.
Minister, we have all these matters which need to be taken into account and yet we have had no public input and no public consultation. Here are a few possibilities for the area. I suggest light industry, and I say that, not because light industry or heavy industry is important, but there is the port - most of these green patches are mangroves - the only way this place is going to develop, as the port gets bigger, is in this direction. We have this small portion of land next to the prison, which is an ideal place because it is not going to be used for farm land, but you can still use it as a laboratory. It could be used for light industry.
The second photograph will give you an even better idea. When I Googled it, only the tip of the port turned out, which is approximately 4 km. That is the only available land - except the land being developed in little pockets around the mangroves - that is the next available land. It has the railway, a four-lane road and the Stuart Highway going past it.
It makes sense, if you look at the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, this area was shown as purple - industry. And it makes sense for the future. Here is the port and this is where you are going to need the infrastructure to develop the port. Surely, you would not put housing there simply because it has a nice view. If you wanted to have the nice view, then you should not have put the port there and it should have been developed as a suburb. The port is there - it is not going away; it is getting bigger and bigger. Industry is going to need a place to stay - put the industry there and do not move it.
There are other options. The green belt: the concept was to keep Palmerston and Darwin separate - as distinct cities - and I believe that has much merit. You already have Knuckey Lagoon. For people who do not know the area, the map shows Knuckey Lagoon - one of the best kept secrets in the Darwin area. I do not know how many people go there, but if you want to look at birds, go there at the end of the Dry Season and have a look at the pelicans and the magpie geese. You can get in from the Stuart Highway, or Myilly Lane and Radford Lane, running off Lagoon Road. It is a great place to go. It is nearly right in the heart of Darwin.
You have these green belts that can break up the sprawl of the city. It could be kept as a prison farm. Why not use part of this land as a prison farm in relation to the existing prison? The word I have from people who know the area well, this top piece of land, which is pasture, is some of the best soil you will ever see. It has been well looked after year in, year out, and it has great potential for that type of use.
Kormilda College is nearby. I did not realise the possible options. Kormilda College is out here by itself. One of the options may be to talk to Kormilda College about VET courses using the farm facilities and people to develop the horticultural area. Perhaps an aquaculture area, as fisheries is mentioned quite often here as well. You have two uses: one as research and the other for opening it up to many people. There are many Aboriginal kids going to this school. There is an option to use it for VET courses.
Leave it as a research farm. That is still an option. Maybe you do not use all the land but at least leave the research part there. I am putting these forward because I am showing you that there are many ideas. The government seems to have ignored all those and said there would be housing. I believe, as the member for Goyder mentioned, the minister for Planning was interviewed on radio in the morning about housing and she talked about Palmerston and other places, but Berrimah Farm did not get a mention. Later on, I believe it was 20 minutes later, the Chief Minister got on and all of a sudden they announced that Berrimah Farm was going to be used for housing. That is what gives you the impression that it was a bright idea - but not well thought out.
Minister, I am trying to highlight the fact that your government has decided to close down Berrimah Farm and redevelop it for housing and some light industry, without any public input, plan, consultation, expression of interest, or environmental impact statement; without anything that would send a message to those concerned about the haste and shallowness of this decision.
The minister for Justice mentioned how much input he had from the NT Prison Officers Association regarding whether the prison should be moved. That is fine. How many of the staff - not the managerial people - at Berrimah Farm have had input into what they think should happen? There are 220 staff, many of whom have worked there for many years. I grew vegetables at Daly River and Bathurst Island and we would bring people to Berrimah Farm for the open days; it was a place I remember well. I have known a lot of research extension officers such as Kate Benson, Mike Poffley and Kevin Blackburn. These people were down-to-earth, knew a lot about the industry and were practical people. They worked at this farm for many years. There were people in the insect laboratories and others who studied plant diseases. People whom I have known for many years have worked at that farm. What are they saying about the idea of closing this place down and relocating it? If we relocate it, how much is that going to cost? I am not sure - simply because somebody said: ‘Oh there are some nice views there. Let us put up some houses’? That is a short-term approach.
There are so many matters of concern to the primary industries staff - the clients, the people of the horticultural industry, the agriculture and fishing industries. What do they think? What about the general public? It is their land. What do those who take an interest in the future of our research stations and the future of Darwin Harbour think? The Leader of the Opposition has often spoken about where we are going with our research stations. Here is one research station that is basically going to be closed down.
Surely, minister, it is not too hard to put the government’s plans in the freezer for the moment, go out and talk to people who care and would like to have a say, and then develop a plan from that. Good governance and good planning require a vision. You spoke about a 2030 vision. Why is that not included in here? If you really believe in the welfare of the Territory, in good economic development, then let us develop a plan and include people in it.
Let us not forget the role the minister plays in this. This is what always amazes me. This area here, for those who do not know, is East Arm Port. It does not belong to Palmerston. Litchfield is on the other side of the highway and Darwin starts in the Berrimah industrial area. So the prison, the Berrimah Research Station, and all the land from the port are under the East Arm Port Authority. When there is a development, the normal process in Litchfield, Palmerston or Darwin, where you have an independent development consent authority made up of five people who make decisions about planning applications, is not done in this case.
The minister is the Development Consent Authority. The minister has already announced this is going to be housing. The government has announced that this will be housing. The minister will be the person who decides when the planning application comes forward for development. She will decide and make the decision on the planning application. How can you make a decision, if you are the minister who has already, through Cabinet, decided this will be housing? There is a conflict of interest, similar to the conflict of interest within INPEX. That is certainly not the way planning should go.
I am asking the government to put this on hold, to put out a paper if they need to, outlining all the options, and ask the staff at Berrimah Farm, the public and industry - when I say industry I do not just mean the horticultural, agricultural and fishing industries - but the people who use the port, the people who will need facilities that are related to the port activities. See what they think. It is worth driving round Berrimah Farm to see how beautiful it is - beautiful parkland with laboratories amongst that parkland. It is a beautiful little area; it is a bit of an oasis really, when you consider there is industry right next door. It would be wise of the government to put this decision on hold. They are talking about the blocks of land they have in Lyons, Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli - I nearly called it zucchini - and Mitchell. They have land that they are starting to develop; there is no hurry to close down Berrimah Farm; there is no hurry to make a final decision.
If the government believes in honest and transparent government and in a vision which takes the people along with it, then it will stop: put out a paper, ask the people to comment, call public meetings, and come up with a plan. Personally, I believe it should be light industry. That may not be what the people to have to say, but put it out there and give people a chance to have an opinion, so that we make wise decisions, not just some decisions made in Cabinet completely apart from the community - the people, Cabinet say, they represent.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this motion from the member for Nelson, calling upon government to rescind their decision or plans to have Berrimah Farm area released for new housing. It should be scrapped and a long-term plan for the area involving the Berrimah Farm, the workers and the industrial areas surrounding the farm developed so there is proper planning in place to ensure there is no detriment to the community.
I am on the record previously in this House talking about the Berrimah Farm area and the unwise decision of government to try to develop the farm for residential. I agree with the member for Nelson.
I can distinctly remember the day, on 8 October, when the minister for Planning said in the morning there was no land available for housing and, by the afternoon, the Chief Minister at the time, said they were going to have this new housing estate – 700 residential dwellings were to be built, and it was going to ease the pressure on our housing market. Well, it does not seem to have done that. The media release says: ‘It complements the government’s release of land at Bellamack for 700 more dwellings’.
We all know what has happened with Bellamack - we are still waiting. If Bellamack is any indication of how things are going to be run, then I guess Berrimah Farm will never be developed – and that can only be good. They called upon the Howard government to release affordable land at the aerial farm near the Stuart Highway/McMillans Road intersection. Well, they have two chances of that – Buckley’s and none. The Commonwealth never gives up land and that is, obviously, an important piece of land for their communications systems.
I like this part, also from the Chief Minister’s media release, that this development was going to be so lovely and ‘enjoy prevailing breezes’. The fact that they will probably be on contaminated soil has, obviously, escaped their attention; but they will have lovely breezes to keep them cool. Perhaps their family and children will suffer as a consequence.
The minister at the time, Mr Natt, said, and I quote:
I find that very disappointing coming from a minister who, at the time, was in charge of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. It is symptomatic of this government; they are dumbing down our research capability. They do not appreciate what is happening and they do not understand research. They do not encourage professionals into the department, they do not encourage research, and they do not attract research grants into this very important department covering primary industry, fisheries and mines. The government is keen to promote the Northern Territory and those industries as being the economic cornerstone of the Northern Territory and our prosperous lifestyle. However, when it comes to really supporting the industry, with research grants and appreciating the work they do, they do not come through.
The farm was established in 1956. Prior to that, it was a very important component of Australia’s World War II effort. It was a RAAF front-line communication base, and nearly all the operation room communications for Australia in World War II were from Berrimah Farm. Following that, it was utilised by the Army in different ways since World War II. There are World War II rubbish dumps at Berrimah Farm, covered with soil over the years. Two of my constituents have told me they know where these dumps are located. They both lived on or near the farm with their families and the children played at the dumps because there were many good things for little boys to play with, including shells and things like that.
It was a quarantine station for products from the agricultural and horticultural industry which had come in from overseas. Perhaps some of these needed to be sprayed with herbicides and pesticides. As the member for Nelson said, the standards of the day when this happened, 20 or 30 years ago, were not as stringent or tight as they are today, and there was a lot of slaphappy usage of these chemicals. The most notable was a forestry impregnation plant operating at Berrimah Farm. I have a structure on my property that was impregnated at the farm with chromium, copper and arsenic. There is a 44 gallon drum with arsenic contaminated material buried on the farm. There are people in their late fifties still around who know the locations of these.
If there is one kind of drum buried at the farm, it is more than likely that there is more material buried at the farm that we do not know about. Unfortunately, with the passing of time, people have either passed on or passed over, and we have lost that information. I know the government has commissioned environmental studies at the moment, and that company is conducting baseline studies in the soil contaminants and where they may be. They will probably move on to water sampling, to find out how far any leaching has gone and whether the land is suitable or not.
I hope when the report and studies are completed, that the government will share that information with the opposition and the member for Nelson, and that it is not hidden, pushed under the table, or somehow manipulated to get the answer they want.
The location of this development is a big concern to the opposition, to me, and the member for Nelson. It is surrounded by industrial land, major arterial roads and highways - the Stuart Highway; the main flight path into Darwin where aeroplanes are between 500 to 800 feet as they pass over that area, which means there will be a lot of noise. There will be people taking up residence there who will find out that it is a noisy place, and they will complain about the problems of the airport.
Industrial land is to the south - McKinnon Road and Anictomatis Road – where there is light to heavy industrial activity going on. There is also industrial land to the north of the farm, including a crematorium for animals which is located very near to the entrance of the farm. It is really going to please a lot of urban people when they find that dead dogs and cats are being burned next to their beautiful subdivision.
The other serious issue which the member for Nelson spoke about is the North Australian Safety Centre, which has a peppercorn lease, at the back of the farm. They have been there for many years and provide a vital service to the business community, particularly to the offshore oil and gas industry. I recently went to the opening of the new fire training centre. The government is keen to promote the oil and gas industry, and they are also keen to promote those businesses and industries which service the offshore oil and gas industry.
We keep being told that they are a gas government - gas girls and gas guys. If we lose the North Australian Safety Centre, we will lose the Underwater Helicopter Escape Training Centre, a well established, well credentialed centre. That business will go out of the Northern Territory; it will go somewhere like Perth. They have had discussions with the government and the government has basically said: you have about a year to move and then bad luck, go find your own ground.
This business is not a commercial business. It is a not-for-profit organisation which provides services, not only to businesses, but also to NT government services such as the Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services; they use the training grounds and the training facilities and enrol in the various training courses.
In addition, there is still the outstanding issue of local government governance. I understand the government has had preliminary discussions with both the Darwin City Council and the Palmerston City Council, and neither of them wants to take on the project because they know there are issues surrounding it. They know that the residents will never be happy because of the location. Yet, the government is trying to push the Berrimah Farm development onto one of these councils, and they are not happy about it. This is indicative of how the government has gone about this. The government woke up one morning and decided it needed something to get some media attention. That is when it came up with the concept to chop up Berrimah Farm - to get rid of all the scientists - we do not really need to do that kind of work - industry will be fine; however, we need something to sell to the media.
I urge the government to support this motion to rescind their decision to put people in an industrial area, on a contaminated site. We have no understanding of how far it is contaminated and what it is going to cost to remediate and rehabilitate. I ask the government: if this is going to cost a substantial amount of money, as have the old fuel depots on Dinah Beach Road and the Hastings Deering site on Goyder Road, which were contaminated sites, will it be passing that cost onto the developers? Or will it be absorbing those costs or passing them onto the taxpayers in the community in some other way?
I support the member for Nelson’s motion and urge the government to rescind their decision to chop up Berrimah Farm.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nelson. I have discovered over the last couple of months that the present NT government seems to be hell-bent on reducing available resources and facilities for people in regional Northern Territory. It has been happening for a long time but it has come to my attention strongly in the last few months, given my change of job.
The Berrimah Research Farm is an integral part of the primary industries portfolio of the Northern Territory. I have to be honest: I am surprised that the minister would consider supporting the reduction or loss of this facility, or the continued reduction of services to people in the primary industries sphere. If I were in his position, I would feel somewhat slighted - and I do not know whether the Primary Industries minister agrees with the proposal that has been put forward by the government – that my government colleagues had pulled out the rug from underneath me.
Research and development in any industry in the world - and name any research and development - is a cornerstone to the continued operation of industry. It is a cornerstone of continued progression for that industry to find more modern methods, materials, etcetera. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution, particularly because he has outlined all the services at the farm, which should be considered extremely important.
It appears to me that the government does not think they are important, otherwise they would leave it alone or come up with a plan which would not impact so severely on the facilities of the Berrimah Research Farm. I know they are leaving some part of it there so the hierarchy of primary industries can stay there, but it is the services that I am talking about, those services to regional Northern Territorians. Yes, 110 000 people or so live in Darwin, but the remainder live in regional parts of the Northern Territory. I find it unbelievable that the government continues - and this is a prime example - to remove services and facilities from regional Northern Territory. The Berrimah Farm is contained within Darwin, so it is not regional in its geographic location; however, its services are for regional Territorians.
I strongly support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson. I urge the government to reconsider their position on this. If they go ahead with it, I believe there will be an acute upwelling of ill feeling towards the government from regional Northern Territory. I put them on notice when I say that. I am warning them that this will cause an enormous amount of grief for people in regional Northern Territory and that grief will flow back to the government, in no uncertain way.
I commend the motion put forward tonight. I ask that members of government look within their hearts to see the right thing to do and not to just follow party lines. There needs to be some more thought given to it and there needs to be a better plan. As pointed out by the member for Goyder, it is not a place suitable for residential development. There are so many other factors that need to be considered. This is another example of the lack of consultation I have seen occurring across a number of portfolios in the government of the Northern Territory. I urge government members to reconsider their position on this, and ask that they support this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I do not wish to speak to the motion. I want to point out to the House that we have a dinner break scheduled for 6 pm; however, we also have a very full agenda today. It might be better if we continue with the business of parliament rather than breaking for dinner, and do what we used to and cycle through the dining room as the business of parliament goes on. This is for your consideration.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a sessional order which has been agreed to by the parliament. I will seek some advice while you are speaking, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If you like, Madam Speaker, and I will put it up as a motion. There is a motion before the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is a sessional order. Therefore, I will seek advice from the Clerk. Member for Port Darwin, would you like to speak to the motion that is before the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. The dinner break is scheduled into the business of the day, however, we have a very full agenda today. Consequently, I think it would be worthwhile to suspend the normal process of having a dinner break and continue with the business of parliament. There are many important issues on the Notice Paper - there are 20.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Keep talking, but you are supposed to be talking to the motion as moved by the member for Nelson, which is not about a dinner break.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I thought you were inviting me to keep talking.
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Port Darwin, I called you to speak on the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: I misunderstood, Madam Speaker. I thought you were talking about me speaking on the motion of the dinner break.
Madam SPEAKER: No. The motion is not about a dinner break.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! There are many interjections. What is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order is for clarification. Obviously, the member for Port Darwin thought you called him in relation to something else. Can he still put the same suggestion, by way of a motion, just before 6 pm when we break for dinner?
Madam SPEAKER: There is something before the Chair at the moment. I will clarify the situation and get back to you. That is fine. Is someone else speaking on the motion - not the dinner break?
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin, obviously, had the vital part of his stomach talking to him which needs to be fed. You never know, we may have some Territory beef out the back there, with some Territory vegetables and, perhaps, some exotic tropical fruits later. If we shut down Berrimah Farm, or if it had been done before, we would not have any tropical fruit. Our beef industry may not have developed to its potential.
A member earlier talked about our potential growth. How are you going to achieve that if you shut down the research? Research and development will assist you in growing those industries; they are extremely vital. If you spend more than 30 seconds talking to some of the scientists who are involved, you will know they do not support the idea of closing down this farm because it is a vital link. Not only does it have historical links and, perhaps, some very nasty hidden secrets in its soils - which may not be good for kids to play in - it is also a very vital link in our industry. If you take away the link, the fabric of that industry, we will go backwards.
The Territory has come a long way in a very short period of time. It is through no mean feat that these scientists, working at the Berrimah Farm over many years, have achieved this headway. We would not have cattle production if we did not have some of the input from the Berrimah Farm. We have the sentinel chooks, the sentinel pigs ...
Ms Purick: Sentinel sheep.
Mr BOHLIN: ... and sentinel sheep. It sounds quite funny. It sounds like there are all these sheep and chickens standing to attention. The member for Nelson might like seeing all his chickens stand to attention as sentinels, but the stark reality is, we are on the doorstep of many other countries. Some of those countries have suffered greatly - ‘greatly’ is probably a very light word to use when you talk about bird flu. Do not forget about bird flu; it is out of the news at the moment, but it is real. At the time, they talked about the possible ramifications of bird flu coming to Australia. Where do you think it is going to land first?
As it comes floating in on the winds of the great Arafura Sea, it is going to land right here. That is why we have sentinel birds and our other sentinel friends, standing side by side. They are here to protect not just Darwin, but to protect the entire Australian industry - Australia’s people - because there are real threats in the world. We need to be very mindful of that, and there is no better place than where they are currently. Keep that in mind when you make these foolish, half-hearted decisions, because they can have huge ramifications if you get it wrong. At this stage, I am saying you have it wrong. You have it extremely wrong.
We need to think about it. We talk of the Northern Territory’s growth, so let us remove a keystone to its growth. Let us remove the keystone to agricultural foundation for the Northern Territory. How would you feel about that, member for Casuarina? Do we remove the keys that set up the foundation of growth in this Territory? We cannot just rely on the gas, and we cannot just rely on mining. If you cannot feed the people who will mine those fields and pipe that gas, what will happen? What if we cannot survive because a bird slipped through the net and took out most of Australia’s fowl population and, perhaps, people’s lives, because bird flu does claim people’s lives. This is not something to mess around with; this is not something to flippantly throw away a media release on - this is vitally important.
Go back, be bold and brave and say: ‘That was probably not the best move’. Wind back the clock, stand up proudly and say, no, there have been some good points made by the member for Nelson, and we are strong enough to say we need to maintain this facility, for various reasons. We need to grow this facility, reinvigorate it with our researchers so that we can protect, grow and develop our industries, because they are vital.
If we look at the crops which are grown throughout the world, as the environment is changing we see that crops will not grow in some places. Will they grow here? How will we know, until we prove it? That is part of what the facility is for. We have third world nations that cannot feed themselves. Are we going to destroy part of what provides us with the knowledge to feed ourselves in Australia? You need to think about what you do.
I commend what the member for Nelson has said. It is a motion that I urge the government to consider - not just for their short-term gains, but for the protection of Australia’s agricultural industry and its people – and do not break down the very important Berrimah Farm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have conferred with the government on the point of order called by the member for Port Darwin in relation to not agreeing tonight on the sessional orders for a dinner break. I inform you that the government is quite happy with that for this evening, because we have a lot on the business paper to continue to work through.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks to the government for their understanding of the business of this House.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I listened to the Chief Minister explain to the House what a great future the Northern Territory has, and that they have a planning process for the 2030 committee.
I have been fortunate in the last couple of years to have travelled a little, and there are a couple of places which really come to mind - one was Paris, the other one was Saigon - and I have also seen a few pictures of Hanoi on Google. One of the things I note from the planning process is that these places have nice wide streets. Many years ago, when town planners planned those streets, they probably thought to themselves: if we do this right and we make plenty of room, in years to come when there is an expansion required, we can actually expand and build bigger roads; there will be more traffic, cities will grow, etcetera. I believe they did a very good job.
Town planners all over the world, in some instances, get it right. Of course, there are other times when they get it horribly wrong. The coloured map which the member for Nelson so kindly provided, demonstrates one thing about options for expansion. If we are looking at gas, at 2030 and, as the Chief Minister tells us: ‘We are in for a great future – there is $50bn investment coming into the Territory’, on the map the port is here, surrounded by mangroves, with only one way for expansion to occur in this area of the Darwin Port Authority - straight through Berrimah Farm.
What the government is proposing is to put a small suburb of houses surrounded on one side by light industrial area and, on the other side of the Stuart Highway, by rural blocks. There are no services at the moment, so we have to put in things like sewerage, electrical services and all the other headworks. There is no school and no bus service. We are very light on for recreational facilities and if some poor kid wants to go somewhere, he will have to go across a number of four-lane highways. We know that kids like to get on their bikes, go to the shops and go and do things. It will be difficult to negotiate traffic in this area, given that will be an extremely busy port facility - an industrial hub. I wonder how long it will be before people start to say: ‘We want this, we want that, we want traffic lights, and bridges’, so young people do not get killed or knocked off their bikes.
We have a major problem with people being killed on our roads. I stood up in September and extrapolated some numbers and said if we were not careful we would have a death toll of about 66 by the end of the year. I believe we have actually hit 66 and it is not even the beginning of November; we still have Christmas to get through yet. It is an appalling situation. We are about to create another appalling traffic situation by putting a high density population in an area where they will have to cross four-lane highways.
If we are truly looking at the future, then we would be saying: let us keep the laboratories at Berrimah Farm for the time being and leave it there for industrial development, so that we can actually push further across. I suspect, in the not too distant future, when the gas comes and we have a huge shift in the industrial land requirements for this area - and for Darwin in general - that people will want to move into this rural area for light industrial. There will be nowhere else to put the distribution sheds and the storage facilities.
We have plans for stages 2, 3 and 4 of the Darwin Port, which will involve expansion and an increase in the requirement for light industrial land for the service industries. My understanding is that we are trying to attract and make Darwin a hub - a transport hub - so we can bring all the containers from Singapore to Darwin, put them on trains and articulate them to various parts of Australia. With the high fuel costs of ships and the delays involved, it will probably become an economic necessity when the price of fuel goes through the roof or becomes scarce.
I am not looking at two or five years down the track, or even to 2030. I believe we need to look forward 100, 200, 300 years and allow for the expansion of the light industrial area through the Berrimah Farm and across the other side of the Stuart Highway. If we do not, then it is going to be our children and our children’s children who will criticise us and say: ‘They were not very bright, they stuck a suburb in there.’ People will have to buy out that land, rezone it and turn it back into an industrial area in as little as five, 10, or 15 years.
I believe that the land usage, for a short-term gain by the government, is very poor planning. I believe it goes to the core; that this government has failed to plan for land releases further in the Palmerston region. I recap on what the member for Nelson said. There needs to be a satellite city - because that was the plan – and that there would be a break. There is a major break, with the industrial area at the port and a light industrial area either side of where this little group of houses is planned.
There is also a noise problem with the flight path for the airport so close. There is a line drawn on this coloured map that puts the noise factor for about one-third of the land available for housing.
Are there environmental concerns with any of the freight, goods and services? We were talking earlier about iron ore dust. What happens if the iron ore dust starts to go through residential areas? Will we have to shut the port? Or will we have expensive mitigation services to get rid of the dust, the noise, or other issues?
As Darwin becomes a gas hub - which I believe it will - it will require a huge service area onshore and we will need to expand into the Hudson Creek area. My information is that Hudson Creek is almost full - there is no room to expand. Therefore, businesses wishing to service the port are unable to buy land there. I do not know exactly what services there are, but anecdotal evidence suggests it is getting hard to find services there. There is the old Trade Development Zone, but all those areas need to be increased. What happens when that runs out? I do not think it is going to be too many years until we do run out of land in that area. It is confined - we have to move.
Where do we move, straight through a residential area? If we make that a residential area, I firmly believe we will be criticised in the future. It will put an impost on business and industry to have to try to buy an entire suburb so they can expand. If you make it residential, there will be many problems with industrial noise, environmental issues, etcetera.
We have to consider other issues: schools, shops, transport services, aeroplane noise, and Tiger Brennan Drive cruising through small public and private housing areas. The houses that are built there, as the member for Nelson said, might have a view; I do not know whether that justifies spending money on headworks and other infrastructure on land which we may also have to spend an enormous amount of money on rehabilitating.
I suggest that this land is only suitable for light industrial. It has power line issues; it is isolated and totally surrounded by industry. It is only a small area. It has been said that Harbour Town will be coming to that area, and that is fine, but I suggest that these people will do exactly what they would do if they lived in Palmerston - they would drive to Harbour Town.
Future expansion is something the government has not looked at in its plans. I ask the government to refer this to their 2030 committee. Their 2030 committee, they claim, is a group of very eminent people who would be able to give due consideration to the plan to turn this into a residential area. Throw this idea to them, open it up for people in industry and people who work there. There has been no consultation - which I am aware of - with industry or the Darwin Port Authority to look at opening up that area for light industrial.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion the member for Nelson has put forward. I ask the government to consider their decision carefully, to rescind that decision and give it to the 2030 committee for further deliberation on whether it is suitable.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, obviously the sale of the Berrimah Farm is going to end life as we know it, and the sky is going to fall in.
I disagree with the member for Nelson, but at least his arguments were logical. On the other hand, I know when you want to oppose something you will try to find any excuse, because none of the other members who spoke about the Berrimah Farm gave any logical or reasonable excuses.
The noise contours, as published by the airport and the RAAF, show that the noise exposure in the area finishes on the Stuart Highway. It does not extend further than the Stuart Highway. Harbour Town is on the borderline of the noise contour in which you are allowed to build industrial premises. Further west from the Stuart Highway, the noise contours are so low that you can actually build a residential area.
Regarding the airport noise, when I used to live in Coconut Grove in 1993, I could tell you from the noise which airplane was taking off and where it was going. I could tell you when the airplane, a Fokker 100, was flying out of Darwin for Broome. I could tell you when the 727 was flying out to Melbourne, because that suburb was built so close to the air corridor. I remember it well, because my little boy used to scream when the Singaporean airplanes participated in the exercises. There is noise in the Marrara area, and the member for Sanderson knows the complaints we get in Marrara, and how well we know when the aircraft from Singapore takes off in the middle of the night - not to mention Karama.
As for it being surrounded by industrial area, do I have to remind you that it was the previous government that developed the area of Woolner in Bishop Street and the old brewery, which is surrounded by light industrial area and manufacturing?
Was it not the previous government that developed Bayview Haven without any bus services? Bayview Haven - or Baygon Haven, I called it at the time because of the midges - did not have any sewerage, power or water, and the developer had to put in the services.
In regard to the sentinel chickens and the sentinel animals; yes, they are necessary. I was very surprised and pleased to hear the support for this project, because I remember when I was arguing in this very same parliament about the dangers - probably the member for Nelson remembers it - of illegal fishing and the diseases it would bring. The members on the other side were strong supporters of the federal government in Canberra opposing any motion from us asking Canberra for stronger action. The sentinel chickens do not have to be located at Berrimah Farm.
As an Environmental Health Officer in Port Hedland, I used to bleed the sentinel chickens in different houses in the town for viruses - encephalitis and others. They do not have to be housed in a particular place; they can be at my house or a house in Driver, and they would give exactly the same result. As a matter of fact, it is better to be spread around the town site because you get a more representative picture of what is happening in your city, rather than having them located in one area.
The member for Katherine said by closing Berrimah Farm we are reducing the resources of regional areas. It is exactly the opposite. Would you prefer to have some of these experiments that take place at Berrimah Farm at Katherine Farm? Would you prefer some of these experiments and the trials we do for animals to happen at the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs?
A member: Will it happen though?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is currently happening. At Old Man Plains in Alice Springs we are doing trials to breed and feed cattle in arid zones. In Katherine, we have the trial with sesame and one of the favourite products of the member for Nelson, GM cotton. We have had a number of products which we have experimented with in Katherine. Very little or none of this research is currently undertaken at Berrimah Farm.
However, let us go back to Berrimah Farm. Berrimah Farm is 228 ha, 1 times the size of the suburb of Lyons, and about one-third bigger than the future suburb of Muirhead, which is going to be developed in my electorate of Casuarina and in the member for Wanguri’s electorate. It is a significant parcel of land. It did not happen because the member for Karama drove around one day and said: ‘That is a nice big empty block; let us develop it’. This map was published in 2006-07 and shows a section of Berrimah Farm and also the RAAF antenna area as potential residential areas.
When I worked in environmental health, I was involved with the decontamination and reclamation of the fuel tanks site in Stuart Park, which had been there for 50 years. If you think there is anything more contaminant than petrol, diesel, additives, oils or fuels, you are wrong. This site has been rehabilitated successfully and is now available for housing.
There probably were some very strong chemicals, like Dieldrin, used at Berrimah Farm. However, let me remind you that most of the housing - if you live in an old house, built pre-cyclone in Darwin, even after the cyclone - was treated with Dieldrin or DDT for termites, because that was the only chemical at the time. It has a life span of approximately 30 years. It breaks down after 30 years and you will find very small residuals in the soil. Do not ask me why I told you that; it was part of my profession when I had a life - in my previous life. I studied it at university and they are things I use all the time and I know well, and I believe I am more than qualified to comment on this.
Berrimah Farm was established in the 1950s. At that time Berrimah Farm was in Woop Woop - there was no Nightcliff or Karama. Darwin was a small town down near the port, and if you wanted to go to Berrimah Farm, you had to catch the bus and take a cut lunch - it was so far away. Unfortunately, Berrimah Farm is now in the middle of the town. If you consider the whole residential area, including the city of Darwin, the city of Palmerston, and the rural area, it is right in the middle of the town and, at the moment, it is 220 ha which is under utilised. There are parts of Berrimah Farm that are still utilised effectively, and these are the areas where we have the laboratories. That is the area the department has looked at, approximately 8 ha of Berrimah Farm which will remain as it is. The laboratories will remain on the same site, and only some of the very old buildings that are past their economic life, are to be demolished.
As minister for Primary Industry, I am not aware of, and I have not authorised any review for the demolition or the destruction of these laboratories. On the contrary, we are working well with the department of Planning and the Department of Business and Employment on how we can best utilise the laboratories and continue the research we are doing. They are not chemical warfare or viral laboratories; they are laboratories we use to identify seeds and to identify some of the diseases our cattle suffer - they are benign laboratories. We can still use them and they can be next to a residential area, the same as a biological laboratory, which could be in the middle of Nightcliff Shopping Centre.
We have available land, for example, the Berrimah Farm, and further up is the old farm that the Navy and the RAAF used. That land was regularly sprayed with chemicals to increase the conductivity over ground for better reception of the antennae. I do not know the chemical or the drug used, but this can be decontaminated and is a normal piece of land which can be utilised for further industry. We do not have to start growing out. We do not want to have the same situation as Perth. Perth is a capital city which extends 150 km from the north to the south, because people do not want to live east of the hills; we do not want to have that situation. What we are doing now is to extend the residential area from Berrimah Farm all the way to Coolalinga, and there is nothing else but houses. We can infill the empty areas currently within the footprint of Darwin and Palmerston before we start extending to new satellite cities.
Let us have a look at the Berrimah Farm. Is Berrimah Farm the only research station with all the facilities, or the only one that can be utilised by people? No, there are other research and demonstration farms. There are farms at Beatrice Hill; the Coastal Plains Horticulture Research Farm at Middle Point; the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs; the Katherine Farm, which is part of the work of the Daly Farm; Ti Tree; and Tennant Creek. There are a number of farms currently owned by the government strategically located around the Territory that are utilised for different research. For example, the Ti Tree farm was utilised for the development, believe it or not, of asparagus, with great results; and the vine industry. The Daly Research Farm is utilised for the cultivation of spinach and other vegetables which grow in the Dry Season. At Coastal Plains, they are doing research on bananas, tropical fruits, and tropical flowers.
The member for Nelson mentioned the mahogany trees trial which will be finished by 2010. That is another program that was put in place at Berrimah Farm which will be finished by that time, and others can and will continue at Beatrice Hill and the Coastal Plains. We are not going to abandon or close our research because Berrimah Farm has to change its use from an experimental farm, as it was in 1950, to something different.
The reality is that Berrimah Farm is strategically located between Palmerston and Darwin. It is also located strategically close to the Casuarina Shopping Square, and where health and other services are located. Berrimah Farm is a strategic location.
I will now discuss pollution of the port. I do not know if any of you have been to the port at Fremantle. The only thing that separates the city of Fremantle from the port is a fence - where the port starts and the city finishes. In some other cities, the port forms part of the city. Previously, ports were dirty, dark, medieval places, but they have changed. Also the current techniques practiced for loading and unloading containers, cattle, and minerals have changed significantly, so any possible pollution that may result from unloading or loading iron ore and manganese is limited. After all, every pound of dust that escapes is money that is escaping from the pockets of the miners and the investors.
I travelled to the port today. It is approximately 8 km from the Berrimah Farm turn-off to the port. It is not 1 km or 600 m. As a comparison, from Darwin it is a bit further than Parap, in a straight line - it is not that close. Hudson Creek, I agree with you; it has been sold and development is limited. However, the Land Development Corporation still has land available in the old Trade Development Zone area which is not sold, it is currently under development and there is more land between the old TDZ and Tiger Brennan Drive, which can be developed, especially with backfilling from the development of INPEX and the other facilities in the area. There is no lack of land for industrial development or light industrial development, because no one in his right mind would put heavy industry near the port or where the old TDZ used to be which is now the Land Development Corporation’s area.
I understand the member for Nelson; I can sympathise with him on some things. He has this nostalgic view of the farm. You used to go there for open days and look at the cows. The cows cannot live close to town; they do not get close to Harbour Town or Casuarina. The cows have to be in a better environment, rather than in the middle of the city.
We want to utilise the land that is surplus to our needs and transfer the research to somewhere that is more appropriate, like Beatrice Hill, Coastal Plains, the Katherine Farm, the Daly River Farm or the AZRI.
We are with politicians in this parliament. Unfortunately, our parliamentary process, the Westminster process, is adversary. We have to be at each others throats during the sessions. Instead of us playing politics, I believe it is better for us to highlight some of the points like you did, member for Nelson, and I appreciate that, rather than knock everything down.
After all, this farm is not going to be under my control - it is not going to be sold to me or the government. It is going to be sold to Territorians, who would like to have their first house, if possible, close to Darwin, rather than past Coolalinga or other rural areas, as happens in Perth, Melbourne, and Sydney. I cannot see any reason why Territorians, especially young Territorians, cannot buy their first house 8 km from Darwin, rather than 30 km or 40 km from Darwin.
We can provide this, and with the new assistance we provide to first homeowners, I believe that land can be well developed. Let us not forget that under the process we have now, 15% of all land developed has to go to social and affordable housing. Of the approximately 1300 blocks there will be, around 180 blocks will be available for first housing and social and affordable housing.
I oppose the motion on these grounds. I believe it is fair for us to provide land for Territorians close to Darwin, especially for first homeowners and for young Territorians. That land is surplus. It is 280 ha that is currently under-utilised and we can find a better use for this land in Darwin.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to explain, I believe …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Sanderson has already spoken. It is a contravention of the standing orders for a member to speak again.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I could just confer with the Clerk, please.
Member for Sanderson, I am advised that you may endeavour to seek leave. Alternatively, you can make an approach to me to lodge a personal explanation.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, my application is under Standing Order 54, where it says a member who has spoken to a question may again be heard …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have yet to seek leave, member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am not trying to be difficult; however, the member is trying to explain why he is on his feet. I believe we should at least let him get through that part - it may well be as a point of order. I have not heard what he is trying to say, perhaps he is speaking as a point of order or is, I suspect, quoting from standing orders.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am seeking leave to speak. My understanding is that under standing orders there is a section that allows me to do that for specific purposes. That is what I was just trying to discuss with you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to pause while I confer with the Clerk on this matter. Thank you.
Member for Sanderson, if you believe you have been misquoted or misunderstood, then under the standing orders you are required to make a personal explanation through the Speaker’s Chair.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, when should I do that? I admit I am not familiar with that part of the procedure. My understanding from reading the standing orders is that was available …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I appreciate that and can I just confer with the Clerk one more time, please? Like you I am also new to these matters.
Member for Sanderson, the advice is that as long as you are not introducing any new material and you are brief in raising your explanation, you may do so now.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Casuarina said, and I believe he quoted me, saying that the corridor of aircraft noise exposure is on the Stuart Highway. I did not say that. I said that it is about one-third of the land available. I wanted to clear that up for the member for Casuarina.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I would like to say that I did not misquote him. I referred to the noise control as produced by the airport and the RAAF. I did not misquote you. I did not dispute your claim. I said that it finishes west of the airport, and the borderline is the Stuart Highway. The Stuart Highway tends to be on the other side of the Berrimah Farm.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is again from …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Sanderson has had the opportunity under Standing Order 54 to identify where he believed he had been misquoted or misunderstood. The member for Casuarina responded, under Standing Order 54, that there was no misquoting or misunderstanding. If there is a further matter the member for Sanderson wants to take up, he can do so by way of personal explanation. He can approach the Speaker and give his personal explanation and seek leave to provide a personal explanation to the Chamber.
Personal explanations, by their nature, are discussed with the Speaker. That is the convention of this parliament; that is how this parliament operates.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a debate to move on with. The member from Sanderson can make his personal explanation by approaching the Speaker. However, I believe it is now time for debate to proceed, in convention with this Chamber and the standing orders of this Assembly.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Member for Sanderson, you do have the opportunity to make a personal explanation to me at a later time.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion from the member for Nelson for the same reasons I supported his previous motion.
I can see no reason for the destruction of such a significant piece of infrastructure in the Darwin region. I listened closely to what the member for Casuarina had to say, that everyone has the right to have a first house; people have to live somewhere. I reiterate to the member for Casuarina and other ministers: when you fly over Darwin and the Top End, there is plenty of land available on which houses can be built. The wanton destruction of such a strategic and worthwhile piece of infrastructure is completely unnecessary.
Many high-level economists tell us that the commodity of the future, the real gold of the future, will be food. Agriculture production is inextricably tied to that. My concern is that this government has an appalling prejudice against farmers, agriculturalists, pastoralists - anyone who is trying to make a living from the land. We have seen the attack to close Berrimah Farm. We have seen the attack on the farmers in the Daly River region, where they continue with the moratorium on the Daly. This is an area where the government does not want to go. It does not want to see increased food production or agricultural uses of Territory land. It flies in the face of what has been happening around the rest of the country, and the focus that the rest of the country has on the north.
I was very privileged to be a part of the federal Northern Australia Land and Water Task Force the year before last. It was chaired by Bill Heffernan. I had the wonderful opportunity to travel across the top of Australia, investigating ways that our water and agricultural areas could be best utilised. It was very clear in those meetings and visits that we needed to concentrate on the science; of making sure that whatever we did, in relation to agriculture, was exactly what the science determined.
The big concern at the time was that the federal government wanted to send in the bulldozers and clear the land. This was massive scaremongering, it was a scare campaign of the highest order and it flew in the face of the reality. The reality was that Australia was in the midst of a drought, and still is, with two-thirds of Australia’s rainfall on one-third of the country, and the Top End of the Northern Territory is one of those areas which has better than average rainfall, compared with the rest of the country.
People would have to be crazy not to consider utilising this resource, provided it was done under the best scientific direction and knowledge. The Commonwealth, together with the Western Australian government and the Northern Territory government, funded the TRaCK program. TRaCK is the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge program. I believe $30m was put into that program to gain a better understanding of waterways across the top of Australia, and to understand which parts of Northern Australia are arable.
Closing down the Berrimah Research facility, I believe, flies in the face of the commitment that the Territory government made to the TRaCK program because all of these things are interlinked. We need to understand our soil, our underground aquifers, what crops will grow, and a whole range of other things. I find the government’s attitude towards farmers, pastoralists, agriculturalists, and miners appalling, in their frenzy to stop farming.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I look across the Chamber and here is the member for Daly jumping up and down, yelling at me across the Chamber. He is one of those people …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Daly was not jumping up and down. He was interjecting loudly but he was not shouting. He was not jumping up and down. Do not mislead this Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, you tell me what he was doing, Treasurer. He was bouncing up and down, I am sorry. He was bouncing up and down like one of those smiling dogs that you put on the dash of your car.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You look across the Chamber and you see the …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to direct his comments through the Chair, as is required by the standing orders. The member for Fong Lim is deliberately trying to be provocative.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, in accordance with standing orders, I ask you to speak through the Chair, please?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look across the Chamber and I see the member for Daly, sitting there with his head nodding around …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have been asked to speak through the Chair, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that mean I need to look at you?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I look across the Chamber and I see the member for Daly sitting there with his head nodding around like a little dog that you put on the dash of your car, and it is smiling at you. He is sitting in his chair, bouncing up and down and making some sort of comments. He supports the stopping of agriculture on the Daly - in his own electorate. I find it quite alarming that he takes that attitude. I note that the Labor Party ran very strongly on this particular issue at the last election campaign. They wanted to stop all development on the Daly – they were very pro-active about getting out there and telling Territorians that they wanted to shut the Daly down; no more tree clearing, agriculture, or pastoralism - nothing happening on the Daly. Forget the farmers out there.
Therefore, I suppose shutting down Berrimah Research Farm ties in with their policy of shutting down agriculture in the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: What a lot of nonsense, we are not shutting down agriculture in the Territory; a very long bow to draw.
Mr TOLLNER: What are you doing? The Treasurer interrupts and says she is not shutting down agriculture in the Northern Territory …
Ms Lawrie: Correct.
Mr TOLLNER: What is whacking a moratorium on farming in the Daly region? What is selling off the Berrimah Research Farm for houses? It is all due to the Treasurer and the Planning minister’s lack of effort to take the time to look around the Top End and find suitable locations for houses years ago that she now finds herself in this situation where she has to scrabble around, like a headless chook, trying to find areas to put some houses.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He is insulting chooks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, member for Nelson, I should not have likened the member for Karama to a headless chook. This government is hell-bent on shutting down agriculture and has been sending messages to the pastoral, agricultural, and horticultural industries, and others involved on the land, that they do not want their business in the Territory - they want them out. That is why they are shutting down Berrimah Farm.
I was listening closely to what the minister, the member for Casuarina, had to say in his presentation. He said that this is no different to what happened in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, and that they do not have these sorts of things. For the illumination of the minister, I will let him know that these things do occur in nearly all the capital cities around Australia.
In Adelaide, South Australia, there is the Waite Agricultural Research Institute and Urrbrae Agricultural High School; South Perth in Western Australia has the Department of Agriculture complex; Burnley and Knoxfield in Melbourne; Indooroopilly, Cleveland and Mount Cotton in Brisbane; New Town and Launceston in Tasmania; and Rydalmere and Camden in Sydney. These are major capital cities with agriculture research facilities right in the city. For the minister to say these places are being shut down and sent into the scrub, flies in the face of reality.
For some reason this government has a major axe to grind, as far as agriculture, pastoral and other land-based industries are concerned. I do not know why. I am sure many members will be wondering why. That is one reason they are shutting down the Berrimah Farm. They are also shutting down the Berrimah Farm because of their complete lack of planning and ability to find other suitable locations for housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson in his motion. Berrimah Research Farm is an asset to the Northern Territory. One day we will be without a Labor government and when that time comes, with any luck, we will have a government that does support agriculture and rural industries, and Berrimah Farm will be valued again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a little surprised that the minister for Planning did not comment on what is mostly a planning issue, although there was certainly a fair bit of kafuffle on the department of Primary Industry debate.
There is one map that I did not put in the folder, which I am willing to table. Before I do, it is the map in the back of the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, 1990. People may believe that I think of these things in my spare time, but this was part of the concept or vision which the minister and member for Casuarina do not understand. This is a map of the Darwin Peninsula. It has Darwin as a city, including Casuarina, with Palmerston below it and, lo and behold, the interconnection between Palmerston as industrial, as it largely is now, and all the East Arm port area is shown as industrial. I would like to table it to show that when this plan was put together there was some understanding that the Darwin port would expand with rail and road connections. For the minister for Primary Industry to say there is no necessity for it, there is plenty of room there, is very short sighted.
We have to think further than 2030 - 2030 is a nice comfortable zone – it is 22 years. Maybe a few younger people like the member for Drysdale might still be here, but I guarantee most of you, including the member for Karama, will not be here, and I definitely will not be here. It is not very far away. We should be thinking longer-term than that. We do not need to use this land for housing. We could leave it as it is for the time being and look at it in five years time to see whether it is a good idea.
The minister for Primary Industry said there are 215 ha. There are only - and I am using the minister for Planning’s statement on 17 June 2008 - 65 ha of land suitable for housing. That is a relatively small amount of land. If you look at the map you have been given, do not believe that will all be housing - there will be 65 ha, because the road cuts it up and there are other restrictions on it. The minister might say that the noise contour is wrong, but the minister for Planning has not said that; she said that 30 ha are constrained by aircraft noise, in response to my question during estimates this year. Is the aircraft noise contour now wrong, when it was right on 17 June this year? It sounds a bit strange that it has already changed.
At the Aboriginal community on Lagoon Road I can just about read where the aircraft tyres were made or what brand they are - that is how low the planes are when they pass across that little community. Those people are probably happy to have a house. I have been to a meeting there and I said: ‘If this were not an Aboriginal community, there would be so many complaints that aircraft would all be coming in from the Ludmilla end.’ Normally we would never allow residential subdivision, in today’s planning guidelines, to be within those contours.
The government even restricts, to some extent, the type of development we can procure in Howard Springs, which is kilometres away, simply because the forestry land at Howard Springs is on the approach to the Darwin airport.
There have been many things said about the closure of the farm. I am not saying, and I have never said, that the farm area - that is the farmlands - could not be used for something else. I would like the government, before it decides to demolish some buildings and limit the amount of work done there, to put that out for public discussion. I have only heard from the government, that is the ministers, and management. There are 220 people based at Berrimah Farm. I would like to hear what they have to say. Many of them have worked there for a good part of their working lives. I would like the government to allow me, or someone, to ask those people what they think. I hope I do not have to start using whistleblower-type legislation to obtain information from public servants about an important area of planning for the future of the Territory, and to get an understanding of what those people who work there think. They may agree with the minister. They might say: look this is antiquated, we do need to move - I do not know. But it is very difficult for those public servants to talk to me, unless they do it in the dark of the night down the back of the port. How do I know what they think?
Surely there is an opportunity, which is part of the motion I put forward, for the government to put this on hold for a minute and put it out for some public consultation. The minister for Primary Industry showed some cartoon-style maps - I have seen those types of maps. Do you really think that I could take that seriously as a planning document? It is one of those you stick in the office at Casuarina and ask people to comment. I can tell you that the people of Casuarina would not have a clue about Berrimah Farm.
There are many people in Darwin, who are genuinely nice people who love the area, but when it comes to some of the more serious planning considerations they would not have the foggiest because they are not interested in some of those things. You have to be a little careful when you stick out a plan like that which just says ‘what do you think?’ without opening it up for some more reasoned debate, where you hear both sides of the argument or alternatives. A piece of paper in a shopping centre does not necessarily mean you have discussed these issues seriously with the community.
I have put forward a series of notions of what that land could be used for. The minister and the government say housing. I have said it could be part of a green belt. The minister also said there will be some light industry. I am assuming it is the land at the top of the Stuart Highway where the ANF noise contour is. That did not come up in the discussion from the government tonight. It could be used by Kormilda College for VET courses. It could be used as a prison farm for a Berrimah prison which is built on its existing site. There are 32 ha of land which, I am told, has some of the best soils you will find in the Darwin region.
I am saying that there are some alternatives. I have never had a chance to be part of the decision-making process in relation to this land. The government has made that decision; it has not included the community. It claims it is inclusive, open, and transparent. When it comes to some of these important decisions, it locks people out. The only chance I have of putting forward some alternatives is to come to this place and put those alternatives. I know that we will be defeated tonight. The member for Casuarina said: ‘Oh, it is disappointing that we have this politics’. This is a political forum in the true sense - not in the party political sense, but in the true sense of politics, which is to discuss these issues.
Unfortunately, minister for Primary Industry, I am not in the loop, because when you are on this side of parliament, for some reason, you are not in the loop. I would love to be part of the forum which discusses the future. What harm would that do? What harm would it do to call a public meeting on a Saturday afternoon, or in the middle of the day, when you have all the staff from the area come and discuss freely, with no limitations from management or government? They could speak freely about what they thought about the area. They are the people who live there. Invite people from industry, the Port Authority, the East Arm port development, the ones planning the future of the port - get them to speak. What are their viewpoints on how much more industrial land we need? I would only be able to guess.
It is simply by trying to use logic, but this development is very close, 6 km - not eight - from the tip of it to the base of the port. You have to remember that there is only a very narrow peninsula of land which comes out from the port, and that will need a place to expand. I do not quite agree with the member for Sanderson saying they might put some light industrial on the other side of the highway. There are major environmental constraints there. There is the aerial farm which I know the government is looking at for housing, and that would be quite a sensible place to put industrial land as well; you would then have a corridor of industrial land from the outskirts of Palmerston to the outskirts of Darwin.
I get concerned when the minister says that no-one wants to live past Coolalinga. Well, 17 000 of us do, and we do not have a problem. Casuarina, believe it or not, is not a place that many people from the rural area go. They do not like it; they like Coolalinga. They go to Palmerston, and they might go to Casuarina occasionally, and they hardly ever come to the CBD. If you ask someone to visit you in Darwin, many rural people do not know where they are going. They just do not come here anymore.
The reality is you need to have some discrete cities around your harbour, where the harbour is the centrepiece. Within that city, you have the facilities like Casuarina Square, WOW, and Harbour Town, so people do not have to travel all the way and we do not have an urban sprawl. I mentioned at the Chamber of Commerce forum, there were people like Walter Burley Griffin and his wife, Marion, who came from America to do design work for Canberra, housing estates and house designs in Australia. They came from a philosophy of trying to develop in harmony with the landscape. In other words, you do not just wipe the landscape out and put, boom, development - you try to use the landscape for the benefit of the people who are going to live there.
There are great places in Darwin that we should not destroy. Knuckey Lagoon is a fantastic place - do not ever urbanise that area, leave it for rural - leave it as it is. We have the harbour - that is the landscape, and we have the rivers and creeks that feed into it. That is what annoyed me so much about Mitchell Creek. How did we ever destroy Mitchell Creek? I have been up here long enough to have seen Mitchell Creek when it was a perfectly good, natural creek running into the harbour. Now it is a fandangled, you-beaut, concrete channel, with lovely manicured lawns. It is stuffed. Now it attracts all the fertilisers, rubbish and all sorts of things. It should have been a natural corridor.
I accept that the previous government made mistakes, and I am not …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The mistakes were selling land not suitable for development and giving carte blanche to developers to do whatever they liked with it. I do not know whether this government has changed the map yet, I will wait and see. There are some good things in the new eastern suburbs development of Palmerston. I do not know whether that has been approved yet, by the way. I have not seen the final outcome. We should be using our natural environment to make our cities better. We do not need to have a sprawl.
Berrimah Farm has basically been a farm. It does not have as much natural beauty as other areas we are developing like Weddell or Palmerston. There is no doubt it is close to the port. It can separate Palmerston from Darwin; there is no problem with that. Palmerston will be a discrete community which will develop its own culture and industries - it already is - it will develop its own feel; that will be Palmerston. You will have Darwin, which has been around much longer, and it will develop its own community – it already has. I am not saying it is going to develop into something new, but it will change - it will grow within its own boundaries.
I believe we have these areas which are worth preserving. There is some beautiful bushland where the people sell watermelons on the highway at the 11 Mile, which is Commonwealth land - it would be great to have a strip of the original bush still there; it is a nice break in the road from Darwin to Palmerston. I would hate to see the bushland go; I do not want to see wall-to-wall suburbs. I was brought up in a city like that. I reckon we could do things a little bit better.
We need to do our planning properly, and we need to have some foresight. This is close to East Arm Port - an area which the government knows is becoming increasingly busy. There is a statement from the minister for Primary Industry today talking about the first loads of copper, and then he talks about nickel and coal bake coming from the Browns Mine at Batchelor. This is only part of it. There is now talk about phosphate which is going to be brought out of the Barkly Tablelands and will be shipped, I presume, to the rail and into Darwin.
We have a port which was designed to grow; let us not stifle it by a silly concept of a ghetto, because that is what it will be. It will be a small suburb in the middle of nowhere - not connected with anyone. And what is that when it comes to community? A little body of a few hundred blocks of land not connected to Palmerston or Darwin. I believe it is a tragic mistake if the government goes ahead with this. If they do not believe me, and I can accept that, but at least hold off for a while and put it out for some public consultation and input; put it out for an environmental impact statement - let us look at that. Put it out for an economic impact statement; ask the business community what they think about the future of that area.
Do not ask the real estate agents; they will sell anything. If you offered them a block of land on the approach to the airport, I bet you they would say it is a great idea: ‘We can sell that.’ They are in the business of selling; they are not in the business of planning. Ask people who know about these things. Look at the mistakes we have made in the past. Look to the future. If you really believe 2030 is what this government is about, then use some vision. Do not use some short-term, stopgap measures to cover up the lack of affordable housing.
Minister, why not open up a few blocks in the forestry land - land that is actually marked as residential? It is on your own plans as residential. You will not. Yet, you will open up land that is marked for community purpose and for future development. I believe we are going down the wrong path and we will regret it one day. When the businesses in that area start complaining that there are people knocking on their doors in the middle of the night, do not look at me, because I believe that is what will happen.
Ms Purick: Do not forget the pet crematorium.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I forgot the pet crematorium. I am not sure whether we are allowed to advertise, but I believe that is the one on Wallaby Holtze Road …
Ms Purick: No, we bury them. We do not burn them.
Mr WOOD: That is a little distance off. It is a bit of a commercial plug in the middle of this debate. I will leave it there.
I ask the government to consider: we are not in a big hurry to open up this land yet. Let us give it some more thought; let us ask the community. Surely you would support that. Then let us see where we go from there.
Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the NT government amend Part VA of the Traffic Act which deals with the impounding and forfeiture of motor vehicles for certain offences, specifically to allow for -
The government has informed me they will be amending my motion, and I am reasonably happy with that, as it is similar to what I am going to debate. My only concern is that there should be a date when they introduce this into parliament. I still want to talk about this issue, because people need to know where I am coming from.
The motion I am putting forward is that the government amend Part VA of the Traffic Act which deals with the impounding and forfeiture of motor vehicles for certain offences.
In February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament based to some extent on the Queensland model. This bill amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles for hoon offences described as burn-outs, speed trials, racing, and deliberately damaging road surfaces.
I might be plagiarising some of my own speech, as I have given this speech before. I have been studying Ms Bishop’s efforts lately, so I am making sure I recognise my own writing.
When I introduced my bill, the government decided to introduce its own version in November 2003 which was debated on 18 May 2004. The main difference between the two bills was that the government decided not to allow for the impoundment of a vehicle on the first offence, but allowed impoundment on the second offence and only through the local court.
I supported the bill and I was happy we had some legislation, therefore I withdrew my proposed legislation. It seems the problem we have now is the new law is not working. Why? Take the rural area. If you go to Howard River Park - which we sometimes call Howard Rubber Park - Hicks Road in Girraween, Jefferis Road in Humpty Doo, and McMinns Drive in McMinns Lagoon, you will see that the law is not working. This same motion was put to parliament on 2 May 2007, nearly one and a half years ago, and the response from the minister was not to support the motion.
The reasons given were that she believed that an infringement notice was the appropriate way to approach a first offence and this was consistent with most other road offences. The minister also said that legislation is not a tool; police enforcement is the most effective tool in anti-hooning. She also said that all the measures the government had put into place, such as an active Traffic Branch for police, go a long way to addressing the concerns of hoons on our roads. She also said we now have demerit points.
The minister also said that she was happy to refer a review of the legislation to the Road Safety Council, and would refer the issue of anti-hooning legislation into that reference group. The minister also said on 16 October last year, in response to a question from me, that the Road Safety Coordination Group had indicated to her that the results of that review would be available early this year. We are at the end of the year, and still no findings appear to have been released. That is why this motion has been put forward again. People, including the police, are sick of waiting for this important legislation.
Let us look at the facts. First, hooning is a major problem in some parts of the Territory; it is a major problem in parts of my electorate. Hooning is dangerous to the people who hoon, to other motorists, bike riders, pedestrians, horse riders, and is also the cause of damage to property. At the time when I originally introduced this legislation, the figures showed that there had been one confiscation before the court - not exactly a great success.
Let us look at why the minister rejected my motion the last time. She said she believed an infringement notice is the appropriate way to handle a first offence. However, if you look in the other states you will see we have the weakest laws for the first offence. I have a table here which is the interstate anti-hoon laws for 2008.
In Queensland, they have an act called the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. It has an interesting chapter, called the ‘Motor vehicle impounding powers for prescribed offences’ - and I like this bit – ‘and motorbike noise direction offences’. The first offence in Queensland is to impound for 48 hours; the second offence within three years is to impound for up to three months; and for the third offence within three years the vehicle is forfeited to the state.
In New South Wales, this is even better. They have several acts. They impound for three months on the first offence - three months. An offence can occur preceding 10 days. Second offence or third offence - that is two or more offences - the car is forfeited - end of story. This is the interesting bit: the vehicle may also be crushed. They call it a crash test. I do not know what they do.
Under the Victorian act, they impound or immobilise for 48 hours; a second offence within three years, impound or immobilise up to three months; a third offence within three years, confiscated and your licence cancelled - and the offender has to pay.
In Tasmania they also have hoons. They confiscate for seven days on the first offence; second offence within a year, they confiscate for three months; and for a third offence within a year, they confiscate until resolution through court or forfeited.
In South Australia, first offence is impound for seven days; within 10 years - you do not want to do it again - your car will be impounded for up to three months and, within 10 years for the third offence, impound up to six months; more than three offences within 10 years, forfeited.
In Western Australia, they have just made some amendments. Impound for seven days, first offence; second offence, impound for 28 days; third offence within five years, vehicle confiscated. It says here, since the first anti-hoon laws were introduced in Western Australia in 2004, there have been more than 2800 impoundings.
In the ACT, the first offence, impound for three months; second offence, two or more offences, forfeited; and the third offence, two or more offences, forfeited.
The Northern Territory, on the first offence is yellow ticket, and second offence you have to go to the local court and your car might be confiscated or impounded. It is high time we made some changes. The problem with weak laws is that they do not remove the problem. Impounding gives the neighbourhood some respite. For instance, if the hooning is driving people mad or is a safety concern and you confiscate the vehicle for 48 hours, then you have no noise or safety issue - at least for a short time. The yellow ticket will mean, as soon as the police are gone - back on the road again.
Hooning is not just about public nuisance. There are issues relating to safety, noise, smell, and even side effects like selling property where this type of behaviour occurs. I know that happened in Howard River Park. Prospective buyers of land turn up in the street, and there would be rubber everywhere and they would turn around and go home because they did not want to have hooning outside the front of their place.
Our roads are supposed to be subject to road rules, to protect people when they go for a walk, ride a bicycle, or a horse, or take the dog for a walk. Children catching the bus to school or walking home in the afternoon can be at risk, and I have seen that for myself. The figures given in a recent letter from the minister regarding the number of anti-hooning offences since the law was introduced were 128 infringements and 93 notices served and, I know this is probably out of date, but that is what I have - and not all drivers who received an infringement were served with anti-hooning notices. The government might say that shows the law is working, but that is not the case based on the evidence on the ground. Cars I have seen involved in hooning still drive the streets, and if police do catch them, they just get a yellow ticket.
The legislation, of course, is only part of it. Catching hoons in the act is quite difficult. Residents will ring up the police, and by the time police arrive, the hoons have gone or are driving around like angels. As soon as the police have gone, away they go again. Residents are asked to take photos or film the infringements. I know that some of the hoons would intimidate those residents and scare them from taking the pictures required to take them off the road. The government needs to give police the funds or the equipment to collect the evidence. If that means 24-hour camera surveillance on known trouble spots, then so be it. This will allow the evidence to be collected, and with the stronger legislation I am proposing, and I am pleased that the government is looking at changing that too, there is a chance that hoon behaviour can be curtailed.
Although I have not written it in the motion, there needs to be an effort by the government to ensure that police have this type of equipment. Surely it can be made available in known trouble spots so the public does not have to try to take these photographs themselves, especially when they know there is a likelihood they are going to be targeted by these people if it is found out they were the ones taking the photographs. If someone was to take a photograph from a property, and the photographs were used in court as evidence, there is a fair chance the offenders would know exactly from what property those photographs were taken.
I can say quite categorically that, in parts of the Howard River Park, those properties would be targeted, either by continual hooning, or just giving people the impression that they were being looked at and watched, and there will be public annoyance around their property. I know this is the case, because people have come to see me about it. There was a case at Howard River Park, with a Molotov cocktail being thrown over a fence where there were horses, simply because those people complained to the police about the actions of some idiots in the area.
Even if you do photograph the hooning, the picture has to be clear enough to identify the driver, and that is why these changes are needed. If you can photograph or film the number plate of the vehicle, regardless of whether you can see the driver, you can impound the vehicle without worrying about recognising the driver.
I need to say something on surveillance. I was driving back from the Masters in Alice Springs and the ABC was doing an interview with the Mayor of Ipswich, who was coming to Tennant Creek last week to talk to a business group. He was saying how CCTV had certainly reduced crime in parts of Ipswich. One thing that I pricked up my ears at is they actually have some portable CCTVS that they put around at various hotspots. I believe that would be good for the government to supply to the police.
These days you can get CCTV cameras that operate on long term batteries, that have hard drives, which can be put anywhere, and they have infrared vision. I believe that part of this program to get some of these hoons off the road is to give police the equipment to do it. I know the police are doing their best, but they need more resources, and that is why I emphasise the need for video surveillance cameras. We have looked at it; it is hard to get the information. I rang the Ipswich City Council this morning but, unfortunately, they were unable to get back to me in time about the type of equipment.
People are getting fed up with this type of behaviour and the government needs to be serious about curbing this antisocial behaviour. If it does not, it will be sending a message that it is not listening to people like those in Howard River Park. I can tell you of areas in McMinns Lagoon, down Acacia Road, Humpty Doo, Hicks Road and Whitewood Road - they are just some of the areas I know – where people just have to enjoy this hooning behaviour until they pack up and move somewhere else a little more friendly and quieter. I mentioned before how this can affect the sale of the land.
The minister has said legislation is not a tool; police enforcement is a tool, however police cannot act without legislation. If the legislation is weak, then they will not be able to change behaviour. It is like having a plastic hammer versus a metal hammer. The minister has said the government has demerit points; they will not stop hooning. If there is a problem with hooning late at night, you need to remove the offending vehicle, not just give the driver an infringement notice and a subsequent punishment of demerit points. Remove the car and they cannot hoon; give them an infringement notice - who cares?
As for police enforcement, I wonder if the minister knows how difficult it is for police to enforce the laws, especially in the rural area. At Alexander Park, for instance, they just put a car down the road with a mobile phone and they ring the hoons further down to tell them the police are coming and they all drive around like angels and the police go back. They know it will be at least 15 to 20 minutes before Palmerston Police Station can attend.
The minister said the government is putting into place an active Traffic Branch. I must admit I have not seen a lot of the Traffic Branch, maybe it is in unmarked cars. I see an odd motorbike fly around but I could not say we have a Traffic Branch that has a major presence. I wonder if the minister could expand on that in her response as I do not see any more police on the road than normal, except some motorbikes from time to time.
The minister said the results of the review by the Road Safety Coordination Group would be ready by early this year. The year is coming to a close and there is still no sign of the review. I ask the government to support what I have put forward today and I am happy they look like they will do that. I do not put this forward as a silly idea. We need to curb this type of antisocial behaviour.
I will give you an example of a place on Hillier Road in Howard Springs; the place is up for sale now and I hope it is not up for sale because of the hoons that go past there all the time. They have the most beautiful lawn. Lawns in the rural area, especially from the fence to the road, are not that frequent, but these people have made the effort to have a nice green lawn and they water it. Well, the number of times it has been ripped up by hoons. Recently, you could see the cars parked on the lawn, they just let off the clutch, ripped it up and drove right up through the lawn. Then they did it again, about a month after the poor gardener who works there had patched it up. That is the sort of thing that drives people mad.
I help look after the cricket oval at Howard Springs. We have had blokes come in there in the middle of the night, lift the wooden barriers out of the ground, go in there and do doughnuts on the football ground or the cricket ground. It is so disappointing because it is mainly kids who use it for cricket, and they have to try to patch up the ruts. It is not very good when you are playing cricket to have a ball bounce off the rut and hit you in the face. It is an issue, and I believe we need to change people’s behaviour. There has been a lot of talk about road safety, and this should be part of the road safety program which the government is trying to put forward.
Someone came to see me recently and said: ‘You are being a bit tough.’ I said we are not really out here to stop a bloke who, when it first rains, drives out of a T-intersection and maybe does a bit of a slur if he is not careful; it is not the odd little moving with the vehicle, it is the stuff that is deliberately dangerous - it is the doughnuts, the S’s, and racing the cars side by side.
My secretary lives in Whitewood Road and every intersection there has rubber on it - doughnuts on every intersection. She was coming home from walking the dog one day and there were two cars coming straight at her, side by side on the road, one is obviously in the wrong lane, and they were flying along. We have to send a message that this sort of behaviour is no good and if you put that in the context of people who add alcohol while they are hooning, it makes it twice as bad. I put this forward as a serious change to the Traffic Act. I believe we have had plenty of time to see how the existing act works.
We know hooning is dangerous. I remember the case of two vehicles dragging outside BP Palms; one car had its lights off and one car hit the other car and slammed into a tree. One of the drivers was burned to death, and I believe one girl was pulled out. She was seriously injured and sent to Adelaide, and may still be in a very bad way, because she was between life and death for quite a while. Hooning can cause injury. We are sending the wrong message.
It might be slightly off the subject, but I wonder whether the motor vehicle industry has to take some responsibility for the way it advertises. It is like how alcohol is advertised in a way which is not always responsible. Look at the cars that are advertised today - look at the utes. I have a ute which is slightly different to some of the utes, and the member for Goyder has a ute. You cannot tell me that many motor car companies are not pushing the concept of a pretty fast vehicle: the ones with two exhaust pipes, the SS, and all the nice little things that go round the car. Some of those cars are very, very powerful.
I know the member for Fong Lim probably has a couple in his back yard, but he told me he has gone past that stage. They sell cars that are very high powered. Look at that unfortunate fatality on Vanderlin Drive the other day; that car must have been hiking. I am not sure what type of car it was, but there are cars which have enormous power. You see them at the traffic lights, and they leave me for dead.
I put this forward as an opportunity to tighten up on this area; to give people some peace and quiet, as well as some safety in their own communities. Also, believe it or not, to try to save the lives of those young people – and they are not all young people who hoon, by the way - but to try to save their lives and the lives of their passengers.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson and recognise that hooning is probably more of an emerging problem in my electorate of Braitling. We are seeing more cars flying up and down the road doing burn-outs everywhere, getting on the Alice Springs Golf Course at night and tearing up greens, and a lot of unsavoury behaviour.
Keeping in mind the road toll now stands at 60, it is high time that we had some sensible motions put in so that we can bring in legislation to try to curb the devastating road toll. I wish that someone as sensible as the member for Nelson was minister for Transport at this point in time. He might be able to identify ways to reduce the road toll, rather than having the high road toll that we have. I believe a 65% percent increase over the last year is atrocious. We have had to wait for a general business day for someone to put forward a motion to try to identify ways of making our roads safer so people can travel on our roads, pedestrians can walk on our roads and use our roads and feel safe and know that someone is not going to come drag racing in the middle of the night with their headlights turned off.
I pass on my agreement with the motion and acknowledge that hooning is a significant issue. It is continuing to rise in the Northern Territory; in Patterson Crescent, Lyndavale Drive, Head Street, Dixon Road - around the loop - we are seeing it across Alice Springs and throughout the Northern Territory. It reminds me of growing up in Sydney many years ago and seeing the start of hooning and progressing to the point where it is now. The level it is at in the Northern Territory right now is at the same point as 20 years ago in Sydney. It will probably only get worse and strong motions like this to bring on legislation to toughen up ways of dealing with it, is very positive. Clearly the Labor government is soft on anything to make our roads safer. I support this motion and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it forward.
Confiscating vehicles for 48 hours, if an offender has been found guilty of a first prescribed offence, I believe will send a clear message to those people who are hooning, and an application to the lower court for the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months if you are found guilty a second time, also sends a really strong message. If you commit a third offence, you are just an idiot and you should have your vehicle forfeited. I support that and commend the member for Nelson for bringing that on.
I will move an amendment to that motion, which I understand will be distributed now. I move the motion be amended by adding, at the end of paragraph (c):
I move that amendment because I believe by being a hoon you are turning a vehicle into a dangerous weapon, the irresponsibility of the driver to turn that vehicle into a dangerous weapon and when someone is over 0.15 in blood alcohol content …
A member: They are drunk.
Mr GILES: Well, they are drunk, but they have actually turned their vehicle into more of a weapon than just hooning. The reason is that they do not actually have control over their brain or their car, and what we see is a number of incidents on our roads where people are not wearing seat belts, and they might be speeding or doing burn-outs. When you combine that with a high range of blood alcohol, it makes the matter even worse. For those reasons, I put that amendment forward. It was only last week we were debating similar legislation when the government went to water, weak at the knees, and went soft on drink-drivers and trying to reduce the road toll.
I will go through a few media releases by the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, which are not in order, and then draw a point about why it is important to forfeit cars for drink-driving offences on a third repeat occasion in five years, where one has been at a high range. This media release is from Monday, 27 October, at 12.10 hours Central time:
He will be subpoenaed to the Alice Springs Magistrates Court; clearly not getting the message – owing to the soft Labor government and its road toll.
Here is another one, at 1310 hours on Monday, 27 October. This makes for great reading:
I commend the police for doing that. I acknowledge that the police work very hard in doing this, although they are under-resourced:
I have to say, catching people and breath testing at 2.10 am is a novel idea. They must have copied that from me talking about the need to get breath tests done at an appropriate time …
Ms Lawrie: You flatter yourself.
Mr GILES: … I thank the minister for Transport for copying my ideas and making that happen. I really do appreciate it and getting drink-drivers off the road is important:
Clearly, an alcohol ignition lock is not going to work on that person, especially given that he is unlicensed. Surely, only forfeiting the vehicle would be appropriate:
He was also charged with drink driving at a medium range blood alcohol level.
These are not people who are drink-driving in normal cars that you or I might drive, such as a registered car with a licensed driver. These are people, who clearly have no respect for the road rules, and they are turning their vehicles into weapons, and they deserve nothing more than having their vehicles forfeited. If they are prepared to get into a car and drive it, what was that one? 0.235%, unlicensed, driving on our streets - no one is safe.
I will read out another one. A 38-year-old male returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.87%. He had just finished a five year disqualification period and this was his fifth driving offence. Fifth drink-driving offence: What sort of a lesson can we teach that person, apart from taking his car from him?
A 37-year-old male returned a reading of 0.97%; an 18-year-old male returned a high reading of 0.117%; a 34-year-old man returned a reading of 0.149%, he was driving unlicensed and carrying two people in the back of a utility. A 31-year-old female driver blew 0.157%, unregistered and uninsured, and then ran into the ‘No Entry’ sign outside Palmerston Police Station - talk about being stupid; drunk and stupid, and then drove straight into the police station - it beggars belief. This is one from 29 October - a male driver was conveyed to the Darwin watch-house and returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.16%, a high range reading, three times the legal limit.
The media releases go on, and I will not read the rest of them, about people who have been caught drink driving; and these are just since I debated last week about how important it is that we have forfeiture laws for repeat drink-drivers at a high level. I find it highly ironic that I am supporting hooning legislation that recommends we support the forfeiture of vehicles for hooning on the third offence. If we are going to support forfeiture of vehicles on a third offence; if the law says that if you are travelling with a can of VB in your car in a prescribed area, your car can be confiscated; and if your car can be confiscated if you have too many barramundi; then in terms of being over the legal alcohol limit, surely we must say that driving a vehicle over 0.150% on a third occasion should result in vehicle forfeiture.
I recommend that the government supports this amendment in line with any legislation that can be duplicated from the hooning legislation. The government can join the Country Liberals and say that we are going to get tough on drink-drivers, and the road toll, and send a message to people that if you drink-drive three times within a five year period, above the high range, you will forfeit your car.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you that we are now speaking to the motion with the amendment.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, in general I support both motions that have been put, because hooning is a problem. It does pose dangers and, at times, it can be seen as hitting on an easy target; but it does cause much distress to many people.
I would like to mention the good work of organisations, such as the Beat The Heat Association Inc, that are tied in with the police department. They are a stand-alone association trying to combat hooning. Racing for road safety is one of its main mottos and as part of that they encourage the hoons to use safe venues like the Hidden Valley Drag Strip, which is a government-owned venue. I note the federal government’s pledge of $3m to upgrade that facility and I hope that everything planned in those works is delivered, because there are great options which can assist and complement this motion.
I urge the government to keep pushing it along to ensure it happens quickly, because if we can get the hoons off the street, we are going to be a lot safer. It may not just be through impounding their vehicles but also through education. Education for offenders can be a key way of breaking that cycle.
It disappointed me last week when we put the idea of seizing the motor vehicle after the third drink-driving offence, one with a reading higher than 0.150, and the government rejected it. I commend the member for Braitling, and the member for Nelson, for bringing forward the amendment to that motion. If you cannot see the correlation between drink-driving and killing people you are foolish. It is vital that you see the correlation between three counts of hooning and seizing someone’s vehicle and the need to seize someone’s vehicle when they have been drink-driving on our streets. There is no greater danger than drink-driving.
I fully support the amendment made to the motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing forward his motion. I will speak about the substantive motion first, because I have an amendment to the motion which I will put as part of the debate.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have moved an amendment. I am not sure whether you can then amend an amendment without amending that amendment for another amendment …
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly we need to deal with your amendment and I would like to defeat the amendment and then go to the substantive motion …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was still talking before the minister went soft on drunk-drivers. Should my amendment now be voted on - what is the process here?
Madam SPEAKER: The usual process is there is a motion before the Chair. You have moved an amendment and the Leader of Government Business is speaking to the original motion and your amendment, and all members from now on are speaking to both those things. When all members have finished speaking we put the amendment, along with any other amendments, and if any amendments are passed then we put the amended motion. Otherwise we then go straight to the motion.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, maybe I heard incorrectly. I thought the Transport minister said she wanted to amend the original motion and not talk to my motion.
Madam SPEAKER: She can indeed put forward a motion to amend the original motion, and she can also speak to your motion. There is nothing stopping the minister from doing those things and in that case there are three things before the Chair. It is complicated. That is why I have come back into the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing forward this motion. The member for Nelson has pursued the issue of anti-hooning legislation in this Chamber through terms of government and he is sincere in trying to ensure this unacceptable hooning behaviour on our streets has the strongest penalties applied to it.
The Northern Territory government has its own anti-hooning legislation which did not go to the extent that the member for Nelson sought. It dealt with traffic infringement notices for the first offence, rather than confiscation of vehicle.
I recognise that it has not had the desired effect and there has been a continuation of hoons on our streets. Hooning involves people illegally racing their vehicles on public streets. We heard a very stark example from the member for Nelson; about people participating in burn-outs and doughnuts and placing themselves, their passengers, their spectators, and other road users at risk of serious injury or fatality.
The new provision in the Traffic Act for anti-hooning legislation was introduced in 2004. It was created specifically for offences of hooning type activities and it provided for an infringement penalty on the first offence. In the case of a second offence it provides for police applying to the court to impound an offender’s vehicle for 48 hours. The third offence is the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months, and the fourth offence is a vehicle may be forfeited. The regime of infringement penalties, demerit points and vehicle impoundment and forfeiture has not been as effective as government sought.
It has been in place long enough to see whether it has been effective; there have been approximately 350 traffic infringement notices issued since it was introduced. The first vehicle was impounded for 48 hours for a hooning offence in May 2007, and since that time only a further two vehicles have been impounded for 48 hours. As the member for Nelson knows, when the anti-hooning legislation came into effect, we said that there would be a review after the first five years, which means the review would be due in 2009.
Since coming to the portfolio, I have asked the Road Safety Coordination Group to conduct a review of our anti-hooning legislation; I have been expecting that advice to come forward. The latest advice is that the Road Safety Coordination Group information will come to me next month. The Road Safety Coordination Group comprises the AANT, TIO, the George Institute of Public Health, NT Police, the Departments of Health, Education, Justice, and Planning and Infrastructure; it really is a group with expertise and I was awaiting their expert advice.
I have no argument with what you have been pursuing, member for Nelson. As Transport minister, I commend you for your pursuit and your passion on this issue. We have seen that all Australian jurisdictions have their own regimes for anti-hooning and over time each of the jurisdictions has moved. As you indicated in the debate tonight, Western Australia has recently moved on this issue. Anti-hooning legislation, whilst it is relatively new in the Northern Territory, is something we introduced, but not without prompting from your good self, member for Nelson. However, it has not been as effective as government would like.
We wanted to receive a clear message through the traffic infringement notices on the first offence. Sadly, we have seen the continuation of hoons, particularly in rural and urban areas - and I have witnessed the fresh black rubber marks on the roads after a Saturday night and you know the hoons have been there the night before - whilst we have been sending the message that you could be fined, arrested, lose your licence, have your vehicle impounded, and your vehicle forfeited on the fourth offence.
I accept that the police are an essential tool in the fight against hoons. The Northern Territory government has reintroduced and resourced the Traffic Branch which was disbanded under the CLP government. It incorporates the existing Major Crash Investigation Unit, the Traffic Camera Unit, and the traffic infringement notice adjudicators. I am advised 12 police officers and five police auxiliaries are in Darwin unit.
I am sure the minister for Police would be able to provide you with further briefings on how they deploy marked cars, unmarked cars, and that level of detail which, as Transport minister, I am not able to provide you. I know there are increasingly strong lines of communication between the department of Transport and Police regarding these road safety tools.
I will be moving to defeat your motion as it stands, however I would prefer to amend your motion to flag the intention and the aim of government coming from the advice of the Road Safety Coordination Group. Hopefully, we will get that advice soon. I am flagging the intent of government in increasing the penalty regimes as they exist.
I will be moving a motion to your substantive motion, not to the motion with the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. The government will be proposing to negate the amendment from the member for Braitling, as we had that debate in the Chamber last week, and even though the opposition did not agree with me – and I know they will never agree with me or this side - I am not going …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask for the microphone to be turned up as I can barely hear. I thought the minister said something about the government being soft on drunks, but I was not quite sure. I find it hard hearing the minister over here.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. But it would …
Ms Carney: When she is not shrill, she is quite difficult to hear, is she not?
Madam SPEAKER: That was quite an offensive interjection. We will see if we can get the minister’s microphone turned up, but if you could be somewhat more respectful in your points of order, thank you.
Ms Carney: Some points of order are offensive, but others are not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, rather than turn the microphone up, I will do my best to speak louder for the member for Braitling.
We did have a debate last week which goes to the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. We went through it in great detail and the government’s policy position is very clear: we were pointing out the difference between drink-drivers and hoons. Hooning does not …
Mr Bohlin: Drink-drivers kill more people every year.
Ms LAWRIE: Hooning does not occur …
A member: There is no difference. There is no argument.
Ms LAWRIE: … nearly as frequently as drink-driving does and, therefore, it does not have …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, their arrogance is astounding. If you talk about something they have proposed and they do not like what you are saying, then they will incessantly interject ...
Ms Carney: Rubbish! People in glasshouses.
Mr Conlan: You are such a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw those comments please.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr Conlan: It does not mean it is not true, though.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you when you are speaking to the Speaker and you are asked to withdraw, you stand to do that.
Mr CONLAN: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I withdraw that comment.
Dr Burns: You do not eat in the Chamber either.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, do you have food in the Chamber?
Mr CONLAN: I just had something in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind all honourable members that food is not allowed in the Chamber.
Mr Conlan: You would have been one of those blokes at school that come up behind …
Ms Carney: Well, she chews gum all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen said that I chew gum all the time. I have never chewed gum in the Chamber. I ask her to withdraw that allegation.
Ms Carney: Oh, it must have been something else.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please continue, minister.
Ms Carney: She is misleading parliament, because I have seen her chewing gum.
Mr Conlan: Yes, I know, so have I.
Ms Carney: Yes, she has a cow’s sort of chew.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen is continuing to allege that I am chewing gum. I heard her say: ‘She has that cow sort of a chew’. Clearly, I do not chew gum in the Chamber. I do not bring gum into the Chamber. I do not chew gum in the Chamber. She was just asked to withdraw, she withdrew, and she made the allegation again immediately.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if the member is so offended by the outrageous allegation that she has been known to chew gum, I withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen, and I remind you of Standing Order 51. Minister, you have the call.
Mr Elferink: You cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the level of juvenile interjections from the other side is …
Ms Carney: Oh, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: The government clearly says that we have a different cohort in dealing with hooning; they are far fewer. Tragically, we have far too many drink-drivers; they are a broader cohort of people, so dealing with the drink-drivers through confiscation of cars would adversely affect a far broader group of innocent family members. We are on the record saying that; we very clearly articulated that last week. They did not like to hear that. However, that is our position and it is unchanged from last week to this week.
The government will not be supporting the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. Hooning is about the car. People who are hooning often do so in a particular car, hotted up cars, for example, and the confiscation of that vehicle addresses the issue directly. Their hotted up car, their love and joy, the car they spend so much money on, is confiscated – a very different scenario to someone, as I have said in the debate on drink-driving …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure whether I am hearing right, but the minister for Transport suggests that a hotted up car is far more important than someone’s loved one, a human body that is ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order, resume your seat. The minister has the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale does not have a clue about what I was saying; he tried to draw out that analogy. Hooning is about the car; people who are hooning often do so in a particular car. Drink-driving is not about the car. Drink-drivers are idiots who have a problem with alcohol. All the studies show that repeat drink-drivers …
Mr Giles: Should be penalised.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Sadly, repeat drink-drivers commit multiple offences; they are people who have a problem with alcohol. That is a very different set of circumstances to people who are fixated on going fast in their hotted up cars and proving to their mates they can do tricks on the road, the cricket field, or wherever, in their car; they are a very different cohort. We draw the distinction between the two and consider the impact on innocent family members in terms of confiscation of vehicles. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling.
I have an amendment: that the Northern Territory government bring forward a bill to amend part VA of the Traffic Act. The bill will allow for increased penalties for first time offenders which allow for impounding of a vehicle; increased penalties for …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I request that the member be given sufficient time to conclude her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the minister’s time be extended by 10 minutes.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their indulgence of the 10 minute extension of time and I promise not to take the full 10 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion. I will be proposing that we omit all words after ‘That’ and insert in their stead:
I have spoken to the member for Nelson and indicated to him that the government supports the intent of his motion, but we need to give our various departments and the Road Safety Coordination Group the opportunity to have a look at the actual advice and how to implement the intent; that is why we are not fully adopting his motion as it stands. It is about giving government experts the opportunity to provide advice on the processes for impounding, etcetera. The government’s intent is to support the intent of the motion by the member for Nelson and we are not accepting the motion as it stands for those reasons, but are seeking to amend the motion to reflect that the Northern Territory does bring forward a bill.
The timing of the bill, member for Nelson, will be as soon as possible; it will be done, if possible, for introduction into the November sittings - that would be good. If it cannot be done by then, it will definitely be introduced into the February sittings. That is the timing of what we will be bringing forward and that is the government’s intent. I commend the member for Nelson for his pursuit of strengthening the hooning legislation in the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: As there are two amendments to the same motion, under Standing Order 146 I have to put the first amendment before the House. The question before the House is the one brought forward by the member for Braitling. The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Braitling be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: As we have lost that amendment we now continue with the debate. People who have not spoken in the debate may continue speaking to the original motion and the amendment as put by the Leader of Government Business.
The question before the chair is the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government business and the motion as moved by the member for Nelson.
Are there any further speakers?
Mr WOOD: Do I have an opportunity to sum up as I have already spoken?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Are there any further speakers?
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I assume that this is the government’s motion; it is not headed government motion and it is not in the name of the Leader of Government Business, so it looks hastily prepared. I note that the amendment is to introduce a bill - nothing about when, so presumably at some point over the next four years. Of course, I note that the government committed, after its almost near death experience at the election, that there would be four year terms yet we have not seen a bill brought forward on that.
The member for Nelson and others may be waiting for some time for the bill. It is sloppy, to say the least, that there is no time limit, or even an indication to timing, with the bill the government claims it is going to introduce. That is the first point.
The second point is this motion - the amendments to it - simply claim that a bill we have not seen will allow for increased penalties for first time offenders and increased penalties for repeat offenders. There is no indication as to the nature of those increased penalties. We are being asked to vote on something which has no particulars. It is a bunch of words, cobbled together, clearly in haste, and we are being asked, by government, to trust them because they will do a bill, one day. There will be increased penalties, we do not know how much, but they say there will be increased penalties. It would be irresponsible for the opposition to vote in support of such a shabby amendment. Talk about close your eyes and hope for the best. You cannot possibly expect members of the opposition, and I am sure I speak for my colleagues, to vote for such a vague amendment.
Unfortunately, this is typical of the approach the government has to things. It has been a surprise that, in the first two and a half months of a new term, they are so lazy, lethargic and pathetic in a number of respects; I really am surprised by that. I would have thought, given this is a third term government, that they might have been able to at least draft an amendment better than this. Do not insult my intelligence, or that of my colleagues, by coming in here and saying - on a wing and a prayer – ‘trust us, because one day we are going to introduce something that is going to make you happy’. It is just not good enough but, sadly, is becoming the form of this government.
Earlier today I looked through the second reading speech - I think it was you, member for Casuarina, who was minister at the time when the hooning legislation was introduced - and much was promised. There is an ongoing theme: government stands here and promises the world and never delivers. In fact, I feel certain that we, on this side of the Chamber, will be able to develop a slogan or theme on that as we go into the next election, apparently four years away.
A member: Slip, slop, slap.
Ms CARNEY: Slip, slop, slap is one of them, but there are so many others. It is like the 2030 announcement today. I really am quite surprised that a government two and a half months into its third term has obviously run out of ideas. I am not surprised, having seen the form of this government over the seven years they have been in office, that they have run out of ideas. I am genuinely surprised that an amendment like this, so badly and vaguely written, is proffered to us.
Do not think for a moment that we are fooled by this. If you seriously expect us to vote for this, then you are just delusional. But I suppose that is no surprise, because we know you are. In any event, that is our position with respect to the amendment.
As to the member for Nelson’s motion: thank you, member for Nelson. As you know from the speakers - I think we have only had a couple - that we support it. I am sure you understand, through discussions with the member for Braitling, why it is we brought on our amendment. In any event, I will conclude with those comments. I look forward to seeing how many of the government members leap to their feet with their collective energy to argue passionately in support of such a shabby motion for an amendment. If none of them rise, then their support for our position will be assumed.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was rising before the challenge from the member for Araluen.
First, I commend the member for Nelson. He has been consistent for a number of years on this particular issue. What government is doing today is an acknowledgement of the steadfast position of the member for Nelson. It is also an acknowledgement that these steps need to be taken. In contradiction of what the member for Araluen said, I heard the minister give an undertaking to this parliament, and to the member for Nelson, that amendments along the lines of what he has proposed in his motion would be drafted; specifically, increased penalties for first time offenders that allow for impounding of a vehicle. Nothing could be clearer than that.
Ms Carney: Increase penalties, you goose!
Dr BURNS: The member for Araluen selectively quoted from the amendment moved by the member for Karama, the minister, purposely saying we cannot support it. Well, you do what you want to do. We are supporting the member for Nelson and moving along his long-standing issue of hooning. I commend the member for Nelson: ‘Increase the penalty for repeat offenders and a provision for an application to the local court for forfeiture of the vehicle for a third offence’. It is very clear to me where government is headed with this.
Obviously, the members opposite - not one of them - have ever been in a Cabinet, not even the esteemed member for Fong Lim. I do not know where he was down the pecking order, but he certainly was not in the Cabinet. There are processes around Cabinet which I will explain to members opposite, particularly the new members, so they can understand.
There will be a Cabinet submission drawn up from the relevant agency, which is DPI. The proposed changes will be put in that. There will also be consultation with Parliamentary Counsel to draft up these amendments. There will be submissions from various agencies including police, Justice - a whole range of agencies - and Cabinet will consider that. I heard the member for Karama, the minister, give an undertaking that we will endeavour to get those changes through before the November sittings.
Madam Speaker, as you know because you have been a Cabinet minister also, there is a busy agenda regarding legislation that comes before Cabinet, and what can go forward in the sittings. There has been an undertaking given by the minister and I respect that. I will be voting for the amendment proposed by the minister on the basis of what she said, and support for the member for Nelson, which is more than the support the other side is able to offer. We are offering to bring this into the parliament, pass it and make it into law.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you have already spoken in debate. Is that correct?
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I did not finish. I have not spoken to this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Braitling, I am speaking. This means that you can speak only to the amendment.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I reiterate what the member for Araluen said. We support the original motion, but in the format in which it has come out, we cannot support it because of the inept approach. I saw a draft of this and it looks very familiar to what is written here now. It may have changed slightly.
I have not been in Cabinet, member for Johnston, however I do recognise it is quite simple to write on a piece of paper what you will do with specifics. Generally, that is called policy, an election commitment, or something. You can give direction about what you are going to do – by November we will do X, or Y. This is just rubbish.
I want to make it clear that we support the original motion which was put up. We sought amendments because we know that the government is soft on drink-driving; low level drink-drivers; high range drink-drivers, and this allows us an opportunity to try to reduce the road toll. That is why we piggybacked on it; that is not taking away from the original motion. It is very important for people to know that this government is soft on drink-drivers.
When you can lose your vehicle for having too many barramundi, for doing burn-outs, or for having a can of VB in your car, but you cannot lose your vehicle for being a high range drink-driver three times in five years, it is absolutely ludicrous and will in no way help in reducing the road toll.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I agree wholly with what the member for Araluen had to say. This is a non-amendment; it does not highlight anything, and the comments made by the member for Johnston are a complete cop out. The member for Johnston does not seem to understand that it is the government’s job to govern. It is the government’s job to actually to do some work. If the government runs out of time, and if gag girl would allow people to debate things ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Conlan: Come on, get a sense of humour.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a good sense of humour, but he is deliberately trying to be offensive and, as he knows, it is in breach of standing orders.
Ms Carney: You would know about that, gag girl.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I would ask you to withdraw under Standing Order 62(1), thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. If the mother of smother would allow the debate to occur on a whole range of issues …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is still trying to be offensive. He can wriggle around all he likes. This is the same circus which would not even give an extension of time on an amendment to a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask you to keep your comments to the motion before the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am responding to comments that were made by the member for Johnston. The government has a job to run parliament, to pass legislation and do all those things that governments should do. To suggest that they can put up anything willy-nilly in this parliament, get agreement from everyone, and that is the way things work, is a complete abrogation of the parliament. They should put some meat onto the bones of a motion if they expect any sort of support for it. There is no time line for this. The minister has absolutely no idea when this proposed bill will brought on.
Mr Conlan: Twenty-two years away.
Mr TOLLNER: Twenty-two years away. For the Police minister to jump up on his high horse, carrying on about how there is no one in this place who has been in Cabinet and understands these things, is an absolute cop out.
Madam Speaker, how are people supposed to support this? We are buying a pig in a poke. We have no idea when it is going to be brought on for debate or what they mean when they talk about increased penalties. We have no idea what the provisions for an application are. There is no detail whatsoever in this motion and it should not be supported; it is as simple as that. I defy anyone to say what the government is intending to do. They cannot even put, and it is a government, on the piece of paper …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … which they have cobbled together in about two seconds, more than likely by the Leader of Government Business running in and asking one of the staff to knock this thing up, and throw it in front of the parliament and think we will have something to say about it.
It is not on. It is shabby and pathetic, and it shows that you are a lazy government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I should step outside and have a good laugh and come back in again, because at times we get muddled up with our own complexities and lose sight of where we are heading.
In my position as an Independent, it is fairly rare to get the government to support anything I do, and when they do they always put their name to it. I do not have a problem with that because that is part of the reason I am still in parliament: to put forward certain motions and ideas and hope the government picks them up. They do not do it very often; today they came close.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I understand some of the objections from the opposition and I could sit on my high horse and say: ‘I am going to knock back this particular amendment on some of those issues.’ If I did that I would be saying to the government that I do not want your support for this motion; I only want you to support my motion. I believe that compromise is the best approach. All right, it is not exactly the way I have written it, but the intent is what I was after; we need to change.
People might say: ‘How do you know when the government is going to introduce this?’ You are talking to someone with a lot of experience. I started debating this in 2004 and we are now in 2008, it might take me another four years but I will not let the government off the hook. The government will get asked in Question Time and every GBD. There are sometimes in this parliament, without the party politics, that you have to accept what people say; the minister said she will bring it in as soon as possible and the minister for Justice has said he will try to bring it in before the next sittings. I will be on their trail finding out where it is; I will be ringing up, writing letters and asking questions. The minister has said that is what they will do.
I am not introducing a definitive piece of legislation; I am introducing a motion. I did that because going down the legislative path takes too long; I would have to wait another 12 days before we looked at this. I am putting forward a concept to the government which is based on the legislation. It is picking up that concept in its way and, generally speaking, that concept is the same as mine. If you were looking at being the devil’s advocate, I did not write a date to which you should pass my bit of legislation either.
A member: We trust you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much. Sometimes in this parliament we should trust people more than we do; if we keep looking at people in a bad light we will never trust them. There is a lot of politics in here and sometimes I do not trust people when they start talking about party politics, as there are other agendas - I have to take people on face value.
The minister has said in parliament she will introduce this as quickly as possible and the other minister has said he will try to put it through before then. There is enough background work already done on this and I do not believe it would be that difficult for the government to introduce this by the next sittings, and if not by the next sittings I will be asking where it is for the following sittings. It has taken this long to get changes; I am willing to wait a bit longer. I am not willing to knock back an opportunity to change the law. We might nick people on certain issues about it but it is not easy to convince the government to bring changes.
I will accept the change even if it is not quite what I wanted, because the proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is the legislation the government will bring back at a later stage. We will have a chance to debate it then; it will have a first and second reading, and go out for public consultation as well. I am grateful that it has got to this stage and that we have a promise from the government.
I understand where the opposition is going and I do not think it is the end of the world. I urge the opposition to recognise this opportunity to pass laws or at least get them up and going. Even if you do not believe the government’s promises, at least it is on the books or on the way. It is better than what we had before, which was a yellow ticket. These changes will save lives.
I support the amendment from the member for Braitling. I have spoken on that before in parliament; I believe the confiscation of vehicles by people who are drink-driving is a reasonable approach. I know that it is not going to get passed, but I support that. There is nothing wrong with bringing it forward to parliament to discuss; it is an issue that needs more work and perhaps it is an issue that the government will review. There have been some good arguments about how you can lose your vehicle for having too many fish, but you do not lose it for drink-driving.
I support what the government is putting forward. I am grateful that they realised the existing laws have not been adequate, have not done the job and if it is a matter of bringing in legislation that will save lives of the drivers, the passengers, the community and makes our roads safer, then I certainly support the amendment of the government. I just need to be sure about what happens to my original amendment. Do I have to move that …
Madam SPEAKER: I will explain that now. Have you finished, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Yes I have, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair: the original motion as moved by the member for Nelson and an amendment as moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The order is that we move the motion; I put the question as the amendment as moved by the minister and, if that is carried, then there is a second motion which is an amended motion.
Mr WOOD: Knowing that my motion will be defeated and I have already said that I would support the amendment, is there a manner in which I can ask that the original amendment of mine be ….
Madam SPEAKER: An original amendment? Sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson can accept the amendment rather than have it put to the vote. He can accept the amendment to his motion and we deal with it as a whole. If he agrees to the amendment, then it can be incorporated in the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It is incorporated in the motion. I have two motions before the Chair. The question is that the amendment as moved by the minister be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, members of the Tenth Assembly would be familiar with the Kaden bill and with the circumstances that led to the presentation of the Kaden bill in this Chamber. For those members who are not, this bill deals with families who have suffered the loss of a child born prematurely ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition, would you please move the motion?
Mr MILLS: Certainly. Madam Speaker, I move - That, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee:
In preparing and just in the last moments, I have looked at the motion and, although it may be a little irregular, I propose an amendment which is the inclusion of one single word. That amendment - I understand it needs to be written - is in section (a) and is the inclusion of one single word and that is ‘including’. It would, therefore, read:
I want to widen it so we are looking at miscarried births, including those prior to 20 weeks gestation. That broadens it to all miscarried births, including those prior to, and up until the point of birth - that took 20 weeks and 20 weeks and less. Okay?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you have that amendment? Could you just sign it for us? Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. With the indulgence of honourable members, the reason for this slight change is to broaden the frame so that it fits over all miscarried births; all those who have suffered loss - those just short of full term, all the way to those before 20 weeks. That is broadening it. As we look at the issue of those who suffer a miscarriage - the loss of child born prematurely who has not survived - there are issues including those who lose their child in the third trimester, as well as the second. I do not want to go through the exercise in this Chamber where we have a debate and find cause for it to be obstructed on a point or two when, really, there are issues that should be looked at.
To bring members to this issue, it is in response to a case which was brought to my attention in my electorate office over a year ago. It brought to my attention, as a person given the responsibility to represent the issues of concern of those in our community, the matter of those who have lost a child, born prematurely. In so doing, I began to understand some of the extraordinary pressures and difficulties that are faced by those who have this loss. Those who suffer and mourn as a result of a child being born prematurely often find no opportunity to express their grief in easy ways. It is compounded by the fact that that child born prematurely is lost, is not registered or recognised, particularly those born before 20 weeks. There is no recognition whatsoever.
At this point, I acknowledge and recognise the outstanding work of Fiona Peters and Craig Redriff. They brought this matter to my attention, quite courageously. They came into my electorate office and told their story. Many would be familiar with the story. Young Kaden was born prematurely - stillborn at 17 weeks - a much anticipated birth. He was, sadly, lost, but because it was less than 20 weeks, the systems and procedures were not in place to give any adequate recognition to the fact that this was a child in the view of the one who has given birth, the mother.
From the point of view of the hospital, it is hospital waste. It was difficult to find an adequate response, even at the best of times. The procedures that were in place were inadequate. Through the courage of Fiona and Craig, and through the cooperation of the government and the health officials, after a significant amount of effort, better procedures were put in place in the hospital - and that is to be acknowledged and commended.
It drew attention to the other issues that are associated with miscarriage and stillbirth, and there are a number. I have learnt that this is a matter that has national significance. There are many across our country who suffer silently. There are probably those in this Chamber who are familiar with the loss of a stillborn child and the difficulty in grieving. I found that even internationally there is significant lobbying and concern over this particular issue.
For that reason, I have decided it would be better to widen the terms of this reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to include all those who are stillborn - those miscarried births, including those who arrive stillborn prior to 20 weeks.
Many of us may still have our parents with us but, if our parents pass, the history and the memories go with them. The story has been told. However, for a child stillborn, their future possibilities are finished. In my own family there was one born and only lived for a short time and, through Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, passed. We forever think about that one and what could have been. It is the same for those who have given birth. They are anticipating, they have made the preparation and, then, there is the premature birth, the child does not survive, and there is forever the wondering of what could have been.
There are a number of issues associated with this matter. I acknowledge the efforts that were made by bringing the Kaden bill into this Chamber in the Tenth Assembly. There was argument made by government and I acknowledge and recognise the progress that has been made in response to this issue by government. I acknowledge the courageous lobbying of Fiona and Craig. Still, the underlying matter that needed to be attended to was described in the Kaden bill. That was the provision of proper recognition, something more than a commemorative certificate, something that registers the child who has been born before time and has not survived as having been born and died – a death certificate, so there is a formal register and recognition.
Those who go into the hospital system and suffer a stillbirth leave empty handed, which was the case until recently in our own hospital system and, even worse in Fiona and Craig’s case where they, tragically, left with young Kaden in a dish.
Fortunately, that has been improved, but there are still sad cases. This issue, to some degree, has been dealt with. However, the underlying issue is the proper recognition so that a stillbirth can be lodged alongside the living brothers and sisters - to be remembered as a brother, a son, a daughter or sister - properly remembered by the issuing of a proper certificate which recognises the death. That is the request from those who have suffered.
In many cases the offer of a commemorative certificate, though a gesture, is acknowledged only as something that goes close. If we look at other models around the country or internationally, as I note in the response in the last debate, there is no such system in place in the country for those stillborn 20 weeks or earlier, although in a couple of states there is for those 20 weeks and over. By reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee there is the opportunity to assess the systems which are in place and the means to provide that recognition. As I have widened the terms to include those who are almost full term, there may well be better ways of providing that recognition in response to the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters who lose one who has lived for a moment and not survived.
The Attorney-General may not be aware this debate is ongoing in other jurisdictions in other countries. It has been going for some time in the United States and, I think, at last count 25 states have provided a form of recognition which meet the needs of a grieving mother and father. There are a number of issues relating to this and it warrants a deeper investigation. There are many lengths to this, and I suggest the best way of dealing with this, and the most respectful way, would be referring it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I acknowledge that there were problems with the bill which was presented before. However, at that time I asked that if there were problems, let us be constructive and find solutions for those problems. Here is an opportunity now to test the goodwill and present it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee so the problems which were described at that time by government - and I could add a few more, but I thought, in the spirit of the issue and the attempt to find the resolution rather than the identification of the problems, we would find some solutions.
The problems which were identified before were these: no other state has the sort of recognition that was being described or requested in the original Kaden bill. Is it because no other state does it, therefore, we cannot? I thought the issue of leadership was to find your own solution to your own problems. Because no other state does it, does not mean - in fact it is the opposite - that you cannot find the solution. You can find your own way through - that is called leadership. If you are going to say: ‘No one else does it, therefore, I will not’, you will never cut a path anywhere.
The other problem that was presented by government previously was a statistical challenge, because there would be an anomaly in the system. There would be those who would be registered formally for a mother who may request it and it would appear on our statistical record out of kilter with any other state. There is, I am sure, a capacity for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to come up with a solution to that. I can think of a number of those; it is not too hard to have a line drawn to ensure that the data from the states and territories is able to be matched, notwithstanding a difference in one state.
A few years ago in the United States; all states had the same system. Now, 25 of those states have different systems, due to lobbying by those who have suffered the loss. There are ways to accommodate this. I note in response to the Kaden bill, the Attorney-General said at that time: ‘We have a difficult duty as legislators’. Well, we do have a difficult duty as legislators, but it is a duty to go a little deeper then to look at process and say why something cannot happen. We have a duty to go a bit deeper and to find ways where we can cause things to happen, and provide that leadership. There are challenges, and they are to do with maternity leave. Surely, though, if we are responding to the need of mothers and fathers around the Northern Territory, we can find solutions to that and pose recommendations. But to say that it is a problem and that no other state does it, therefore that is the end of the story, is not satisfactory to me.
There are issues to do with the time frame. Some may argue 20 weeks and younger is a serious problem. Well, come up with a recommendation around that. Maybe there is a point of compromise. Maybe there are some matters that cannot be weighed on the floor of this parliament, but a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee could weigh those and pose some serious considerations on the matter, and provide recommendations and leadership. Let us show, once again, the Territory is a place which can come up with creative and innovative responses such as this; we can do such things. I have that confidence, and it would start to bring a spark back into the Territory if we took that approach to matters such as this, and other matters too, and find a new way.
There will be issues to do with insurance. There will be many who are concerned with the issue of abortions, whose worry would be triggered when we consider the registration of a premature, stillborn birth. There will be a line there which will have to be negotiated, but this is in no way competing with the issue of abortion. In fact, the argument that supports abortion is the very argument which should trigger the capacity for a solution here; that being, if a mother makes a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that is supported through this parliament - not by me, I must say, but that is another matter - we have a difficult duty as legislators, but it has been supported.
Why can we not, therefore, support one who has lost a child through no choice of their own? That is all we have here: a mother who has lost a child, seeking recognition. However, that has been denied up until now, apart from a commemorative certificate. Why can that choice not be honoured? This is a matter of choice - the choice of a mother to have recognition; and a mother who choses to terminate will be recognised in their right to do so by parliament.
The two are complementary - similar arguments. To say it is a difficult duty as a legislator to do this, is only difficult if you think: ‘Well, others have made these decisions. I fall in behind’. We should be marching to a different drum beat here. One of the arguments originally proposed by the minister in the Kaden bill was if a mother makes the request for that recognition to be provided; there would be the accompanying certification which would be presented to an Attorney-General who could grant that request. It was deemed to be a decision too difficult for an Attorney-General to make, if I recall the speech correctly. That was the way it was constructed.
I beg to differ. We have senior law officers who make difficult decisions. One of the most difficult decisions is, in fact, the issue of abortion, if we want to bring that issue into it. That sits fair and square in the middle of this. If it is a difficult matter to grant recognition for one who has passed away, how is it any less difficult to, basically, give assent to abortion? I believe it is far more difficult to be in that position, frankly, but that is another story. Therefore, I do not see that it is so difficult, if you are in the position of Attorney-General, to grant that recognition if that request is made. There must be a way.
I may be presenting an argument here that does strike a chord with some. However, if government is unwilling to take the path, unwilling to find a way through, then a number of reasons will be found why it cannot proceed. The reason it cannot proceed is you are unwilling to proceed - that is the issue - and have the courage to find the way to provide some real hope for those out there who are needing some kind of heartfelt response to a deeper issue in our community. It is time that kind of leadership started to kick in, in our parliaments - and this is the parliament where it could start.
It could start simply by a well-intentioned reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are not alone. There are plenty looking to the Territory to see whether we could do this. I believe we can do it. We could find a way through this. I am flexible in this, but I am willing to find a way through. I urge honourable members to provide support for this so we can cut a way through and provide some relief and response to those silent ones out there who have suffered such a loss.
Once again, if government is unwilling, reasons or cause why it cannot proceed will be found - perhaps by way of procedure or the structure of a motion. Perhaps I am prejudging, but I urge honourable members - particularly members opposite - for their support of this so a reference can be given to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so there can be some response to those who suffer.
As we saw today, there are nearly 3000 signatures. If honourable members take the time to look, they are not just signatures; most of those people added their own comments. You do not often get that. There are comments, one after the other, with stories to tell. It lives in families year after year after year as a memory. Let us have it properly registered. Let us have a civilised way of responding to this and upholding the dignity of human life for those who call for it and request it. Let us have a response for it. That can be developed if we put it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a response to that call. I urge honourable members to support this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this motion to the parliament; it is an honourable motion. The member for Blain is an honourable person and comes to this parliament with this particular motion with nothing but goodwill. The point I want to make, I will make very briefly; it will not take long.
I do not believe this is a motion where division should be done on party lines. This is a matter of conscience, similar to many debates we have had in this parliament, the federal parliament, state parliaments right around the country when we debate issues - as the member for Blain raised - about abortion and euthanasia. They are, to some extent, conscience decisions. I, by the way, personally support the member’s motion on this. It is not dictating to anybody, it is not saying that this must happen; all it is doing is giving people a choice. As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, the whole character of the abortion debate is about choice. People have a choice in that terrible circumstance they may find themselves in; to decide to abort a life.
I believe this is a motion of a similar intent, inasmuch as this allows people who want the recognition that they have had a life growing inside them. That life, for them, appears very real.
In similar circumstance, my wife had a miscarriage and I personally understand how deeply it can affect people. Different things affect different people differently. We are human beings, we are made up differently. In our particular case, it affected us greatly. It was something that, at the time, we thought was callously acknowledged in the hospital. It was medical procedure; it was not a personal thing. From our point of view, we would have liked a bit more of a personal, caring attitude, and recognition that this actually, at some stage, was a life. I fully understand people's sentiment in that regard.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I would hate to see the Chamber divide on this particular motion based on party lines. People looking at this motion should look at it as a matter of conscience, and people should make the decision according to their conscience.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, when I first did a little investigating on the Kaden bill, I looked at the response of the minister at the time, minister Burns, as to why the government could not or would not agree to the bill. Minister Burns, in his speech in reply, gave the following response:
I first thought: what are they? The minister did explain, though, the clearest and most immediate effect of such a change in the boundaries of births and deaths; the classification would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system.
Having spent a few years with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I am somewhat familiar with the way statistics are reported and recorded. I understand the variations and that notes can be made to explain why a certain statistic is the way it is. The minister went on to say:
I am familiar with that. He also said it was all about establishing statistical data. I feel that we are putting a statistic in front of human decency. Statistics are important. They are indicators that allow health authorities to target policy development. Well, this is one such policy that needs to change.
The Territory, since I have been here, is a place of compromise. Many times we have led the way in many things, and we have a chance to lead the way again. The minister went on in his reply:
If it is reported correctly and the way it is reported is explained, it is not going to affect statistics in any way. Statistics appear to be put in the front of human decency.
The arguing points I have read here in minister Burns’ speech in response talked about technical and legal difficulties. When I went back and read them I thought what was being asked for was that a parent made a choice, where a child had not survived before 20 weeks, that the child was going to be formally recognised.
Thinking about the way people deal with grief, there may be many who take up this process; there may not be many at all who decide to take it any further. To have that choice, I believe, is important. People suffer grief in different ways. My little son, Jackson, was supposed to be a twin and, around 12 to 14 weeks, we lost what we thought was another life. Today, my wife is pregnant again and we are at about the 12 to 14-week mark. Are we excited as parents? Damn right we are. We are planning for all those things we thought we had finished with years ago - a man of my age is not supposed to be having children, I do not think. We do not have any of the things we had when we had our first three children. Are we excited? Yes we are; we are planning. We are planning future camping trips with all four of our children; planning trips to the Gold Coast, to Movie World and pushing a new little baby around in a pram.
To say that a pregnancy does not start or be recognised before 20 weeks, I believe, is a very hard thing for anyone to make a decision on. The moment I knew that I was going to be a dad again, was the moment I knew I was going to be a dad again. It does not really matter that we are at the 12-week mark. This is something that is going to happen for us. In our minds, it is going to happen. We are already planning our future.
We could get technical here; we could talk about many issues. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we could find 100 ways not to make this happen. We could find one way to make it happen. That is something we should be looking to do. It is such a simple request - a simple process that appears to place a statistic in front of a mum and a dad. To put a statistic before a human is so sad. I call on the government to review their position and seek out a decent resolution in this matter. I call on the government to take this issue to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I commend the Leader of the Opposition for moving this motion. Only a few months ago, we came into this Chamber; I never thought that four weeks into sittings we would be talking on such an emotive issue. I find myself strangely moved by it. I get moved by a few things, but this is, strangely, one that I did not expect would grab me as quickly as it has.
I have a beautiful seven-year-old daughter who will be eight next month. During my ex-partner’s pregnancy, at about midway term, we thought we might lose her. That was a very devastating time. It was emotion again, at that time, I did not expect. I found it hard to comprehend, but it was real. I can tell you now I am so grateful I have not lost my daughter, because she is amazing. I can only imagine how the people who have lost their children or their child feel. I have heard many stories of families literally torn apart by these occurrences in their lives. They are extremely emotive; they are very real. They do happen. They do matter. They are real people who have not made it to this world in the way that we expect them to. It is an emotional period of time and people need to be able to heal. It is an extremely long process for some people.
I urge the government to support this motion. It is not asking you to make a major decision today. It is asking you to take this to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conduct an inquiry into the points raised by the Opposition Leader. It is not hard. Some could say it is a no-brainer. It is not a hard decision to make; at least take this motion on and see where that part leads us. I tell you, it is a lot harder for those who have had their path come to an end.
I would not dare say that any member of the government does not have a heart, because I know they are listening. However, if the government as a whole fails to support this, they, as a government, have no heart. I clarify that. That is not as an individual person, but as a government; if you fail to support this you have no heart. I urge you to support this. This is not a hard motion; it is very simple. We need to have an inquiry and see where we go from there. We can see how many people it affects, the processes, the issues that draw upon it from there. We need to stand and take this action. I urge both sides to support this motion and I commend the Leader of the Opposition for having the decency to put the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the member for Blain for bringing forth this motion. The member for Blain, right from the very beginning, not only put a lot effort into it but a lot of thought. As the member for Drysdale just said, it moved him, and it is probably the first legislation of its kind he has had to face in parliament. It can move you beyond other issues, such as whether we should put houses at Berrimah. This issue the member for Blain is putting forward is far more important than whether we should build houses at the Berrimah Farm.
It touches on issues of life. As I said in the previous debate, my view is that life starts at conception - there is no other way it could start - and life finishes when you are dead. All of that time is sacred, no matter whether you live for one second or 100 years. We should protect that life - always protect it. It is not always easy, I accept that. People in this parliament certainly have different points of view.
I comment on what the member for Fong Lim said, equating it, to some extent, with abortion. Abortion is the ending of a life by artificial means, by a deliberate act. Miscarriage is a natural phenomenon, if you can call it that. In many cases, it can be tragic and very emotional and, in other cases, depending on the stage, it can be something that a person may not even know happened. It is an emotive issue, but it is also an issue that, as parliamentarians, we need to look at and deal with carefully, and ensure what we do is thought out in a manner which would reflect our job as politicians. That job is that we take these matters seriously, bearing in the mind the emotions, the legalities, and our own feelings when we come to making a decision.
The motion the member for Blain has put forward is purely that these matters be put to a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I was also reading part of the debate from 20 February, where the minister, in one of his arguments against changes to the existing system, spoke a lot about statistics. For instance, he said the clearest and most immediate effect of such a change as the member for Blain is putting forward in the boundaries of births and deaths classifications would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system. He talked about uniform registration. Then he talked about how some of these statistics are very important. He went on to say:
What stood out there was we had what you might say were the clinical reasons for not going ahead with the Kaden bill. I should, as a note, say that the member for Blain recognises there may be some issues within the legislation. However, the question I would put to the government is: so what? If it is about statistics and funding, it may be important, but is it the most important thing?
The member for Blain was saying we could lead the way. We are saying, to some extent: ‘Well, because everyone else thinks this way we do not want to upset the uniformity of the statistics. We do not want to upset the uniformity of data because that could upset the uniformity in which we get our finances’. However, we have not gone down that path yet. What we have is some debate held on 20 February 2008, some discussion here today, and we have a motion that, basically, says we would like the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to look at the issues around miscarried births. Surely, we can discuss that in the committee stage without affecting the uniform data, the uniform statistics, the finances of the Territory - because we have not got that far.
Let us go down the path of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It may be - because under section (c) it says: ‘examine any other matters associated with birth registration of miscarried births’ - that the issues the minister brought up previously in relation to uniform data and the effects on finances could be an issue to be discussed by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I put it as a high priority for this parliament to agree with this motion. It does no harm to anyone to discuss these issues. It will make no difference to the government whether it says yes; it will not get bad publicity, it will not lose votes. It is simply saying to the community, once again, this is what parliament is about.
I do not care where, on this side or the other, good ideas come from. If the good ideas come and they are asked to be debated and discussed, why should we not support them? Perhaps not the conscience vote to the extent the member for Fong Lim says, because one of the different issues here is that the person has a choice to do what they want to do. It is not the same as the choice for abortion, which is a matter literally of life and death because, in this case, a life has died naturally.
This is an issue we are dealing with afterwards. That family, the mother, can make a choice which way they want to go after that stage has happened. It is not something that is imposed on someone. It is not imposing, I believe, something that would go against anyone’s conscience, because we are not dealing with a choice that you have when you deal with abortion. A life has finished and is no more, and this is about recognising that life. That is simply what this is about; enabling people to be able to recognise that life in a way they would like.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an excellent opportunity for government to work together. I recommend and ask the minister to support this motion. I know the minister is a good bloke too. I am not being silly when I say that. I do not think he is any different from anyone else in this parliament; he is here to do good things in our community. That is what the member for Blain has put forward today.
I hope the government sees the goodness in what the member for Blain has put, simply for that reason. The Leader of the Opposition is putting forward something which I believe is good, and is worthy of discussion and debate in parliament. I ask the government to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this motion. I will say at the outset, we will accept his amendment. I will try to speak to that amendment also. Basically, as other members have said, the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, has previously sought to introduce legislation into the House, the Kaden bill, for the registration of a miscarriage as a stillbirth in early pregnancy.
As I said in the House at that time, and I reiterate again, it is in response to a difficult and painful experience - and some members have outlined that here this evening - to early pregnancy loss, something that touches many families. I have great sympathy for any family that goes through this loss. Fiona Peters has been an advocate for this, and she is sitting in the House here this evening. The member for Blain has been of great assistance to her in introducing the bill in the first place and, once again, introducing this motion into the House.
At the time, as others have done here this evening, I acknowledged during that bill presentation an example of my own mother’s sadness at a loss of a baby boy who she never forgot. As the member for Blain said, this is a difficult issue; we have a difficult duty as legislators.
The member for Blain talked about the loss many people feel in relation to this matter. He also talked about abortion - as did a number of members - which is a difficult issue that society wrests with. There are heavily polarised views on this particular issue. I have my own personal view but it is a very difficult issue with highly polarised views. Probably many people who sit right in the middle do not really think about it at all. The types of issues the member for Blain and other members have raised are very powerful issues, and are emotional, spiritual, and philosophical. It is a mixture of all those things and, depending on your viewpoint in life, your religious belief, your philosophical belief, and your emotional make-up, people will have different reactions to these issues.
This actually raises very deep issues. The first is: does a birth certificate actually attest to being? That is an issue which has been raised here. Does the certificate of commemoration, which flowed out of the family’s experience with Kaden in the Royal Darwin Hospital, attest any less to being? What is being? These are very deep issues. Who is the arbiter of being? Well, I know who the arbiter of being and essence is. I am just reminded of a scripture, and it is John 3:8 and it says:
We are actually talking of very deep issues here: of being, of spirituality, and who acknowledges being. I know who acknowledges being - it is God himself. That is my personal belief. However, I have a job as a legislator and as Attorney-General, and it is a very difficult job. I have to balance the issues being raised tonight; the issues that are being raised by the family; the issues that I feel in my own heart with my duty as a legislator. You can see, hear and feel from the scripture I quoted here tonight what my viewpoint is: I do not think that any being is ever lost in the sight of God.
Our debate this evening is about legalities; it is about a piece of paper, a birth certificate, and matching that against a certificate of commemoration and where that stands. I am not sure where those two things stand in the sight of God, but I am here to debate the issues in the legislative sense and in my duty as an Attorney-General.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the profound personal effect on his own family of a stillbirth. He also talked about, unfortunately, the impersonal attitude he and his wife encountered at a hospital, which is a common theme of what Fiona and Craig encountered at the Royal Darwin Hospital. That was a shameful episode. However, the changes which have been brought about through that shameful episode, and the support and counselling that is offered to people in that situation, I believe has changed. I hope it has changed. I will be very angry if cases were to come to my attention where people have been treated badly and have not been given that support and counselling, because this is a very emotional subject and this unlocks deep emotions in all of us.
Congratulations, member for Brennan; it is great to hear you and your wife are going to be parents again. You are quite right in what you say; it is the planning, the dreams, the aspirations that parents have for their babies, for their children, which really start when you become aware of the pregnancy. All of us who are parents share those feelings, and I believe that is very important. I believe that really contributes to the depth of this discussion - the deep issues we are discussing tonight. Possibly I misunderstood what the member for Brennan said. He said it was a matter of choice whether someone would get a birth certificate or not, particularly for those stillbirths less than 20 weeks and less than 400 gm. For a start, I just do not think we can go down that arbitrary route.
The member for Drysdale talked about having a heart and how he has been moved greatly. Tonight I have expressed to this House my personal feelings on this particular matter. The member for Nelson also talked about the deep emotive issues of life and attempting to deal with them in this place as legislators. We must deal with them carefully and take them seriously. That is what I believe we are attempting to do, as a government.
In the earlier debate as members have alluded to, I set out in detail why the government was not able to support the proposed bill. Some have been morally critical, I suppose, and said I dwelt on statistics and legalities. But that is my job as Attorney-General, despite what I said earlier in this debate.
I detailed changes to this policy implemented by the hospital in relation to early pregnancy loss, and the creation of the commemorative certificate whereby families going through a grieving process are able to receive a tangible and respectful reminder of their lost son or daughter.
The member for Blain has now moved that there be an inquiry into the legislative requirements necessary to apply for the registration of miscarriage birth prior to 20 weeks gestation, and to investigate current arrangements in place in other jurisdictions. As I understand your amendment, member for Blain, you are talking about those stillbirths above 20 weeks and above 400 gm.
It is the government’s view that an inquiry will not provide any new information which has not been previously prepared and conveyed to the House. As I said in this House when the bill was considered, the practice of the Northern Territory in registering stillbirths of 20 weeks gestation or above, and where body mass is at least 400 gm, is absolutely consistent with legislative requirements across Australia. No jurisdiction in Australia allows for registration of a stillborn child below 20 weeks or 400 gm body mass. Similarly, New Zealand legislation provides for the same definition of a stillborn child and allows for the registration of a stillbirth only. In relation to the registration of the death of a stillborn child, only Western Australia and Queensland allow a death certificate to be issued, and this occurs only when the stillborn child is 20 weeks or above or has a 400 gm or above body mass. The nationally accepted clinical criteria is 20 weeks or 400 gm body mass, which is linked to medical evidence of the viability of the foetus. The Northern Territory act is based on model legislation approved by all states and territories.
As I have previously explained in detail, the Northern Territory would be at fundamental odds with the nationally standard births and deaths registrations system if it were to consider amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable registration of an early pregnancy loss of less then 20 weeks. Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics adopted the legal requirement of registration of a perinatal death as a statistical standard. The uniform registration process means the figures for births, deaths and stillbirths are able to be developed into a national picture by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The use of common criteria Australia-wide for the registration of births and deaths also enables the National Perinatal Statistics Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to form part of the definition of stillbirth established for statistical purposes, and is contained in the National Health Data Dictionary. The consistency of recording statistics is essential. It allows comparison across and within jurisdictions, and the effectiveness of public and primary health care. It also provides consistent indicators for health authorities to target policy development and implement effective health services. Any changes to the definition of stillbirth at the Territory level would compromise the Territory’s ability to be included in the national recording of perinatal deaths, and would impact on the comparability of perinatal statistics between jurisdictions.
For families who have felt the sadness of early pregnancy loss, it is not the statistics that are the concern but, rather, to receive some recognition of closure. It was an acknowledgement of this that the Department of Justice’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Unit created the Commemorative Certificate. The Commemorative Certificate is available at no cost from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to any parents who experience an early pregnancy loss. The certificate was developed following consultation with Cradle NT, a number of health professionals, the Department of Health and Community Services, and the family whose loss led the member for Blain to introduce his legislative amendments. I understand that the families are not satisfied with the extent of that certificate but, nonetheless, that is the background as I have outlined it.
In conclusion, it is on this basis that we believe the proposed inquiry will do no more than address what I have previously reported to the House. Madam Speaker, I will finish with the scripture I began with:
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a difficult matter. I find it difficult to know what to say. I will start by saying that, for those who had hoped there would be a change in the way we thought about such matters - if I did not present the case well enough, and did not outline it in clear enough terms to persuade adequately, I apologise. Perhaps I did not prepare enough. Perhaps I was not insightful enough in my arguments.
I will not move away from this. I am sorely disappointed. I remain alive to the possibility that there could be a change, and I sincerely believe if we took a different approach we would see something change in the Territiory, because flowing from that changed attitude would be a changed reverence for the way we deal with a whole lot of matters in the Chamber, including law and order, the way we approach health issues, education and so on.
We have all identified the significance of it, the potency of it, the power of it. If we are to give that any credence, in reverence and respect for what we have described, it would have taken us to the threshold of making that decision - to have it referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; not to speak of such grand and profound things and then to head it off at the pass. I find that astonishing, frankly.
I am left with nothing more to say other than to urge honourable members not to divide on this, because this is a matter that cuts far deeper than a division, in terms of standing on one side of the Chamber or the other. I stand in a position I will not move from. I will continue; I will try to find a way of getting this through in a way which ultimately bears a result, and results in a change of heart and attitude. I believe there is a great benefit from not only recognising the power of such issues, but responding to them, and then acting and flowing through on them with some sense of humility. There would be some tremendous benefits that would flow into this Chamber as a result. I believe we have missed an opportunity, frankly. I say again, if I had not prepared enough, if I had not prescribed it enough, I sincerely apologise. I will continue. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and the second is an amendment to the motion, also moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The process is to move the amendment first. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, negatived.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that –
Madam Speaker, I speak to those points simply because, even back as far as 22 October 2001 - and I will read from a portion of a media release by then Chief Minister, Clare Martin:
A right of access to government and personal information.
A comment made by the then Chief Minister:
Further comment from the then Chief Minister:
I will re-read that in case someone missed it:
Has that changed today? I would think so - dramatically. Under this third Labor Northern Territory government, we are not open and accountable, as far as you would appear to be.
I noticed the change in the middle there. The key point here is the accountability of government. There are fees attached to making applications under the FOI, and for making complaints under the FOI. Some of those fees are truly unbelievable. They do not sound very much when you first start: an application fee of $30; a notional $25 an hour for retrieving; $25 an hour for assessing information; $25 an hour for someone to observe the assessor’s information - and it goes on - 20 per photocopy sheet - and it goes on.
As a member of parliament, our and the government’s business is to see that good governance occurs. The only way we can ensure good governance can occur is to ensure the information is at hand. Currently, in opposition, we need to apply to get information about things that are happening within government or government departments and processes that we believe, perhaps, are not good governance. Perhaps they are misguided hunches and they turn out to prove there is good governance. In the meantime, the government allocation of money to the opposition keeps getting chalked up into another government department so that government department can justify something - and it keeps costing the government money. It just goes around in one washing machine. This is about good governance and accountability.
Our motion is, basically, that for members of parliament there should be no FOI fees. It is about open and accountable governance.
Your former leader in the first Labor government said: ‘The secretive days of the CLP are gone’. Now, we have the secretive days of Labor. They are extremely bad at this at the current time. Whenever something is attempted to be discussed, it gets shut down - we cannot talk about this, we cannot talk about that. It was even pointed out that one of the main purposes of the legislation is to help encourage the view within the government that access to information is of a positive benefit. I can only imagine that if it is a positive benefit, and written in such a way, back then the Chief Minister expected the government was going to do everything in its power, in the best way possible. Now, we have many people disagreeing with that. We are seeing a massive swing.
I have a few things in support of this. There is information we have obtained from the South Australian parliament where members of the South Australian parliament are permitted to access documents under FOI without charge, unless the work generated exceeds the threshold set by the regulation. So, there are precedents in Australia. There is a threshold, and it is $1000. In many cases, that could be quite well accepted here.
I go to the former shadow minister for Health and Community Services, Sue Carter - and this is an extract from TopFM dated Friday, 19 December 2003. Our shadow minister for Health and Community services, Sue Carter, said that she asked to see 513 documents relating to the Territory health system. She sought it under the new freedom of information laws. There were 210 pages of those documents refused point-blank, 219 pages had been censored, and she accessed 84 pages out of those 513. It cost a mere $2240. What an absolute bargain for 84 pieces of paper! That is a brilliant deal. It is the deal of a century.
We are trying to hold the government to account and we are charged money. It is the taxpayers’ money. It is a ludicrous thought that you would be charged to ensure the government of the day is accountable. Some will say: ‘That is sour grapes by the opposition’. But, as the Attorney-General has just kindly pointed out to us, from a portion of his Bible reading to do with winds - the changes and blowing of them - I do not have the luxury of the reading in front of me so, please excuse me for not getting it accurate, but …
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You could look it up if you like, thank you. But there is going to be a change of wind - one day. If not today or tomorrow or four years or whenever, but I guarantee you, there will be a change of wind. That is politics. It happens everywhere; well, in most countries anyway. When the shoe is on the other foot, I am sure they will be grateful for the change that is proposed here because they will be able to see and hold us accountable for anything we may be doing wrong.
I am sure that is what the former Chief Minister intended when she wrote these comments; that there was not going to be anything wrong and nothing to hide. That is exactly the point. If you have nothing to hide, why charge us for it? I have heard of FOI applications clocking up hundreds of hours to assess the material. It could be true. Maybe the search field may have been too broad and the person should have been asked to refine the search. But that is hundreds of hours at $25 an hour. That is a lot of money all of a sudden. I know our Independent counterpart in this parliament does not have such a large budget to be able to afford large costs under the FOI. It impedes his ability, and impeded any former Independent’s ability, to stand their ground for their electorate. That is what we are all elected to do.
I know it is easier if you are in government because you can circumvent the FOI system and say: ‘Hey, member for so and so, can you speak to your so and so and arrange for these documents to be sent to me? I could really do with that information about now’. And it will happen. But, it does not when you are on this side.
It is a very important issue. When you look at it on paper it seems to be a very small issue, very minor. It equates to two sentences of amendment, and problem solved. It makes for a much more accountable government. I heard the Chief Minister talking only yesterday about accountable government. If he is even half close to his words, this is a great step for him to take. It is another element of accountability.
Looking over the annual report 2007-08, something like 300 applications were lodged against government departments. Out of those lodgements, only 228 were finalised; 10 not accepted; nine transferred; 22 withdrawn, and 31 pending at the year’s end. So, out of the 300, most of them got through. This report is a bit all over the place, but you can get through it. It shows that although there is an exemption for a request to have fees waived, about half of those fees were waived - but I bet not against the opposition because that would be allowing too much information out. That would be allowing too much information to get into the public domain in an uncontrolled manner - an act with which you may not always agree.
I note section 156(3), which is in the area where we intend to make the amendment:
The main feature there is that the fees are to be reasonable. I honestly do not think, by the time you start coughing out several thousands of dollars worth of freedom of information bills - $2000, $3000, $4000, $5000 or maybe $8000 - it is reasonable.
This is about seeking information from government departments for members of this Legislative Assembly. Therefore, one can draw the conclusion that this is about freedom for the people, freedom of knowledge.
When this government squeaked over the line in August the Chief Minister promised that, after seven years, he would finally start listening to Territorians. One of those ways would be to ensure that we can hold you to account for your actions by accessing the government information because, one day, under the winds of change, we may be in government and you may be in our seats seeking that knowledge. He should start by providing MLAs with free access to freedom of information which, at the moment, is prohibitively expensive.
That is why I have moved the motion and will introduce a bill later today in the Assembly to try to secure essential reforms to this FOI. I fail to see how the government can claim to be open and accountable when it costs thousands of dollars at a time to access information that, by rights, should be in the public domain.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is about open and accountable governance. It may seem trivial, but it is a step forward to ensuring both sides, both teams, no matter what their makeup is, remain open and accountable. That matters to Territory people.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put by my colleague, the member for Drysdale, regarding levies for members of this House in relation to FOI applications. At the present time, when reading section 156(1) of the Information Act it says:
That does not serve to discriminate against anybody; it covers a whole range of people, from MLAs right down to truck drivers and every other occupation you can name; even the unemployed.
At the present time, it would seem that the full weight of section 156 of the Information Act is levied against all members of the Legislative Assembly of the NT. On the face of it, it seems that is a fair and equitable system for all, as it does not espouse that degree of discrimination for any particular class of person. On that basis, if you are observing the letter of the law, all MLAs on both sides of the House should be in a position of having to subject themselves to the fee-paying regime of this act.
However, the reality is quite different to the simple position espoused in the act. By the very nature of their positions within the government, many Labor MLAs are also ministers; hence they can circumvent the FOI provisions by seeking the information they require directly from their departments.
I would like all government members to listen to this carefully. I do not have a problem with that. It is unquestionably necessary to have that play occur between ministers and their departments, either through their CEOs or whatever means they choose. The motion is not about changing that particular status quo - not in the slightest. It does, however, raise an interesting question in my mind. Some of the Labor MLAs are not ministers and I have to question how they get information provided to them about matters from government departments. If they have to pay for their information under the auspices of section 156 of the act or, like us, they have to glean the information from the myriad of media releases put out by the Henderson government, well, that is all good and well. Or, if I could be informed on this on a later time, do they obtain their information from government departments directly without the need to go through FOI, or do they just receive that information from their parliamentary colleagues, that is, the ministers of government?
If either of the latter cases applies, this is a clear circumvention, again, of the FOI laws that apply to all other MLAs who are not in government. I am not going to make an issue of that particular point, because it has probably been happening since time immemorial.
I am assuming that if non-ministerial government MLAs need information of that nature, it would come to them from whatever government source in order for them to carry out their business in this House, or their business as a local MLA. Likewise, opposition and Independent MLAs would be well served in having this information to carry on their business as local members. More importantly, opposition and Independent MLAs need this information to be able to achieve something else. I was going to use a little provocative language here. I was going to say that we need that information in order that we might point out the failings of this government and hold the government accountable. That could be seen to be taking an approach that incites a degree of conflict with members of the government, so I have decided to approach this on a far more basal level, and it is very simple.
Simply, opposition and Independent MLAs need this information so the people of the Northern Territory can be fully informed on what their government is doing. Surely, unless the government has something to hide, they would not generally have a problem with this. We, as MLAs, and those who are the government of the day are, indeed, accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory should not have access to secret information, or information that can damage individuals. However, there are systems in place to prevent this from happening. If anyone in this House has seen the information which comes out of an FOI, you only have to look at how much information has been blacked out to feel quite secure that sensitive, personal information is not made available. I do not believe anyone can argue that people of the Northern Territory need and deserve to know what their government is doing. The government needs to be up-front with Territorians.
In the context of the Territory’s superannuation support funds which were dealt with today in Question Time, I heard the Treasurer talk about scaremongering. Scaremongering cannot occur if there is nothing to be scared of. Arguably, the implication that the shadow Treasurer is scaremongering should be seen as an admission that Territorians have something to be scared of. If she was not so evasive, we may not need to be having this debate. However, one of the ways around this is quite simple: make the system such that you are truly accountable to the people of the Territory by allowing MLAs, the people in this House who represent Territorians, to have simpler access to the information they seek.
I know we can seek answers through questions, both with and without notice, but I have seen - and I debated this issue last night - how scant and obviously evasive answers to those questions can be. Another obvious means by which opposition and Independent members can elicit information from the government is by writing to the minister concerned. I take the point raised yesterday by the member for Araluen, that a letter written to the Attorney-General remains unanswered after – what? - six weeks or so. On top of that, some of the information the shadow Attorney-General has asked for appeared in the newspaper weeks ago.
Responses from ministers, I am led to believe, contain much the same rhetoric that one could expect from a question during Question Time, and that leaves me in the position of having little or no faith in the system other than to obtain information through FOI. With that as the only remotely viable option for obtaining information from the government, why are Territorians limited in the information that can be reasonably supplied to them; the release of that information being hindered and stymied by cost?
I am not suggesting that FOI fees be done away with altogether, and neither is the motion put by the member for Drysdale. However, removing the fee structure for members of this House does remove one of the barriers put in the way of the process of eliciting information from the government for the people of the Northern Territory. The barrier is quite a significant one, as pointed out by the member for Drysdale. FOI applications are charged under two broad headings: an application fee or a processing fee, both found in section 156(1). The application fee is set through the regulations at $30 or nil, in the case of an application for personal information.
However, the killer here seems to be the processing fee. The processing fee can and does measure into thousands of dollars. The break-up of how those fees can be charged are found in the schedule in the regulations. Recently I saw a fee estimate that included, as pointed out by the member for Drysdale, more than 100 hours of work, purportedly in assessing what information should not be given up in the application. I imagine that is a person sitting at a desk with a black permanent marker, being paid $25 an hour to put black lines through text on a page. At $25 an hour, one can easily see how a bill for travelling down this path could lead into the thousands.
For the opposition and the NT government - and the members opposite will also feel the sting of being in this situation in good time – it is a large imposition on the budget. I can only imagine how it might affect the member for Nelson, this parliament’s only Independent member, who does not have the means and budget to chase information that is important to his constituents and to the people of the NT in general.
Actions arising from the motion today which are needed to fix this problem are not mind-bogglingly difficult. The member for Drysdale will propose amendments to the act. However, I urge the government to look at whether this also might be achieved simply by using section 156(6), which makes provision for a public sector organisation or the Information Commissioner to reduce or waive the fee under certain circumstances. It might be as simple as a policy decision from the minister to provide direction to the Commissioner to waive those fees for all MLAs.
I note the media release issued by the Chief Minister yesterday where he says he wants, and I quote: ‘Parliament open and accountable’. I believe waiving fees for MLAs is a positive step forward in the process of parliamentary reform announced by him yesterday. If the government does not support this motion, then the Chief Minister’s media release is nothing more than diatribe and hot air, and he is treating Territorians like fools.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to the government and honourable members and, in doing so, I ask all honourable members to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion the member for Drysdale has put forward. I also thank the member for Katherine for his well-thought-out comments on this issue. I agree that the process makes it very difficult for people like me to acquire important information which helps me debate issues in parliament and, also, to find out whether the government is telling the truth sometimes ...
A member: Heaven forbid!
Mr WOOD: I know. I can give you an example. At the moment, it has not finished. I applied for an FOI for a draft environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. You will be aware that the government has made a number of statements as to why Glyde Point is not suitable as an industrial estate. I have always queried the scientific basis on which it has made that statement. You will find that the government will not mention an EIS as being the reason why it decided not to go ahead with the Glyde Point industrial estate. Instead, it has quoted the Environment Centre Northern Territory, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Amateur Fishing Association of the Northern Territory as the reasons why they decided not to go ahead with Glyde Point.
Occasionally there had been comments made by the previous Chief Minister that people in Darwin felt they would rather see the development of industry in the middle of the harbour than at Glyde Point. I am not sure on what scientific basis that was made, except that it is supposed to have related to some form of review or inquiry the government made in relation to what people thought about development in Darwin Harbour.
It so happened I acquired a copy of the Environment Centre NT’s paper on Glyde Point. That had a letter in the back which mentioned how the acting Chief Minister at the time, Syd Stirling, told them that the government would prepare an environmental impact statement for Glyde Point around the year 2006.
During the Estimates Committee, I asked the Minister for Planning and Lands if a draft environmental impact statement existed. She said, yes. Therefore, I applied to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a copy. I had applied for it before but was told it did not exist. I was told that there was a copy of the web page, which turned out to be a Notice of Intent, which is not the same thing; it is the first stage before an environmental impact statement. After the minister had said a draft environmental impact statement had been completed, I then put in my freedom of information application, paid my $30 and waited.
I received a phone call saying: ‘Yes, we have found something’. The first time they took me back to the Notice of Intent, because anyone can get that off the government’s web page. But I said: ‘That is not what I am after.’ They found a copy of the draft environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. I waited. In between waiting a member of the staff went on holidays and they asked permission to wait until the staff member came back from holidays, instead of having to fit in with the exact legal requirements that have to be carried out once you have paid your fee. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I got a phone call, saying: ‘We have done an estimate on how much this environmental impact statement is going to cost you’. I asked how much? He said: ‘$1000’. I ground my teeth, if that is the past tense of ‘to grind’.
This environmental impact statement is, to some extent, a non-issue; because the government decided it would not go ahead with Glyde Point, so it is not exactly a living document. However, it was an important document if I was to follow up whether the government had really been up-front about its reasons for not developing the Glyde Point industrial area.
I said to the lady on the phone: ‘Basically, I cannot afford $1000. I do not intend to pay for that’. She said: ‘It is about 700 or 800 pages, and I suppose a third of that will be acknowledgements to various scientific groups and people who would have actually had input into the development of the environmental impact statement’. So, I thought the best thing was to ask for the executive summary. She told me the executive summary had about 35 pages and, in most cases, when you are reading those sorts of documents that is the first thing you read anyway. Unless you need to go into the development of that particular document in more detail, most times the executive summary is all you need.
I have not yet received the executive summary. I have been told it is going to cost me something like $95.75, or some figure like that. I have already paid half of it; I had forgotten I had to pay half of it. I have sent off half the money to the department and I hope the environmental impact statement will turn up. I believe it is a bit rich.
The member for Katherine raised some important issues such as: if you are on the government side you can get those documents quite easily. Obviously, the Minister for Planning and Lands has a copy. She must have known about the document because she admitted that such a document existed when we spoke about the issue in the Estimates Committee. Of course, I doubt if she would have had to pay $1000 if she wanted to have a look at the document. It is certainly weighted against people like me who are trying to keep the government accountable, trying to find out the truth about certain government decisions and policies. The only way for me to do that is to delve into some of the government’s documents.
I do not do it very often. I simply do not have the time. However, I am very disappointed in the whole process that brought INPEX into Darwin Harbour. I am very disappointed because I felt the government had not done the planning it should have done for possible alternate sites for heavy industrial subdivisions in the Top End. I needed to see whether the excuses the government made were real. The only way I can do that is to find out whether the people who put together the environmental impact statement did the science to see if it was actually a suitable site. I will probably only find out when I eventually get the executive summary. I am not going to pay that $1000. I will have to go with the executive summary unless I discover there is a particular page within that document which I can order specially. I do not know how I am going to get that document in the first place.
I believe that members of parliament who legitimately require documentation should be entitled to get it, if requested. I know you have to watch that it is not abused. You do have to pay the application fee, and I do not have a problem with that. There may be some limitations on how much you can ask for in a particular period because, obviously, it could be abused and drive departments up the wall if they have a great rush for these FOIs. However, at the same time, you have to balance that with what the member for Drysdale was saying: that our job on this side is to try to ensure the government is accountable for its actions; to investigate matters that are of concern to Territorians.
Many people say we keep the government honest. It is a bit of a corny saying but, in the case of the Glyde Point industrial development, that is exactly what I was trying to do. But, to keep the government honest was going to cost me a $1000 as an elected representative of the parliament of the Northern Territory.
The people who would expect me to be doing this sort of work might be shocked to find out that I cannot always do it because I cannot afford it. I will put a little tin outside my office with a sign ‘Donations for any FOI applications, please help’. I do not think you would get much that way either, but that is another issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe what the member for Drysdale put forward is a reasonable motion. If the government does not support it, I have to ask why and, if it has a reason, I would then ask: is that consistent with its own members? It cannot be one rule for one, and another rule for the other, because then we really have politics interfering with the proper functions of parliament and the people who represent Territorians in this parliament.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his motion, although, in his contribution, he has carefully forgotten some very important history in relation to this matter. The Information Act creates a general right of access to information held by public sector organisations subject to where disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest. The act also provides individuals with the right of access to, and the right to request correction of, their personal information, which is a very important aspect.
As members should be well aware, it was up to this Labor government to introduce strong freedom of information legislation after decades of flat refusal by the previous government. As the Chief Minister pointed out - I think it was yesterday; could have been the day before - we are the ones who actually introduced it, which is not acknowledged in the motion. The member for Drysdale, and the member for Nelson and others, obviously consider Labor’s Information Act a very useful tool for government accountability and transparency. He wants to use it so much that he now seeks the removal of fees levied against members of parliament when making FOI applications ...
Ms Carney: You did not introduce what you promised, you know that.
Dr BURNS: Oh, we have a long way to go yet, member for Araluen. We have a long way to go yet and you are cranky already ...
Ms Carney: Is that a threat?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Is that a threat? No, well, stop fibbing. Seven years for whistleblowers - huh!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Come on, brighten up!
Ms Carney: You cannot just sit here and listen to this diatribe, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting please. You have the call, Attorney-General.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will repeat. The Information Act provides that application fees and processing fees may be charged for requests for information held by public sector organisations. The exception to this is application fees are not charged for requests for personal information. Fees are not charged on an ad hoc basis, rather, they are calculated to address the real cost of services and materials provided in response to an application. Charging minimal fees for access is reasonable, given that each application requires the use of public sector resources to process. An application for information means that an agency undertakes a search for information, retrieves that information, and then considers and makes decisions in relation to the application.
I thought it was a bit rich of the member for Katherine to say that it was more or less an overpayment to pay someone with a texta just to cross out text on a page. There is a bit more judgment associated with it than someone giving someone a texta and saying: ‘Go to work’.
An application for information means that an agency undertakes a search for information, retrieves that information, and considers and makes decisions in relation to the application. Additionally, considering the material for the purpose of making a decision about whether the information should be released requires some skill. This is undertaken by trained officers in an agency. The agency may also need to provide supervision for the examination of the information by an applicant. There may be costs incurred in the use of equipment to enable an applicant to examine the request for information; for example, photocopying, providing copies of materials on disc, film or tape, and for the packaging and postage of materials for delivery to the applicant.
Processing fees, as has been pointed out, in the Northern Territory are prescribed at a rate of $25 per hour. This is within the range of processing fees applied on the freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions. For example, the Commonwealth charges $15 per hour for search and retrieval, and $20 per hour for consideration, preparation and decision-making; Western Australia charges $30 per hour for dealing with the application, and photocopying is charged at 20 per page. Those charges, as the member for Araluen would know, are quite reasonable compared to the charges if one was engaging legal advice from a lawyer; you are likely to be charged a hell of a lot more just for photocopying or even for a telephone call. They are quite reasonable in the context of charges that could be levied and that are levied by some professions.
The application of minimal fees also serves to reduce or remove the incentive for ridiculously wide-ranging, frivolous or vexatious applications which only serve to tie up public sector resources. Depending on the nature of the information sought and how much information is required to be searched, applications can take many personnel hours to administer. The larger the volume of information to be searched and, then considered, and for a decision to be made, the longer an application takes. Agencies regularly experience requests for information dealing with applications which result in very large volumes of government information having to be considered. This is not to denigrate the process, simply to highlight to members the large amount of time and effort skilled public sector employees devote to processing FOI applications - and I thank them. Unlike some of the negative comments that were made opposite, I thank them for their hard work.
The act also enables an agency to waive fees in circumstances of financial hardship. If an applicant is facing financial hardship then it is open to an agency to waive or reduce processing fees. This aims not to disadvantage a person from enjoying an equal right of access to information only because they cannot afford to pay the application and/or processing fees. To waive fees in that circumstance is consistent with the objects of the act, and with freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions.
There was a common thread and an inference by some speakers that, somehow, government members on this side have free and unfettered access to public service documents. I can assure them that is not the case, apart from documents that come by way of the Cabinet process, which are privileged information - and we take an oath with the Administrator when we become ministers. We place our hand on the Bible and take an oath - some of us make an affirmation – not to disclose anything that is in those documents, by way of our becoming aware of them by being either a Cabinet member or a member of the Executive Council of the Northern Territory.
I did spend, probably about a year, as a backbencher in the first government in 2001. I did not have unfettered or any sort of access to confidential government documents or documents within the public service. I relied on briefings from departments through the minister’s office, just the same as members opposite can request briefings. I was afforded those briefings and I found them very valuable. I did not feel that agencies were trying to hide things from me. There were times, I am sure, when members opposite have asked questions and received answers. You make your judgments based on that. I can assure this House there is no inequality here. Government members, whether they are ministers or backbenchers, receive no preferential treatment in accessing information.
The waiving of fees is also consistent with the objects of the acts which are to provide generalised access to information held by public sector organisations, subject to where it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose that information. The act does not otherwise provide for a universal waiver of fees for classes or categories of persons. Some other jurisdictions provide various forms of waivers in certain circumstances and up to certain amounts. The most common clause, as in the Northern Territory, is the provision of a waiver in circumstances of hardship.
This government fully endorses the FOI system as a mechanism for government accountability. The scheme enables anyone to make an application for information held by a public sector organisation.
Here is something very important for members opposite, both opposition and Independents: the Information Act is due for review in 2009, but preliminary consultation within government has already commenced and a working group, chaired by the Department of Justice, is in the process of being established. A discussion paper will be prepared and publicly released for community views on how the scheme is working and where it can be improved. As regular users of FOI, I have no doubt members of parliament will be actively consulted to gauge their views on possible improvements. I have no doubt the opposition will make a submission to that process. I believe this will be the most appropriate forum to put forward the proposals as aired by the member for Drysdale, and they will be considered as part of an overall package of reforms and will be assessed as to whether they meet the act’s overall objectives.
In this context, there will be capacity in the review of the Information Act, not only in this regard, but other regards. The government opposes this motion but encourages the member for Drysdale to feed his ideas into the imminent Information Act review process.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their comments; I appreciate them. It is a relatively simple amendment to an act. Eventually, it becomes known as the amendment to the Information Amendment Bill 2008 (Serial 20). It is about freedom of knowledge; how governments should be accountable, no matter which side of the fence they are sitting. Part of this amendment is simply to do that; to allow an easier form of accountability without handing over various fees which can sometimes be extreme.
There are many different public sector organisations to which this legislation can apply, but if I heard correctly, I believe the Attorney-General said that it did not apply when it was not in the public interest, or similar. There is an exemption from supplying the information where it is deemed not in the public interest. I am not asking for that to be removed. Nowhere in my bill do I suggest that we should start letting out sensitive information. Coming from a police background, I have seen some of the FOIs and the result of some of the FOIs; it is a joke that some even got to our desk in the first place. They were truly not in the public’s interest to be released.
I hope that is a fair point. I am not attempting to change the intent of the legislation; I am simply stating in this amendment that we, as MLAs, should not be charged the fees for applications of FOIs and the various tables of fees that are listed against them. There are good reasons for having those fees, I do not deny that. Sometimes the people who may apply for information - as just mentioned from my experiences in the police force - are not there for good causes, but perhaps for run-amok or some other problematic cause. This is about ensuring the government is accountable. Apparently, we are not seeing that one bit.
It is broken down into two basic elements as previously mentioned: non-personal and personal information. I am not asking that we change the act so that I am handed personal information which I am not entitled to - because I am not entitled to it, even as an MLA, and nor are you. I am not asking for information about this person; that is personal information. It is predominantly about government-based information; the operations of government.
I am strangely confused how the member opposite could have thought we felt that government workers were not doing a good job, because they are doing a good job. I set the record straight from my point of view. Thank you to all the government workers who are out there working hard, trolling through vast quantities - maybe pallet loads - of documentation in relation to FOI requests, because it can be arduous. However, that is what is required to ensure that the government is accountable, and that we do not allow ourselves to fall into a situation where we are portrayed as not being truly accountable in the eyes of the public, be it across the Territory or across Australia. This is just one small part to ensuring that is not the case.
When our Independent colleague here is impeded by the costs of obtaining information that he deems is necessary to put an argument or a point forward, to keep whichever government it may be at the time, accountable, I do not think that is right. I am not asking for the costs to be waived for every person in the Territory. As previously mentioned, this is about government business and operation, at the end of the day - accountability. Some will then say: ‘How do we account for the costs?’ Surely …
A member: Surely, it is government business.
Mr BOHLIN: Well, it could be government business. We do not want to know about that. The cost could quite easily be accounted on either a quarterly or an annual basis to state that we lost X hours to the recovery of FOI documents. Most of that information is already obtained, anyway. The act does not provide for waivers. It provides for considerations of waivers, and they do occasionally occur. However, it is not that common.
I could pretty much guarantee it is not going to be in the government’s interest to waive against us, or whoever is the opposition at the time. It is a pretty simple amendment; it is about being accountable. The Chief Minister has said he is going to ensure that he has an accountable government, but rejecting this amendment would certainly not give credence to those words. I am not going to troll through the act and find a point here or a point there, because that would be wasting a lot of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government claims they are going to be accountable. Join with us, amend the bill. A small amendment will make many things a lot easier, and it may benefit both sides today or in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move - That –
Madam Deputy Speaker, INPEX has announced that Darwin is the preferred site for their processing of gas, LNG, from their field in Western Australian waters, and they will be delivering it by an 800 km pipeline. It is a major project, not only by Northern Territory standards, but by Australian standards. It will have a dramatic impact on Darwin’s landscape and an impact across the Territory. It will fall into the work of a range of government agencies, ministerial portfolio responsibilities, industry groups, community groups, non-government organisations, and land councils.
It would be appropriate for government to facilitate the development of this project by coordinating its approach, better than it has in the past, through a body which has statutory powers. We know this project is a large Australian project. At this stage we do not know what kind of resources the government will need in coordinating the development and the processing of this project. We have questions on what kind of infrastructure will be required to support the project and to support those businesses associated with the project.
We know that there is already talk of possible associated second and third tier processing facilities near the project, which may involve fertilizer plants, petro-chemical plants, methane, plastic production facilities, and, in the past, there was even talk of aluminium smelting taking place if there were sufficient gas resources to support such a facility. If we were really thinking outside the square, we could include processing of iron-ore into bricks, and that would be good for the Northern Territory’s economy.
We argue that we need this task force, and the key word is task force - a development task force - to manage the process and to get good outcomes; good economic, community, environmental, and social outcomes for the Northern Territory.
I believe that in the past we have had a succession of business coordinating arms, including the Office of Territory Development, and a beast called the Office of Resource Development. This kind of task force would not be dissimilar. However it would have statutory powers. I believe, given the size of the project, that the advisory bodies are likely to be overwhelmed by the magnitude and speed of development, if this Middle Arm development progresses the way the government is suggesting it will. It makes commercial and legislative sense to us that the major infrastructure proponents have a one-stop shop. This kind of project needs that thinking and this one-stop shop would be the Territory Development Task Force. This kind of task force operating from a one-stop shop will enable the project to be developed efficiently and effectively.
A relevant example of this kind of task force, with a wide role of responsibility related to a major development, was the Olympic Coordinating Authority or OCA, which was a statutory authority of the New South Wales government. The OCA was established in 1995 and dissolved in 2002, at the end of the Olympics. It was responsible for the physical preparation and coordination of government-wide activities related to the 2000 Sydney Olympics and Paralympic Games and redeveloping Homebush Bay and many other related sites.
The Sydney Olympic Games had a price tag in the range of $1.3bn. The INPEX development expenditure is 10 times that amount. We are talking about an enormous project coming to Darwin and the Northern Territory. For this expense the OCA managed the design and construction of 17 permanent and three temporary competition venues and the Olympic Village. I believe members agree that the Sydney Olympics was a very successful event and the coordination of the Olympics and all that supported it was very successful.
The OCA’s mandate was to provide for a sustainable and environmentally sensitive approach in the development and construction of the venues and facilities; to ensure processes were in place to minimise any adverse social effects or disadvantages to the community, particularly in the areas of housing, transport, and other social justice issues; and to maximise value to the government and the community through private sector participation in the construction of venues and facilities. It achieved that goal on time and on budget to become the best games ever.
That is something we will have to work towards with this project: that it is on time and is developed in a timely way; it is on budget; and there are no additional expenses which have to be incurred by the Northern Territory community in any shape or form.
There are many aspects which need to be considered regarding this project’s development; not dissimilar to other major projects we have developed in the Darwin area in recent times. For example, when approval went through for the LNG plant at Wickham Point, an exceptional development permit was granted by the then minister for Lands and Planning in November 2002; this permit had 41 conditions attached to it. We are talking about a plant which is much bigger and on a much larger scale.
Some of these permits, which went across all the agencies of not only the Northern Territory government but the Commonwealth government, included items such as greenhouse gas strategy, emergency management plans, site emergency plan, corporate relations management plan, oil spill contingency plan, LNG accident response plan, mangrove monitoring plan, weed management plan, feral animal management plan, acid sulphate soil management plan, biting insects management plan, erosion and sediment control plan, LNG plant environmental management plan, noise abatement plan, safety report, operational waste management plan, and cyclone management plan - and these are just some on the list for that project. We are talking about a project which is vastly bigger and more complex than the current LNG plant.
We will have a change in our landscape regarding security issues and new challenges for shipping and the pipeline. No doubt, there will be other plans, studies and security measures put in place which will cross many agencies, not only in the Northern Territory but the Commonwealth, which will need to be coordinated in a way that is not only to the satisfaction of government and community, but also to the proponents. We do not want to be seen as amateurs. Whilst I have no issue with the government agencies and how they go about their work - I believe they do a terrific job given the pressures they are under, including under-resourcing and lack of appreciation - I believe we need to have a Territory development task force which has representatives from both the public and private sectors. I would argue for emphasis on the private sector, so it is focused on outcomes rather than getting bogged down in processes.
I was around when this government, with a previous Chief Minister, embarked on a campaign called Team NT, which sprang up overnight like a mushroom and disappeared pretty quickly as the hot sun came and wilted it. It came out of the blue; it was not a very successful campaign because the Sunrise gas still did not come onshore; it was not going to come onshore then because it was not commercially viable. It may be developed in the near future so it benefits not only the Northern Territory and Australia but also Timor-Leste.
However, it did not happen the way the government thought it would because it was not planned properly and there was no proper consultation. We were all summoned to a meeting with the government. The promotional banners and the pull-ups had been organised. The government of the day tried to bring pressure to bear on Woodside, telling everyone it was in the national interest, and took out full page advertisements in the Financial Review and drew up big cheques and had everyone sign them. It was only when Woodside took the government to task, that the government became less personal in attacking company personnel and backed right down. I believe the Chief Minister was the Business minister of the day and did not seem to understand the project was not going to come onshore because it was not commercially viable. That may change in the future.
It is all very well to have these steering committees, which have been set up with the Chief Minister’s theme of ‘Fresh ideas, real results’, and reading through this document there are three committees. I am unclear about subcommittees versus steering committees versus ‘sub Cabinet’ committees; I do not believe they know what they are doing either.
What we need to have is the Territory development task force which brings together all the key components of such a major project. It will change the landscape of Darwin and the Northern Territory. It will be terrific for the Territory economy, it will bring many jobs; and will be a boost to the town, but on the other side, it is going to change the social fabric of our community. There are many questions which still need to be answered. What kind of resources will they need? How much water is this project going to use? Where will this water be sourced? Is it linked to the current dam situation? Will they be putting down bores to support their project in the development stages? How will it relate to the other aspects of the harbour? How is it going to relate to pipelines? Will they be putting in an emergency pipeline in case our power and water fails, which it has done quite spectacularly in the last few weeks?
I ask the government to look seriously at this motion before the House. It is about trying to get the project online in a timely manner, addressing the many social issues; and engaging the community.
I recently went to a very well-run forum at the Darwin Harbour coordinated by the Environment Centre - which I know is a little unusual, given my background with the Minerals Council - and it was disappointing that no one from the government attended. The views expressed at that forum were reasonable views from people who, I would say, are pretty average people in our community. They have some serious concerns; perhaps they are not all legitimate concerns, however they were expressing them. That is why we have in our motion that we need to engage the community, not just through the environmental assessment process, which we know is a reasonable thing to do, but through other ways which are meaningful not only to the proponents, but also to community members themselves.
I ask the Chief Minister to seriously consider this. Perhaps at a later date - whether today or in the next sittings – I will be addressing this statement, which lacks substance, however it is linked to what we are trying to put through today to ensure this project and everything that falls out from this project, including downstream processing, is addressed in a timely manner, brings benefit to the Northern Territory, and has no serious detriment.
I intend to stay in the Northern Territory. I am not convinced that people on the other side of the House will be in the Northern Territory for the long haul. I want to ensure that this project is done well. It can only be done well if we have a decent, well-resourced, and well-focused task force, chaired by an industry person - not too heavy with government officials, although they have their place on such a task force – that is responsive, talks with the proponents and other companies involved to ensure commitment to the Northern Territory across all spectrums, not just saying they are going to employ many people and buy goods and services. We need more than that; we need to have a real community partner.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to support this motion by the member for Goyder; she has done a fantastic job of crafting and speaking to the motion and outlining her concerns.
It is quite obvious to everyone concerned that this INPEX venture, whilst greatly welcomed - I put on the record the other night my congratulations to the Chief Minister, and well done – provides very significant challenges for the Northern Territory. Those challenges are only escalated by the serious lack of planning that the current Northern Territory government has done over past years.
We all know that there is a power crisis at the moment. We are told that it is going to take almost $1bn to fix that problem ...
Mr Vatskalis: No, got it wrong again.
Ms Purick: There is $1bn in this statement - $1bn for Power and Water.
Mr Henderson: $1bn to expand Power and Water for the growth that is happening in the Territory - not to fix the problem.
Mr TOLLNER: There is $1bn that is required to go to the Territory for growth, the Chief Minister said. That is fine. We know that they are going to spend $1bn somewhere in the next five years on Power and Water ...
Mr Vatskalis: Which you never spent before, ever.
Mr TOLLNER: The biggest spend ever, the Business minister tells us - biggest spend ever. Whoopee do! Good stuff, great stuff. It is finally good to see the government is putting some money into our power, water, and sewerage infrastructure - greatly welcomed. I have absolutely no problems with that. It is a bit late for 15 000 houses out there in the northern suburbs, of course, and all those residents who have been told to run out and buy a generator. The fact is this government says that they have committed to spending $1bn on Power and Water.
We know there is also a health crisis - the nurse staffing crisis - which means significant money to be spent there. We know, in relation to health, that there is an oncology unit which, at some time, is due for construction to start. We know that, maybe in the next year or the next two years, somewhere along that time line, there will be, we would hope, after 10 years of Labor government - in their first election winning campaign they promised the oncology unit - we would expect that it will be built.
Mr Vatskalis: Is that the way you were supposed to find the money for it? I cannot see any money coming that way.
Mr TOLLNER: You do not see any money, minister?
Mr Vatskalis: No, because I never listen to you.
Mr TOLLNER: I distinctly recall that in the 2001 election campaign there was a promise that it would be done. I recall, in the mini-budget which was done shortly after that, this government allocated $14m to build an oncology unit; that was back in 2001-02. Lo and behold, here we are at the end of 2008 - no oncology unit. All of a sudden someone else has to find the money, the minister for Business tells us. But, it was a promise back then. We will believe it when we see it, but this is a plan; that we will have an oncology unit.
We have also been told we are going to have a super clinic built at Palmerston. Super clinic - the federal government promised $10m for this super clinic. Evidently, the Northern Territory government is going to chip in somewhere along the line. They told us they are going to build some sort of a new health facility at Palmerston. They have also told us they have new schools - primary schools, middle schools, high schools - in the pipeline, meant to be built in the next few years. Additionally, there is the $300m prison that has to go somewhere. We have debated that tonight.
All these things are happening at the same time that INPEX wants to build the biggest infrastructure development, or one of the biggest infrastructure developments, in Australia’s history. You have to think that this will pose some challenges bearing in mind we have all these crises and commitments by the government in a whole range of areas around the Territory.
One has to ask: where are we going to find the workers? What sort of capital expenditure are businesses going to be required to commit to? What are their materiel requirements going to be?
The other thing I did not hear mentioned is housing. We know that there is a housing crisis going on. I do not see the Chief Minister jumping up and down. Rents are through the roof; there is a serious lack of housing right across the Territory, and this government is committing quite a bit of capital trying to free up land. We were also told there are hundreds of millions of dollars being provided by the federal government to build houses in remote Aboriginal communities.
At the same time all this is going on, we have this massive gas development about to occur, and at no stage, it seems to me, is the government consulting with industry. For that reason alone, the member for Goyder’s motion needs to be supported. We definitely need a Territory development task force.
Too little has happened in the last seven years. The government has been sitting on its hands idly watching GST dollars rolling in, employing large numbers of consultants, and putting out a whole range of glossy brochures, but fundamentally doing nothing. We find ourselves in the situation where we have inadequate water and sewerage infrastructure; a caving in of the whole electricity system; the Health and Education departments are in crisis; announcements of moving the prison; a housing crisis - the list just goes on and on. It is endless.
At the same time we have this wonderful opportunity of a large multi-billion dollar gas facility coming to Darwin and, quite rightly, it is being heralded by the Chief Minister as a great development. It is supported by everyone in this Chamber, irrespective of what the other side will tell you. However, at the same time we are all left scratching our heads wondering how the Territory is going to cope with this massive demand for skills, right at a time when there are skill shortages right around the world.
I encourage the government to get on board with this. The Chief Minister knows the problems, but he is loath to admit them. He is not silly; he knows what is going on out there.
Chief Minister, when you are down, it is not such a bad thing to ask for a little help …
Mr Henderson: There are many people I would ask for help before I would ask you, Dave, but thanks for the offer.
Mr TOLLNER: … when times are tough it is not a bad thing to extend the hand and say, give me a hand, help us out …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: What the member for Goyder is saying is: Chief Minister, extend that hand to industry, ask for help and support, acknowledge some of the short-comings of previous Chief Ministers and past administrations; you could put all that behind - it is a new term. An opportunity to make a fresh start and get out there …
Mr Wood: … a fresh start you know, like, can-do.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson makes a good point; the Territory is full of can-do people. People with get up and go; people who have done things, built things, done fantastic projects - real pioneers. The Territory is a frontier in many respects and we have that pioneering attitude, that can-do attitude is alive and well, and there is a perfect opportunity for the Chief Minister to get out and embrace some of those people. Ask them for their help and support. Acknowledge some of the frailties that the government has, and get on with the job. I am quite serious about that. Here is a perfect opportunity. The member for Goyder has put it perfectly - there is nothing in this that is offensive. I encourage the government to support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Saint Dave for his guidance. I am sure I saw either wings or a halo or something emerging from his shoulders. I am sorry to hear that the government is frail …
Mr Henderson: In the member for Fong Lim’s opinion.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. I partly support the member for Goyder’s motion tonight and I have explained why. Some of the issues she has put as part of the task force, I believe should belong to another group altogether. In this case the environmental issues. Would we have a so-called independent Environment Protection Authority? The government has claimed this is an independent body which can deal with some of the developments which are occurring in the Northern Territory. As far as I know it is yet to do that. In fact, its job at the present time is reviewing the Environment Assessment Act and setting sustainable principles for the Northern Territory. That is all very nice, but it is not really nuts and bolts or concrete type stuff.
We have INPEX coming to town. As the minister knows, I have concerns about certain ministers making decisions about INPEX and also the members of the government - I see that as a conflict of interest. Yet, we have set up an Environment Protection Authority; and after much debate and different versions of it, we eventually got an Environment Protection Authority. It says that there is a process for referring matters to the Environment Protection Authority and this is on the webpage for the EPA:
My understanding is that there are three people who can ask the government to request the Environment Protection Authority to investigate some issue: the minister, the EPA, or a third party, like me. I will be interested to know, when the minister responds: does the government intend to ask the Environment Protection Authority to look at the environmental issues relating to the $20bn gas processing plant in Darwin Harbour?
I know there will be an environmental impact statement, but I thought that would be part of the EPA process. Whilst I consider there are benefits in what the member for Goyder has put forward - that we have a Territory Development Task Force - in matters referring to the environment, I would like to see the government show its credentials: prove that the EPA has some teeth and can take on these particular matters. I doubt the government will do this, however it said that was not the case when we had this debate before.
I ask the minister to put these forward as a priority matter for the Environment Protection Authority to handle. They should call for an Environmental Impact Statement. They should be doing the investigations and making the decisions as to whether this project is environmentally sound. I see benefits in what the member for Goyder has put forward, however I would prefer that side of it not to be part of this task force. The task force could play other important roles. We know there will be social impacts; when the Defence Force and ConocoPhillips first came to Darwin, there was impact on the Darwin community and these can be anything from social to economic impacts.
We have already had some discussions in this House about where we are going to accommodate all the workers. I put forward an idea, and I am not sure whether the government thinks it has merit, the concept of building a suburb in Weddell, which is not far from Blaydin Point, for the workers. To build it with the notion that eventually it would be handed back to the government, which could then sell it to first homeowners or low income families so they get a chance to buy a house and a piece of the Territory. There will be many other issues.
One of the other issues is that if the company does not build enough housing for its workers there will be more pressure on existing housing and rental stocks. Even though the government has brought forward the $14 000 Buildstart, I am not sure this is going to solve the problem. I am receiving a briefing tomorrow on Buildstart and I hope my concerns about it do not come true, but there are some issues relating to Buildstart that certainly need adjusting. If it can increase the number of houses and the number of rental units available, then that will be good.
The member for Goyder has brought forward the core of something which should be supported. I was on an integration committee when the Army first came, as a representative of the Litchfield Shire, which also included the Mayor of Palmerston and the Lord Mayor of Darwin, together with various groups from childcare to family groups, Centrelink and other government agencies which need to be involved when large numbers of people come to Darwin for this type of project. They would all need to be brought together. A development task force, such as the member for Goyder is promoting, would be important.
In general, I support the concept the member has put forward, but I also say to government: if you really believe the EPA is worth supporting, let us see the EPA handle all the environmental issues in relation to the INPEX facility coming to Darwin.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing on this motion. Essentially and fundamentally, without going into the details of this, the government, as well as members who have spoken in debate tonight, are on the same page in ensuring that we deal with the impacts of what is a very exciting development for the Northern Territory.
The development is going to underpin our economy, in terms of investor confidence, for decades to come. We are certainly on the same page; it is just a different way of dealing with the issues and achieving the same results. I agree with the member for Fong Lim in his contribution; in no way is this motion offensive to the government. It is just that we have a different approach to dealing with the issues that have been identified.
The member for Goyder talked about the dramatic impact this project will have on the economic and social fabric of the Northern Territory. I do not think that ‘dramatic’ is a word that I would use, but there is no doubt that it will have a significant impact. The word ‘dramatic’ has some alarmist connotations, and I do not think that the people of the Northern Territory should be alarmed in regard to this project. I also urge and caution honourable members: we are probably 95% to 98% certain that we are going to get this project, but we are still some 10 to 12 months away from a final investment decision from the companies involved.
The member for Goyder said there are, potentially, second and third tier impacts with this project. I am not sure whether the opposition is deliberately trying to be alarmist and raise concerns amongst the Territory population, but she said this project would lead to chemical processing, plastics processing, and aluminium-type smelters on Middle Arm.
I dealt with that the other day in relation to the Glyde Point development and the whole commercial landscape concerning the price companies can get for gas, for LNG, as opposed to using it as a base load fuel for power generation. The prospects of significant investment in those types of downstream industries in the Northern Territory have rapidly diminished in consequence and in parallel with the escalating prices that companies can achieve for LNG. The thoughts of alumina smelters in the Northern Territory that were contemplated six or seven years ago, as a result of the price companies could achieve for LNG versus domestic gas back then, are just not there. It is that alarmist sort of language the opposition continues to use, in absence of reality of the current economic and commercial circumstances.
The member talked about a one-stop shop and companies needing a one-stop shop in government to deal with that. We already have that. We have the gas task force in government, which is a one-stop shop for companies looking to invest in the Northern Territory. It is a very large part of why we are in this position today, by working with INPEX and Total over the last 12 months; the Territory government provides a one-stop shop as opposed to the departmental run around that companies get in other states.
The member also talked about an analogy between the Olympic Coordinating Authority and the INPEX project. She pointed to $1.7bn-worth of investment for infrastructure in Sydney, versus a $12bn project in Darwin. It is an interesting analogy but one that really does not reflect any degree of comparability at all. The Sydney Olympics was a vastly disparate project, with 17 venues across the largest city in Australia to accommodate hundreds of thousands of visitors who came to Sydney, thousands of competitors in the games, and thousands of journalists from around the world monitoring the games. There really is no analogy and no comparability between a consolidated development on Middle Arm and the Sydney Olympics.
The member for Goyder talked about the importance of bringing the project in on time and on budget. The Sydney Olympics infrastructure was very much a government project with private sector involvement. This project is a private sector investment in our economy. There really are no similarities.
The member also talked about Team NT, and was quite condescending in regard to the government’s approach at the time. I was there at the time with the former Chief Minister …
Ms Purick: So was I, and that is why I know it was not very good.
Mr HENDERSON: … and you did not speak against it at the time. I did not notice the member for Goyder, who was the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council at the time, speak against Team NT. It was very much a collaborative effort, and as my colleague, the current Business minister knows, we were fighting a national interest argument in regard to the companies developing Sunrise as a floating LNG project, and we were looking at bringing that gas onshore for LNG developments in Darwin, and also to connect to the national gas grid to provide gas-on-gas competition in the energy markets in south-eastern Australia.
Independent economic analysts were contracted by government to run those arguments, and the economic analysis at the time did indicate that it was not in Australia’s national economic interest to allow the companies to develop an Australian resource as floating LNG. I am very proud of the work Team NT did at the time, and hats off to my predecessor, Clare Martin, in pulling that together. The current member for Goyder certainly did not speak out against that initiative at the time.
The member also talked, and seemed to have one foot either side of the barbed wire fence, as Joh Bjelke-Peterson found himself on a couple of occasions, about this project changing the social fabric of Darwin and that government needed to be concerned about addressing the social issues, and said: ‘I am going to be here for the long haul and I hope this project does not stuff up the Territory …
Ms Purick: You will not be here, you will be gone.
Mr HENDERSON: I will respond to the interjection. I am not going anywhere.
Ms Carney: That is what Clare said.
Mr HENDERSON: This is my home. I married a local girl, I have three kids who were born in Darwin and I give the member for Goyder every assurance that this is my home and I am going nowhere.
I was astounded to read an article and a letter to the editor and the Chief Minister in the Territory Regional Weekly, previously the Territory Times, dated Friday 3 October, from the mother of the member for Goyder - a former member of this House. I was so astounded with this letter which was penned to me in a public way, and so offended by the language that was used that I did not deem it worthy of a response.
However, with the member for Goyder talking about this project changing the social fabric and insinuating, in tone if not in the actual words used, that this project would be bad for Darwin, she now has an opportunity, in closing debate on this motion, to refute and speak against the assertions made by her mother in this letter. I will mention some specific comments.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There has been a convention in this place that what members of people’s families do should not be brought into the Chamber. It is poor form, indeed. It is not for the member for Goyder to defend or otherwise the actions or comments of a family member. I ask you to direct the Chief Minister accordingly; he should know better. We have plummeted to certain depths this week, but if the Chief Minister is going to start bringing people’s families into it, that is a very slippery slope indeed.
Mr Henderson: You spent two days doing it with the member for Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause while I confer with the Deputy Clerk on this. There is no point of order. However, Chief Minister, I refer you to Sessional Orders regarding freedom of speech and when we are talking about …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, just to make it easier for you and maybe to take some heat out of this, I retract and withdraw all reference to the member for Goyder’s mother, a previous member of this House.
However, I refer, without attribution, to a letter to the editor and to the Chief Minister, so that it is on the public record. I am not saying anything in this House that is not firmly on the public record in the Northern Territory and without speaking in attribution to who has written this open letter to me and to the editor of the Territory Regional Weekly. I seek comment from the member for Goyder on whether she supports the assertions that have been made in this open letter to me. The person who wrote this open letter said, and I quote:
That is the first question. An assertion that somehow there is going to be an explosion of prostitution activity in the Northern Territory as a result of this project and that it is a terrible thing for the Northern Territory. The letter goes on to make an assertion that:
Not only are these workers going to somehow stimulate an explosion of prostitutes in Darwin, turning it into the Sodom and Gomorrah capital of the western world, but there is also going to be a massive outbreak of public drunkenness which will confront the good citizens of the Northern Territory.
This open letter to the Chief Minister, which I have asked the member for Goyder to refute, given her comments about this project changing the social fabric of the Northern Territory, also goes on to state at item No 14 - a very long letter:
This is the sort of offensive, xenophobic, alarmist commentary which has been put into the public arena regarding a project that is going to employ thousands of Territorians and underpin the economy of the Northern Territory, providing investor confidence, giving Territorians the opportunities for training, and for jobs. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talks about kids in the Barkly having opportunities to work as apprentices next to the best boilermakers in Australia and the world, and you have this tirade of xenophobic abuse and absolute tripe being publicised in a paper.
I am absolutely bereft. I never thought I would actually read something like this from someone who was formerly a public figure in the Northern Territory, without attributing to it. I was offended when I read this and thought it does not even deserve a response. However, given the member for Goyder has come into this House tonight and talked about this project changing the social fabric of Darwin forever, and we need to be very guarded against this - I am not putting words into her mouth - but she certainly did talk a lot about this project changing the so-called fabric. Then there is a letter in the paper a couple of weeks ago with some offensive xenophobic language, which I thought we had lost in the Territory. I was not around in the 1950s, but it probably belongs in the 1950s, just after World War II.
I thought the Territory had moved on. Territorians have moved on and we embrace people from around the world, wherever they come from, in our place in a globalised economy. In regard to the offensive comments about World War II, one of the great benefits of a globalised economy is the intermeshing of our economies around the world, the people-to-people links that are established, the financial links and associations which are established that will help guard against hostilities between countries given the inter-reliance that we all have in a globalised economy. I found these comments and this letter to the editor absolutely offensive and repugnant. I urge the member for Goyder, in her summing up in this debate, to refute categorically those sentiments which were made in that particular article. If she does that, I will be first person to go over and shake her hand and say congratulations, because that type of commentary has no place here in the Northern Territory.
We certainly do have intergovernmental collaboration in dealing with this project. My department, through Major Projects and Asian Relations and Trade, is the lead agency for a whole-of-government involvement, including liaison and consultation with INPEX to work through this project. I announced today our Territory 2030 project and a steering committee which comprises eminent Territorians and Bill Moss, a former executive board member of Macquarie Bank, to look at and work with government and Territorians about planning for the future of the Northern Territory. Further industrial development in the Northern Territory will be a part of their work. We do not believe we need a specific Territory development task force because one already exists. It has been augmented by the Territory 2030 and the steering committee that I announced today.
Regarding the spirit of this motion, I agree that we need to plan for the challenges ahead. I assert that the Territory government is doing this. However, the government has its own structures in place. With regard to the direct content of the motion, we will oppose it. I urge the member for Goyder to deal with the comments I have made and the newspaper article that was printed in the Territory Regional Weekly on Friday, 3 October.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I could have sworn that the motion before the House was:
My goodness, Madam Speaker, I have no idea what the Chief Minister’s has been smoking or eating or drinking. It was entertaining ...
Mr Henderson: Madam Speaker, I do not smoke.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Goyder is insinuating something about the Chief Minister, and I ask her to withdraw it in regard to smoking.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I ask you to withdraw the comments under Standing Order 62(1).
Ms PURICK: Okay, the Chief Minister does not smoke, I withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I ask you to withdraw the full comments, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Okay, I withdraw the full comment.
Madam Speaker, that was the motion before the House. In his comments, the Chief Minister - and I thank members who spoke to the motion - talked about a gas task force. I have not seen much from this gas task force in a while. I recall it was established. I actually think …
Mr Henderson: It just landed a $12bn project.
Ms PURICK: Well, no. The previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, actually secured this project. I would say the gas task force has run out of gas. The government talks about a one-stop-shop which they already have, which is the gas task force. It is a pity they did not apply that one-stop-shop across their other government agencies, rather than cutting up the Mines department and putting safety in the office of WorkSafe, which has not done a very good job.
They took Mineral Royalty across to Treasury, and we saw what happened; not only did we lose our exploration expenditure certificates we also saw this government putting a tax on the transfer of mineral exploration licences. This government can take no credit for exploration expenditure increase. That is all to do with the commodity boom and it is nothing to do with the Chief Minister or his Mines minister, or the previous Mines minister, who is no longer in this House. For the record I would like to …
Mr Henderson: Tell us again how much you love the EPA.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention, as members on the other side have, to Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Honourable members on both sides of the House, I ask you to cease interjecting, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I place on the record the following figures. These are not my figures. These are the figures that have been given to me by companies. The Sunrise gas field comprises about 7.5 trillion cubic feet of gas - that equates to 300 petajoules. The power and water consumption for the whole Northern Territory is currently about 19 petajoules. If Alcan had taken gas via Sunrise out to their project, it would have consumed 40 petajoules with their expansion program. If McArthur River had refined on-site, it would have used 38 petajoules. If the magnesium project at Batchelor had gone ahead, it would have consumed about three petajoules. If we had secured the methanol plant from Methanex Australia, it would have used about 120 petajoules. That would have been a foundation customer, which is what we needed. The Methanex plant and the Batchelor magnesium plant did not happen.
If we add those figures, the total comes to about 240 petajoules. Sunrise gas needed to sell 300 petajoules per year to make it commercially viable. No one denied it was in the national interest that the gas should come onshore – not industry, not government, not the proponents - but it was not commercially viable.
Team NT had the Chief Minister, minister Paul Henderson, Bob Collins from the NT government, the member for Nelson, members from the opposition, the media, the land council, industry groups, and I was also on the committee. Along with Dave Malone, and where is he now? Heading up a planning group. Steve Margetic, from the Chamber of Commerce. Carole Frost, where is she now? Working in minister Vatskalis’ office. There were company representatives and government officials. There were also Chief Minister’s staff; Dennis Bree and media people.
A member: He was not on it.
Ms PURICK: He was there. Whilst Team NT might have had good intentions - we had discussions and meetings - it never amounted to anything because it was never going to be commercially viable. The proponents did a lot work; they talked to their southern customers and they tried to make it viable. These are the facts. It was in the national interest, no one disagreed with that.
The minister referred in his summary and the statement for 2030 - Fresh Ideas, Real Results, which talks about some of our exports. More than 35% of what this small population produces is now exported in some form. We have Darwin LNG, Alcan G3, and the Darwin City Waterfront. What the hell are they exporting? There is the Bonaparte pipeline, what do they export? And there are Compass, Arafura, Minemakers - they are not exporting at the moment. There is Windarra, it is not exporting. Sunrise is listed again, it has definitely not exported. Then, of course, let us not forget the hard rock miners, well, do not worry about them, because that is all dirty miners.
I really want to draw the Chamber’s attention to this comment. This is the government which wants to secure this project. I went to school, primary and high school, and I am not sure if I can really understand this paragraph. Perhaps the Chief Minister can explain it to me at a later time: over coming months, the government will be publicising the ideas and strategies developed by various different projects we have under way. At that time, we will be engaging the community more closely on those issues.
What does that mean? If that is indicative of this government, I think they need to go back to school.
Mr Henderson: Come on, talk about the Territory Times on Friday, 3 October.
Ms PURICK: It says this will be a flagship document. 2030 will be a flagship document. I believe our flagship document is really the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. That is what the Territory is all about. You are going to set targets for the things we wish to achieve across the full range of our community. How are you going to measure that? How are you going to report on it? ‘Territory 2030 will be modelled on the South Australian State Plan’ - so they are not even original - they have just gone to South Australia, picked up their plan, copied it and then called it their own - 2030. You are going to address prosperity for Territorians; the wellbeing of Territorians; how we care for our land, sea, and water; how we are going to build sustainable communities; how to expand the opportunities available to all Territorians. All good stuff, a little motherhood to me, and it is the sort of the stuff that comes out of cows’ bottoms, I believe, Chief Minister and Madam Speaker. That is what this statement is all about. I encourage members to go through it and you will see that it is poorly drafted and it is not visionary.
‘Phase three will be a period for our dialogue with Territorians, and by that I mean, all Territorians, across the breadth of the Territory’. Chief Minister, I hope that means you will go into the bush, to cattle stations, hold meetings at mine sites and communities; not just going to remote communities and the townships, go right across the length and breadth of this Territory, document it and report back on it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do believe the shadow minister is quoting from a statement which was distributed tonight for debate in the Chamber tomorrow. It is convention that the debate does not occur until the statement has been introduced and read.
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister did refer to this document in his comments regarding my motion; he actually referenced this document.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not.
Ms PURICK: Yes, you did.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think so, member for Goyder. I ask you not to refer to it, please.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister referred to this document, he quoted it in his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, did you refer to this statement?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I did not explicitly refer to the statement. I generically spoke about the Territory 2030 Plan that I announced today, but I did not specifically …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, I ask you not to quote from the document.
Ms PURICK: I will not refer to this document, I will leave that for another time, which means I get a second chance of saying what a very poorly structured document is it.
Back to the motion that was put before the House. I thank the members for Nelson and Fong Lim for their comments, and I thank the Chief Minister for some of his comments.
I ask that you look at it seriously, because we are going to need some serious planning and coordination; it is a large project and it will cross many government agencies, business, industry, community and environmental groups. Your track record so far is not flash in regards to major projects, and you cannot really take credit for anything that is happening in the Territory regarding the resources industry, because it would have happened anyway.
If you have been tracking the exploration industry of recent times, Chief Minister, you would know that there is more land becoming available and companies are starting to drop land because of the financial situation with the international market. I have a list here. It is a public document. Sixty-eight floats went through the stock exchange this year. Many of them were mineral exploration companies. There was an average return of the combined 68 companies of minus 54%. Only three of these companies are actually in a positive situation, yet the Chief Minister and the minister for Mines tell me the exploration industry is booming. Yes, it was doing very well, but the tide has started to turn and you better make sure you keep an eye on it.
Motion put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
Madam Speaker, we hear in conversations or in the media that there is the impression that different sides of politics are much the same. I can understand how people could see this to be true, however untrue it may be - especially in this House. We know there are vast differences in our policy approaches to law and order for the Country Liberals. Voters know that the Country Liberals have a different approach to health; the Country Liberals would not have let the power go out, and we would have handled the teachers’ dispute in a different manner.
I am sure the voters would like to know exactly what the Country Liberals would do to fix the horrendous National Assessment Program in Numeracy and Literacy, or NAPLAN, results. This is not a confrontational motion; this is something which will move towards improving education outcomes in the Northern Territory, especially in numeracy and literacy results. However, it is important for me to reflect on some of these results for members of this House.
I have some statistics from the NAPLAN results released earlier this year: 63% of Year 3 students meet the national minimum reading standard, which is a decrease of nearly 10% gauged against the multilevel assessment program results of 2007; 65.5% of Year 5 students meet the national minimum writing standard; and 66.8% of Year 7 students in the Northern Territory meet the national minimum numeracy and literacy standards.
We have spoken in this parliament before about these results, and asked questions of the government in Question Time. I quote a response given by the Chief Minister to the opposition leader in the first sittings of the Eleventh Assembly:
The Chief Minister is well aware that the results of the Northern Territory are bad and he is reflecting that the remote parts of the Territory are dragging our figures down.
The figures are much worse than I have just presented in those two examples. In the 2007-08 Education annual report we see that the performance figures are detailed from the Multilevel Assessment Program results. On pages 49 and 50, Figure 27 identifies the results in Year 5 reading – in 2006, 57.5% of students in very remote areas Australia-wide reached the national benchmark; in the very remote areas of the Northern Territory in 2006, 38.7% reached the national benchmark; and for very remote areas in 2007, 36.8% reached the national benchmark.
If we look at Year 7 reading, we will see for very remote areas across Australia - areas which are similar to very remote in the Northern Territory - 54.3% of students are reaching the national benchmark; clearly, nowhere near the 87.8% in the provincial areas, or the 90% in the metropolitan areas. In the very remote areas of the Northern Territory, only 33.6% of Year 7 students reach the national reading benchmark.
The figures get worse. If we go to numeracy, we see that 30.9% of students in the very remote areas of the Northern Territory reach the national benchmark - 30.9% is horrendous. I will finish with Year 7 writing - 27% of students in very remote areas of the Northern Territory reached the national benchmark. Clearly, those figures are from 2006. The results that I gave out earlier are a few examples from the NAPLAN report which was released in May this year and, I believe, indicate how bad things are at the moment.
We know the benefits of a good education. There are many reports that highlight better health outcomes: less propensity to conduct criminal or antisocial behaviour; the opportunity to get jobs, and so forth. The secondary education, or post education, problem is the creation of jobs. Many people do not go to school because they see no hope or future as a result of getting a good education in the bush. That is why I talk about the need for job creation and regional economic development in the bush so there is the possibility for those students later in life. Without the prospect of a job, why would people want to go to school?
We heard yesterday, through the shabby tabling of the Indigenous Expenditure Review for the 2006-07 financial year - I will quote from page 3 - 52.4% of the Territory’s expenditure in 2006-07 was Indigenous-related, as against 44.4% of the Territory’s revenue in 2006-07. That measures against the 2004-05 financial year, where 49.7% of the Territory’s expenditure was Indigenous-related, and 43.2% of the revenue was Indigenous-related. We have had an increase in revenue and an increase on percentage terms of expenditure for Indigenous-related measures up to 52.4%.
The government should be commended on the level of expenditure it puts toward Indigenous issues. If you base it on expenditure levels, the government does have a commitment; although going through the review, it is very hard to identify exactly where all that money goes. I cannot get to the point where it talks about Correctional Services and how much money goes into Correctional Services for the benefit of Indigenous people, but I will delve deeper into that over the next day or so.
I believe many Territorians in my electorate, and other electorates on this side of parliament, would be disgusted to see 52.4% of the Territory budget going to Indigenous-related areas and not achieving the outcomes it is supposed to. To put all that money in and be getting results which are worse now than in 2006 in some areas, for example Year 7 writing – down 5.7% in terms of reaching the national benchmark. The indicators are going down, and there are a number of indicators; I will not go through them all. People across the Territory are unhappy to see the outcomes for those areas but not unhappy to see the money going into Indigenous areas.
While the level of expenditure sounds good, we are still not getting bang for our buck. This motion is about education, it is about secondary schools. However, building schools does not solve the problems. There is a matrix of complementary solutions which need to be undertaken to ensure we get better outcomes in education, not just the jobs at the end of that education. It would pay us to have a look at the attendance rates of children at school, but we also need to take into account the number of children who are in the Northern Territory. The 2006 census results identified that there were 12 639 youth between five and 14 years of age. Of those 12 639 youth, only 8857 were going to school, as they classify age of person attending an educational institution. So there are approximately 3782 students who are not going to school.
It is interesting when you look at the 2001 census of the Indigenous profile, you will see the number of children aged between five and 14 who are attending an educational institution was 9382. We have gone backwards by 500 or 600 students who are going to school. This government, and I am not being critical, is apparently doing much to improve Indigenous outcomes and educational outcomes, but when the figures have gone backwards in the first five years of this Territory government, one has to ask what it is actually doing. To stand up and give ministerial statements, ministerial reports and pompous media releases and interviews about how good they are doing and how much they are spending, but to be seeing the results going backwards, to go back 500 youth in five years is quite shocking.
I have some statistics which show that in 2007 there were 2846 Indigenous students enrolled in school. In 2008 there were 2972 students enrolled. Then we have a look at the attendance figures. In very remote areas those figures have gone down from 63% to 61%, showing a slight decline in the attendance of children at school.
It is also possible to look at individual schools; I will highlight Yuendumu. In 2007 there were 139 students enrolled. In 2008 there were 121 - a reduction of 18. There could have been a population change, and that is fine. However, of those 121 students who were enrolled at school, only 63 were attending - 63 students out of 121 attending. That is a very significant issue. I have a number of figures which reflect the same sort of thing about school attendance decreasing. I am not going to go through them all, but it is an issue for the government and it is something that needs to be fixed. The Deputy Chief Minister, the minister for Education, speaks at length about the need to change that – and it is something that does need to change. The only way we can improve our education results is if kids actually go to school.
Ms Anderson: I will not argue against that.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Ms Anderson: No one will argue with you against that.
Mr GILES: I am not being critical; I am trying to be supportive. Strong policy is required. That is why the Country Liberals’ policy supports school attendance across the Territory - for all children in the Territory - being tied to welfare payments, with truancy officers being reinstated to support school attendance. Our policy goes further. We support children receiving an education in English for the full school day, assisted by a bilingual teacher - not just four hours a day.
This policy should not reflect a negative approach to Indigenous language, nor law, language and culture for that matter - on the contrary. I am a person who quite passionately supports language, law and culture; both their preservation and renewal. I understand the movement to full English-based education will test some people. However, to complement the policy position, the Country Liberals would introduce what might loosely be called culture classes, like they do in other areas of Australia, where you go to school for the day and are taught in English and you learn in English. That is the only way we are going to improve things - in English. After school there is an opportunity for culture, language, law, and culture to be taught by elders, traditional owners, or senior people within that community, who may seek the preservation of culture, to build on culture, and to teach law and language. If we do not seek to invest in our language, law, and culture, we will slowly lose it in certain areas.
The Country Liberals support the approach of language, law, and culture being taught in schools, outside of school hours. The classes will be proper classes, administered through the schooling system and providing jobs for local people who teach language, law, and culture. The pool of funds available for the culture teachers would be flexible, so that the teachers could rotate between different language groups, and men and women, and take into account the cultural sensitivities that we have. Children could not attend these classes unless they had attended normal school hours. The classes could involve excursions for lessons.
This is an approach based on many ethnic groups in Australia which recognise the importance of English as a first language for education, but do not want to lose their cultural knowledge and understanding, so have their children go to class after school hours to maintain that language, law and culture. The Country Liberals support English as the first language taught in school. We support children receiving an education in English for the school day, assisted by a bilingual teacher. If the curriculum can sustain bilingual education, then that is fine, but it is not a compromise for being taught fluent English.
Funding of schools should be based on enrolments, not attendance, but with a bonus system for attendance. That way, we will see schools being funded for the number of children who are supposed to be going to school, rather than just the number of kids who go to school.
They are going to have trials in Wadeye and Tiwi. If all those kids turn up to school, the facilities and infrastructure will not be there for them. The concept of providing funding based on enrolments is to make sure the facilities are there; so when our 100% school attendance tied to welfare comes on board, facilities will be there for those children to go to school.
The purpose of this motion is about secondary education, however, there are other things that complement secondary education. I speak in this House about regional development. We currently have a myriad of schools across the Territory, some of them big schools, which are already performing secondary functions. There are other very small schools, with small numbers, which do not have any infrastructure. I am aware that the minister for Education has spoken about investing in infrastructure for our schooling system. If we are going to provide schools for students in regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory which provide opportunities for kids to learn music, physical education, science, and mathematics, there is only one way that can be done: that is to make sure we have a school big enough to accommodate those services, so that kids have a choice.
To provide a school like that would require a number of things. We cannot continue having small schools in small locations which provide a tiny portion of the curriculum and a small amount of English, and are not achieving the education outcomes or attendance. What we need is a secondary school which provides students with a choice of education, combined with vocational education; the same as any other part of the country. We know school attendance is difficult and that is the reason I raised it before. Many of us will be aware of the issues for some, or many, children in the Northern Territory who go away to boarding schools for the term and find it very difficult to be away from their family for that length of time.
We are seeing the benefits of places like the college on the Tiwi Islands. They have children or youth staying at the college in boarding accommodation throughout the week and going home on weekends. I am proposing that in the secondary colleges in regional locations, in order to support regional development, we need to have boarding facilities so the students can stay there during the week to go to school, and go back to their community on weekends. They still have the opportunity to be with family - together with the responsibilities that go with that - on the weekends, but during the week they will go to school. They know they will have a bed, they will be fed, go to class, and understand the discipline of schooling.
This will be a significant change to the way things are currently done. Building a school which provides choice for students – primary or secondary - that provides boarding facilities, that ensures kids have a good night’s sleep and a feed, and ensures that there is choice about the education they want to receive - whether it is music, PE or the like – is an approach which will take our current poor results to another level. Clearly, what is occurring now is not working. The opportunity of a secondary school which ensures that the facilities, accommodation, and other things that teachers in the bush are screaming for, could be provided at these secondary institutions.
I return to school attendance and see that 27% of youth are attending school in some locations, and it goes even lower than that - it is all over the place. However, the minister for Education would have access to all the figures about where the students are going to school and where they are not. If we look at the attendance rates, it is clear the first thing we have to do is bring the attendance up. The next component is to make sure we have the facilities there for the youth. The next part is to make sure they have boarding facilities, so they will stay there. Then we need to make sure they have choice of education. There are a myriad of things to take into account.
This is a motion about secondary colleges as a major part of the solution, and it is an opportunity to ensure that education is the hub of the region; it is administered by a board, similar to how the Katherine West Health Board operates, and where the people are in charge.
There are places where we could have a big school. I consider the area between New Store and Ampilatwatja, for people who know where that is, I believe it is in Macdonnell. There is a large catchment of students or potential students in that area who would be supported by their families to go to school, if the school was in their area. They would be supported - and this is my belief - if they were only away for a week, rather than going away for a whole term at a time. They are still local; they can go home on weekends. If the family needs to see them, they are only down the road, so to speak, in terms of the bush.
There is an opportunity to combine Vocational Education and Training in the schooling system as a component in secondary area. If we had a larger approach in the regions, combined with the cultural education model which I spoke about, it would create jobs and it would be the centre of excellence in the community and the way they look upon education for the future. Jobs are a second component.
If we make education more attractive, if it is owned by the people in the regions, allows for choices, and provides boarding facilities during the week, that supports regional development - schools would be the hub.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an approach which would achieve economies of scale, and would most definitely achieve better educational service delivery in the bush.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I will be as succinct as I can. I thank the member for Braitling for covering such a wonderful plan so comprehensively.
This is about boarding schools. It is about the tragic national assessment program numeracy results. It is about a dream that many of us have that the same opportunities could be provided for rural and remote children as they are in larger centres like Darwin and Palmerston.
I worry that we have a government which appears to wait for things to break before they fix them; a government that waits until schools are overflowing before they finally make a decision to do something about them; and a government that waits until essential services completely break down before they do anything. I worry that if this is the process government uses we may be waiting a long time to get a concept like this up and running.
I will read from an Occasional Paper by Reverend Steve Etherington:
Mr CHANDLER: Reverend Steve Etherington went on to say:
Reverend Etherington went on to say:
There are obstacles, as outlined by Reverend Etherington:
the absence of an existing visible and exemplar workforce motivating and supporting school learning;
the dysfunction of home lives and collapse of traditional disciplines; and
the small scale of social groups which makes provision of mainstream educational access impossible.
It is about education, jobs, and so much more. If we need to, we should enforce school attendance - no matter what. As the member for Braitling pointed out, perhaps this is the key. In an organised and well funded way, regardless of objections from successful white people who attended school because they were made to, we need to train and employ specialist police as truancy officers.
I again quote Reverend Etherington:
I will finish with Reverend Steve Etherington saying:
I would seriously like to see this government take on a concept like this. At least, give it some thought. To do any less, as a parliament, is really doing a disservice to our traditional people of the Northern Territory of Australia.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his motion. I genuinely believe what he has said and the attempts he is making, and this parliament agrees with him that there are some major issues out there. We have never denied that. When I became Education minister nearly a year ago and was confronted with the statistics we have in our very remote and remote communities - this is a blight on the Territory. We have to get better and do better, and this government, since 2001, has been doing that.
The investment by this government - not just in dollar terms, but also in policy - by implementing Learning Lessons, is probably the most comprehensive report commissioned. It was commissioned by the CLP government in 1998-99; it could see the pressure it was getting, both nationally and on a state level, and that the statistics confronting them in Indigenous literacy and numeracy were not good enough. The new members on that side might be better informed if they look at Learning Lessons, because that was over 10 years ago. If you look at that report and you look at the scenario today, it creates much frustration, because since 2001 there has been a significant input of funding and resources, and yet we are seeing some of those statistics going backwards.
Member for Braitling, I want you to know part of the history of Learning Lessons. You may not remember, as a new person - I do not know how long you have been in the Territory - the CLP government closed Dhupuma College in 1980, which was probably the best Aboriginal college in Arnhem Land. If you look at those leaders in Arnhem Land such as Mandawuy Yunupingu, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Reggie Wurridjal, who is the leader and senior traditional owner in my community, and Harry Nelson, all have reached high educational attainment - all came out of Dhupuma College. For whatever reason, the CLP of the day did not like it, and decided to close it. There was devastation within those communities and education went backwards. Dhupuma was producing the leaders we see today.
The leaders are getting older and we all recognise that there is a 20 to 30 year gap between those leaders and the younger generation. Residential colleges were part of the landscape in the Northern Territory. The member for Nhulunbuy can tell you that her constituents still talk about Dhupuma. It should have been supported and kept in that region. All of those leaders are very well educated. Mandawuy, Galarrwuy, Reggie, Harry Nelson, and others, are very articulate and well educated leaders.
We have boarding schools in the Territory to cater for secondary students from Years 7 to 12. They are one of a range of options for secondary students living in the remote areas and are supported by the Australian government through Abstudy and the Isolated Student Education Allowance. When parents want their children to continue their education beyond primary school through a boarding school, the following options are available.
There 1111 boarding places available in the Northern Territory with 929 students enrolled and 182 vacancies; 93.9% of these students are Indigenous. Seven schools in the Northern Territory provide onsite boarding facilities for students – St John’s College, which was my old school; and Kormilda College in Darwin; St Philip’s College and Yirara College in Alice Springs; Nyangatjatjarra College; Woolaning Christian School in Litchfield National Park; and Pickertaramoor College, on the Tiwi Islands, a new college. These are just some of those colleges in the remote areas of the Northern Territory.
I note Pickertaramoor College came about because the Tiwi leaders came to a crossroads and there was much anguish among the leaders, such as Walter and Robert Tipungwuti and others, who realised that the 20-year gap between their education and some of our Tiwi kids was too great. Their vision was that the money received from economic development and also the work with the federal government through the 99-year leases, would secure the money to build the facility at Pickertaramoor. It is still early and they are having some problems. The kids go there during the week and then go home on weekends. I know from talking to Peter McNamara there are many teething problems. I take my hat off to Peter McNamara; the Tiwi college is very lucky to have someone like him leading as the principal. He is doing a fantastic job facing and confronting many of the issues.
Marrara Christian School in Darwin operates a group home model for remote students who attend the school. St Mary’s also provides this service for students attending schools in Alice Springs. In Katherine, the department operates a boarding hostel, Callistemon House, for students who attend Katherine High School. Aboriginal Hostels Limited operates Fordimail in Katherine. In Tennant Creek, the Wangkana Kari Hostel accommodates students attending the Tennant Creek High School.
I have no philosophical or ideological opposition to residential colleges - I believe placing them strategically in the regions is a good idea. It is something we commenced over a year ago in negotiations with the federal government. There will be four residential colleges in the Northern Territory.
We will be doing trials in the East Arnhem area, through Transforming Indigenous Education, to set up the same models as the Katherine West Health Board. I was very fortunate to be the founding director of Katherine West Health Board and involved in the establishment and development of that organisation. It is a regional service and it shows that, with community control, you can change the outcomes on the ground. The member for Nhulunbuy will take a big part in driving that process for the communities in her electorate
The second part will be in the Warlpiri Triangle, where a residential college facility will be located for those Warlpiri communities.
I made a statement in this House in April: Transforming Indigenous Education. There were five key principles under that strategy. The first principle was: Taking Control of our Future by setting up the Community Partnership Education Boards, like the Katherine West Health Board model. The second principle was: Sturdy Foundations - early learning development family centres. This recognises that we need residential colleges for secondary education. However, if we are going to make any difference to the NAPLAN results, we have to target early childhood - early childhood and primary education is the area we have to change. I am not saying that we ignore secondary or the middle schools, but we have to do early childhood as well. The third principle was: Staying on Country – a part of that is community-based residential hostels. The fourth principle was: Fit for Learning - health and wellbeing support services. The fifth principle was: Growing our Own – a strategy to build our local Indigenous workforce.
All Aboriginal teachers in our schools are now employed by the department of Education; they are full-time employees. We have transferred the employment contracts of all those Aboriginal teachers and they are now on full-time employment contracts with the department of Education - they are full-time Northern Territory government employees.
The Henderson government, with Transforming Indigenous Education, was looking at an holistic approach to examine and address the outcomes that we wanted and the changes that we need to make to turn around the NAPLAN results, which the member for Braitling talked about. They are not good enough.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the member for Greatorex, who, I believe, said on radio and also in this parliament today - probably one of the bravest statements I have ever heard come out of the mouth of a CLP member – that: ‘Successive CLP governments have failed, successive Labor governments have failed. Governments have failed Aboriginal people’. I am not trying to politicise it or wedge it here; I thought what the member for Greatorex said was quite genuine. It was good to get an honest comment - finally the penny drops with people over there. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex for saying that - he has more guts than some on the other side in this regard.
Member for Braitling, you are absolutely right: attendance is an issue. We now have 30 attendance officers on the ground in those communities, particularly targeting the communities with systemic attendance problems. In my own electorate at Maningrida, where the enrolments are around 600, there are fewer than 100 kids going to school - not good enough - we agree. Tie school attendance to welfare quarantining: that was something we put up years ago to the Prime Minister, John Howard and Mal Brough. We are not against that. I agree with you; we should look at that system. Jenny Macklin made the announcement last year that there are six trial sites in the Northern Territory: Katherine; Tiwi Islands; Maningrida - I can get you the list of the six communities - where we will start trialling tying welfare payments to school attendance in 2009. That is happening, member for Braitling.
The member for Brennan talked about Reverend Steve Etherington. I have had a lot of discussions with Pastor Steve. He was a pastor for a long time at Oenpelli, in Gunbalanya. We had discussions where we agreed and others where we disagreed. One thing that we disagreed on was my view - I sound like a broken record sometimes – that we are not going to fix the plight of children on the ground, in communities, until we deal with substance abuse. Until we are brave enough to get rid of the grog, the ganja, the gambling - all those issues - we are not going to improve the lot of our kids.
I do not just stand in this parliament and say that; I go out there and say that to communities. It is a debate that we take on, as local members in our electorates, every day we are out there, saying that we have to fix up substance abuse. You can give people jobs and we have to create an economy out there; we have to get things happening. However, whilst you have substance abuse in those communities, you are never going to fix the lot of those kids.
I am not saying total prohibition - that is my view. I know that prohibition does not work and that people are entitled to drink. In the debate on substance abuse, people often say it is their right to drink, however, no one ever looks at the rights of the child and whether that child has the right to say: ‘Mum and dad, I do not want you to be drunk tonight, I do not want you to be playing cards, and I actually want to be fed’. Often, people forget the rights of those children.
I agree that education is the way forward. We do have to fix up the system and ensure we have a robust system so we can get the literacy and numeracy outcomes we all want to see. It is the right of those Aboriginal children to have access to the best education system like any child in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs. That is their right. As government, we should be making sure our schools have the resources and are equipped. However, it is not just about the school. You have to fix up the whole environment within the community to make it happen.
I thank you for bringing on this motion, particularly in relation to Indigenous education. I have said this to the member for Araluen regarding issues of child protection - there are certain areas that require bipartisan support. We should be working together to get the best outcomes we can for Indigenous kids in those communities, rather than politicising, nitpicking, and saying our policy is better than your policy - agreeing that this is what is best. We do have to get better.
Member for Braitling, I acknowledge and agree with much of what you said. They are things that we are doing; we are getting on with the job. I have had a number of discussions with Julia Gillard, the federal Education minister, about how we might move forward.
However, I am curious, because the Leader of the Opposition has made statements and I have heard him saying we should be extending the bilingual program, and then I hear you tonight saying that you want to scrap it; that it is a CLP policy. I am confused about who the leader is or who the education spokesperson is, because he says one thing and you say another.
I do not agree with you that we should scrap language and culture; it has an important role to play. However, encouraging those communities to take on English for the first four hours, and making sure that English and maths …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I actually never said scrap language or culture at all. I actually said we should invest in it more.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member be given an extension of time so she can complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you Madam Speaker. Member for Braitling, if you think I have wrongly quoted you, you could do a personal explanation. However, if you read Hansard tomorrow, you will see the CLP policy is that they do not agree with bilingual.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I was just curious. That is all. I am not going to make a big deal of it. However, the Leader of the Opposition says one thing and the member for Braitling says another thing. That is fine. If they cannot get that right, how the hell are they going to get education right? If they cannot decide what they are going to do, if they cannot get that right, how are they going to move forward to fix education in the Northern Territory?
Member for Braitling, we have been publishing the MAP results, the Multi-Assessment Program figures on our website. I posted them from last year. We have been publishing those results since we came to government. They were never published under your mob; there was never any data collected or published by the CLP.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Those MAP results were never published under the CLP.
A member: Shame.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The National Assessment Program, the NAPLAN, results are put onto the website because that is all part of our transparency and accountability. It will ensure Territorians have a clear and transparent understanding of these figures. They will become a permanent feature of the disclosure in the future because it is that kind of disclosure we all require if we are to measure our progress.
We also launched the Accountability and Performance Improvement Framework, which identifies literacy and numeracy targets that have been developed by schools - something they did not do. All schools will use NAPLAN to inform their teaching and learning programs. We also have the schools’ online NAPLAN reporting and analysis tool which will be implemented in all Northern Territory schools from Term 4 of 2008. That tool provides information about student responses to NAPLAN questions and helps identify the literacy and numeracy learning needs of individual students. Our government is committed to quality education for all students. We have a huge challenge in the bush, one that I know we may not get right. However, we have to start somewhere.
We are on the road and moving forward. I know every member, bush members and other members of our government, with support from the Chief Minister, the Treasurer, all my colleagues on this side, are supportive in the challenge ahead. I know that it is a long road, however, it is a challenge we are looking forward to.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Brennan and Arafura for their contributions. It is an important matter and that is why I have not sought to politicise it. However, I did notice that you got a couple of cracks in there at the end - I thought that was really nice.
To clarify my comments on bilingual education,
I said:
I went on to ad lib, however, my notes say:
Therefore, to say that I will be moving away from culture is completely wrong. It is a shame that you have actually said it, because I was listening quite intently.
I will be interested to see whether you support the motion, because it is pretty simple: secondary schools with boarding facilities. You said we copied your current policy. I know there are already institutions out there which provide this service. I believe there needs to be an extension to other areas for more facilities. When you see the 2001 and 2006 census results, which show that fewer than 4000 students are going to school - I do not know what the current figure is – it is clear that something needs to change in policy and program areas, and infrastructure, and how it will be done.
One thing I believe was very strong with the intervention last year - no matter which elements you support or do not support - was the height that Indigenous issues - for want of a better word – reached, where people saw them in a national light. It had a face and it had a person who was fully accountable about those issues - Mal Brough. Whether you agree with what he said or did not say, he was at the forefront providing guidance and leadership on certain issues, and that continued while he was there. He was a person who would make a decision and make sure that the money was there. We hear a lot from the member for Daly about the SIHIP program, which is federal government money, and what came from that - the money that has come to the Territory as a result of Mal Brough being able to take it on the chin, make decisions and get the money - was very important.
The problem we have now in the Northern Territory, that we are all well aware of, is the issues are slowly fading away due to the lack of a face leading the debate. I know the government is still doing things in these areas, however, the lack of someone on the front foot to lead the debate is a serious issue.
Ms Lawrie: Minister Macklin was here this week.
Mr GILES: I do not think that the federal government is a … Sorry, I did not hear that.
Ms Lawrie: I said that minister Macklin was here this week.
Mr GILES: My argument is that the federal government is not providing the leadership which was delivered last year, or what is required to maintain the level of urgency in order to deliver the outcomes we need. The issue of 100% of child welfare payments tied to school attendance is an important issue. I do not believe it should be trialled in six areas; I believe it should be rolled out. If there is bipartisan support we, as a parliament, should be fighting the federal government to roll it out.
Ms Scrymgour: It is not about fighting with them, it is about working with them …
Mr GILES: Well, choose your words however you wish …
Ms Scrymgour: … and we are doing that.
Mr GILES: Things need to happen and they need to happen with a level of urgency. As every day goes - and I know this will take a long time to fix - there is another day on the back end, and maybe that day will multiply or quadruple. We need to continue to move.
We are all well aware of the housing shortages in the bush. The quotes are in the billions of dollars; people throw figures around, but it is around $3bn or $2bn in shortage. If we are spending $547m over the next five years in the SIHIP program, that is not going to be enough. The question is: what policy decisions are taken so we have the money there so we can build those houses? It does not all have to come from government, but something needs to happen. That is why the policy needs to be strengthened.
Madam Speaker, I apologise for not getting up immediately at the end of the minister for Education’s speech. However, I was surprised that on an issue like education, which I believe is quite important, no one else spoke. Everyone is keen to read a scripted speech about a ministerial statement when they know the words, but do not have the ability to talk about something that is important. I have a couple of quotes here from two maiden speeches; I will not name who gave the speeches, I will just read a couple of paragraphs. This is from a maiden speech by a member from the other side:
I quote another sentence:
I quote another one, and will not say whose it is:
Those are three important points people made in their maiden speeches, and I respect that. Despite it being 11 pm, or whatever it is- despite it being late, I would have thought people from the other side would have had a chat about that ...
A member interjecting.
Mr GILES: This is not government propaganda; this is about trying to have a bipartisan approach to solve some issues. To stand up here and try to move something forward and people will not even get up and talk about it, but are happy to talk some nonsense all day long in ministerial statements scripted by one of the 500 or 50 people, or whatever you have working up on level five, is a bit embarrassing. I take my job seriously. I am working here late at night like everyone else. Just because it is late, and it is not a motion put forward by the government, does not mean that members from the other side cannot get up and talk about education and try to work in a bipartisan way. There are ways we can work together on these issues.
Mr Knight: How many spoke on that side? One.
Ms Carney: You do not want too many to speak because you think you will be here too late.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I am going to sit down now. I recognise that the …
Dr Burns: No more sit-down money.
Mr GILES: You support welfare, do you? You support welfare. That is what made you a great ambassador for the Territory. Listen to the man. This is the man …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, you will direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, this is the member for sit-down money. All he cares about is putting welfare out there for people on the ground. We spoke here about how important it is to tie welfare …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member for Braitling likes to get really animated because it is all part of his act. He should just direct his comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: He criticises my colleagues and, yet …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, there is no point of order.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the education shadow spokesperson, the Leader of the Opposition …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, there is no point of order. Deputy Chief Minister, resume your seat.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … did not value this and could not even speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, resume your seat! Member for Braitling, direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr Conlan: That is like the Chief Minister not speaking on the Alice MPI the other night.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting.
Mr GILES: I am quite sure I am facing this way when I am addressing you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the member for Johnston wants to interject about sit-down money. Apparently he wants more welfare ...
A member: Member for sit-down.
Mr GILES: The member for sit-down over here is very keen to see more welfare go out, but he is not keen on jobs …
Dr Burns: Do not verbal me.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: No, they stand there and talk about economic direction of the Third Reich and all that sort of stuff, and about regions but, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty about some real policy approaches, all we get is nonsense comments by the member for sit-down money about: ‘Let us have more sit-down’. Fair dinkum, mate, this is about education. I stood up here and tried to have a proper policy debate, Madam Speaker, and to have nonsense at the end is a joke, and that is how …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Order!
Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The question has already been put.
The question is that the motion be now agreed to.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pink Ribbon Day
Pink Ribbon Day
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is very nice to look out and see a sea of pink. I thank you for being involved in this Pink Ribbon Day. I look forward to us having a photograph taken later in the day at 1.50 pm, just before Question Time. I am also giving away four gift vouchers, but I think I must exempt members from being possible awardees, although I will see what the staff look like. I have invited staff to join us at 1.45 pm and we will get a group photograph which we will send to the Breast Cancer Foundation as a show of support from our parliament.
PETITIONS
Birth and Death Certificates
Birth and Death Certificates
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2972 petitioners relating to official birth and death certificates. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- We, the undersigned, request that the Australian government, in particular the Northern Territory government, agree to amend the current Births, Deaths and Marriages legislation to include that parents are given the right to request and receive an official Birth and Death certificate for their baby born pre-20 weeks gestation as set out in the private members bill – The Kaden Bill.
Royal Darwin Hospital Review
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 659 petitioners praying that an independent review be commissioned to assess the adequacy of the resources, policies, procedures and systems at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Mr ELFERINK: I just wanted to make a few comments to the motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think so, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it is a motion, Madam Speaker. He has moved a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice, thank you. Member for Port Darwin, you can seek leave to speak.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak.
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory,
We, the undersigned, respectfully show that we are angry and upset by the avoidable death of 64-year-old Margaret Winter at the Royal Darwin Hospital in 2006.
We are alarmed by the Northern Territory Coroner Greg Cavanagh’s findings that indicate the conditions in the Royal Darwin Hospital were dangerous due to
inadequate staffing.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately commission an independent review to assess the adequacy of the
resources, policies, procedures and systems at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services to deliver safe health care to all Territorians. As a matter of
urgency, the review should investigate the staffing levels of nurses and doctors to assess whether patients are at risk due to low staffing levels.
We request that the independent review be made public in its entirety and that the recommendations be implemented immediately. Your petitioners, as in duty
bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Australian Dollar Value – Business Uncertainties
Australian Dollar Value – Business Uncertainties
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, last week I gave a report to this House on the global financial crisis and the potential impacts on the Northern Territory. At the time, I pointed out that the Northern Territory was well positioned to cope with an uncertain global future; we have a sound financial position. Our economy is strong and the INPEX project adds an extra level of insurance against the crisis.
In the weeks since I provided this report, the Australian dollar has continued to decline in value against the United States dollar. Earlier this year, the Australian dollar was trading in the high 90s, up to around US98, and people were contemplating the possibility of crashing through the $US1 mark. The Australian dollar is now close to a five-year low and, while we still face the potential of it dropping below US60, it did rebound overnight to gain 3 to 64. Such volatility is not confined to the Australian dollar. The Japanese Yen fell 5% against the US dollar in yesterday’s trading session.
In recent days, the Reserve Bank of Australia has been intervening by purchasing Australian dollars to prop up its value. A declining Australian dollar brings mixed views for Australian and Territory businesses. For importers, a declining dollar can be damaging as the goods they import become more expensive, although it should be mentioned that large capital equipment items, particularly for heavy industry, usually have hedging contracts in place that limit the effects of currency fluctuations. Territory exporters can stand to benefit. Cattle exporters can expect a positive effect as their cattle become more competitively priced on international markets.
Tourism, in particular, has the potential to receive a boost as the purchasing power of international tourists is improved. There is also potential benefit from domestic tourism as Australians choose to holiday in their own country to avoid the increased cost of international travel. On a declining dollar alone, the Territory mining industry would stand to benefit, but there are factors at present that can potentially affect the industry. Territory mining will be affected to the extent that their contracts are set in US dollars. Their profits in Australian dollars may rise, but this could be offset by falling commodity prices and falling demand.
Growth in China is expected to moderate, and this has the potential to affect the Territory. However, there is also the widely-held view that the Chinese government will not let it moderate too dramatically and will step in with government expenditure to keep growth stable. China, like many other countries, has lowered its official cash rate to help stimulate economic activity. Like most aspects of this global crisis, it is not possible to accurately predict the impact it will have on China and the flow-on effects to Australia and our own Territory.
From a government perspective, borrowings in the Territory budget are not affected, as we did not, and do not intend to, borrow internationally. The Rudd government has continued to take the implications of the global crisis very seriously. They have proven they are ready to act as necessary to protect the interests of Australian families as best they can. Since my report last week, they have continued to act with further initiatives, including a package of measures designed to support small business through the crisis and an $83m funding boost to financial regulators to ensure they have the resources required to deal with the crisis and protect Australia’s interests.
Despite these recent changes, the fundamentals of the report I provided last week remain true. Under the Henderson government, the Northern Territory is in a very sound financial position. Our economy is strong and, with record low unemployment, we are well placed. The INPEX project remains an insurance policy against an uncertain financial future. Overnight, the Dow Jones went up 11% in the US, the second highest point gain ever. In early trading this morning, this rise has flowed on to the Australian market. It is encouraging but it really only proves one thing: things are still not stable and we continue to face that uncertainty and volatility. The Northern Territory government will continue to monitor the situation very closely and do everything it can to ensure Territory families are not adversely affected.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one dorothy dixer, two ministerial reports, and a holiday is this Treasurer’s response to the international financial crisis. This is a matter of great import for the Territory. It is all very well for the Treasurer to come in here and say INPEX will improve the numbers for the Territory because it is going to go up because of the lower Australian dollar. Whilst gas in/gas out through the proposed project is valued at $50bn, the ACIL Tasman report identified that, from a taxation income, a projection of about $10m a year is about it for the Northern Territory.
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - the Treasurer can do, in such a small economy as the one she is in charge of in the Northern Territory to, in any way, affect the international financial crisis. I do not believe that she is, in actual fact, trying to claim that she can. However, she should be keeping the House much better informed than two ministerial reports, one dorothy dixer and a holiday.
There are areas where this government is exposed and they are not talking about it, not least of which is the decision by government to place the Conditions of Service Reserve into the hands of financial managers, which are now playing out on the stock market. If the minister really wants to tell us about the exposure of the Northern Territory in relation to the current situation the government faces in terms of exposure to the stock market, then answer this one simple question: what was the Community Benefit Reserve worth 12 months ago, and what is it worth today? And, will you assure Territorians that you will not touch the Community Benefit Reserve other than for the purpose it was created, which is to offset against superannuation funds into the future? Otherwise this report, as usual, is a farce.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin beats his chest and likes to fling accusations across the Chamber …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … but the reality is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … the Northern Territory government is acutely aware of what it can do to ensure confidence - and confidence is a key issue during this volatility - in our local economy. Just as we saw the Rudd government come forward with a $10.4bn economic stimulus package around the confidence and the opportunity for Australians when times are tough, the Territory government this week came forward with a $6m economic stimulus package in our residential housing.
The member for Port Darwin is wrong in saying that we are doing nothing, but quite correct in saying that we cannot affect the global financial market. We take these matters very seriously. ACOSA is absolutely sound. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report will show the figures which the shadow Treasurer is so keen to see.
Mr Elferink: When is that going to be tabled?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I draw your attention …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, order!
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Marrara Christian School Year 7 students, accompanied by Mrs Anna Clark and Mr Jon Russo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Workplace Safety – Housing Construction Sector
Workplace Safety – Housing Construction Sector
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak of important developments under way since I assumed the role of minister for Workplace Health and Safety, in particular the creation of a forum to constructively resolve work safety issues in the housing sector.
The Northern Territory economy has been expanding rapidly over the past five years. Many construction industries, including the housing construction sector, have faced challenges to meet demand arising from this strong economic environment. The INPEX decision will inevitably heighten demand for the entire range of construction services in the Top End. The government is planning ahead to ensure this growth is managed efficiently.
There have also been substantial and ongoing reforms of work safety over the past 18 months at the national and Territory levels. Australian and national standards have been developed for particular matters, such as electrical installation, which form part of all jurisdictions’ regulations and can be found in regulation schedules. Other Australian standards are not referenced in regulations and have no primary legal status. They are developed to provide industry with information and guidelines for safe methods of operation, construction and design. Codes of practice are also in place which, while not having the same status as law, provide practical guidance on how to control risk and set minimum standards required to meet legal obligations.
Most importantly, in the Northern Territory, the Workplace Health and Safety Act commenced operation earlier this year, following extensive consultation with industry. The interaction of these various levels of regulation and guidelines can be undeniably complex, but the goal is simple. In this area of skills shortages across Australia, attracting and keeping skilled workers is a key issue for Territory businesses. A safe working environment is essential to attracting and retaining workers. We need to keep our workers on-site and working safely.
The housing, or cottage industry, as it is called, has expressed some uncertainly as to what these national regulatory reforms mean regarding enforcement of safe working practices on construction sites; and fair enough, it is a complex area of law. To assist in the implementation and understanding of these changes, and following discussions with industry groups and companies, I have formed the Housing Industry Consultative Committee. The committee will meet regularly to work through industry queries and concerns.
I am pleased to inform the House that the former CEO of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Mr John Pinney, has taken on the role of an independent facilitator and will chair proceedings. The committee is made up of individual builders, representatives from the HIA and the TCA, a subcontractor and Northern Territory WorkSafe.
The committee met for the first time on Monday, 20 October, with further meetings scheduled for November and December. I welcome the opportunity to meet representatives at the October meeting held in Parliament House and have made the commitment to attend all meetings to ensure all parties have the ability to raise issues directly with me. The committee will provide advice to government on how the Territory can continue to harmonise workplace safety regulations with national standards, while minimising cost to the Northern Territory housing construction sector. I look forward to the committee’s recommendations coming to me for action in December.
I conclude by noting that in the Territory we are lucky to have some of the best builders and subcontractors around. They are homegrown and have been on Darwin work sites, many of them, for decades; or, they are new to town, attracted by ready work and a great lifestyle, and we want those people to stay.
This government wants to work with industry to maintain appropriate safety levels, but ensure they are free to get the job done. Judging by the discussions from our first meeting and the positive feedback that I have had, I believe we are on track to ensure a strong, safe housing industry sector for the Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his statement. Of course, workplace health and safety is an important issue. We know the TCA has come out and said its concern is that the relatively new legislation will create an additional impost on construction. It is always a case of getting the balance right. I am sure, well, I like to think, that government, if convinced that it does not have the balance right in its ongoing meetings with those involved in the industry, that it would come back and amend the legislation. Government is not shy of amending legislation and certainly not shy of amending the legislation if it is wrong, which is happening on an increasing basis.
I note that the member for Johnston as Attorney-General is talking reasonably passionately about safety in the workplace. It is a shame that he and his colleagues do not regard safety in the community as important. We have on the Notice Paper, for instance, from 18 September, this statement of government increasing police presence to make communities safer. It has not been revisited since we came back to these sittings.
On the government’s present appalling form, it does not look like you are going to get to it either. On the one hand you say: ‘We are very concerned about workplace safety’. You should be concerned about the safety of all Territorians in every community around the Territory which is why you should not be so soft on crime, and why you should have supported our amendments to both the Bail Act and the Sentencing Act. You are a bunch of hypocrites. How you can sit there and spin the sort of diatribe you do is, frankly, beyond comprehension.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. The Leader of the Opposition and I met with some builders earlier this year and they certainly had concerns about the increase in safety requirements. As the member for Araluen said, we have to find the balance between safety and the cost of building. One of their concerns was that some of these changes were based on Commonwealth requirements for industrial safety on industrial buildings.
Another area they were concerned about is that some of these changes were based on figures regarding fatalities and injuries on building sites in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that when one of these builders asked for details of where these fatalities and injuries occurred, he was not permitted to have those details.
I ask the minister that when this committee is up and running that some of the questions the builders have put forward are adequately answered. I believe they are reasonable questions. No one denies the fact that we have to make sure that builders on building sites are safe, but we have to make sure that we keep our feet on the ground - it might to be the wrong pun to use in this case - but we need to make sure that the changes some people are putting forward are practical and reasonable and not beyond the scope of reality.
I welcome the minister’s idea of having this committee. If it goes to finding solutions to the problems builders have and still keeps our workers safe, it would be great.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that this is a government that is concerned with the safety of Territorians, whether it is on the streets, or in their homes. This specific report was about safety in the workplace and this is something that is of great concern to government. There can be nothing worse for a family than someone to come home from the worksite severely injured or, even worse, for a breadwinner not to come home at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: This is serious stuff, and I will say it again, this is a complex area of law. We have Commonwealth regulations and Commonwealth guidelines that, as I understand it, may have been implemented or moved along in consultation with national industry bodies and not the sort of engagement that really should have occurred at a local level. So that is one of the issues …
Mr Conlan: What are you saying?
Dr BURNS: Well, we are talking over a considerable period of time, members opposite. So that is one of the issues we are dealing with; and interaction between what is a guideline and what is actually statute. I have every confidence in this committee working through these issues. I also thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I thank him for his support for this particular committee and I will endeavour to get that information to him.
Shire Councils – Inaugural Elections
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report on the inaugural elections for our new shire councils held on Saturday, 25 October 2008. This day was a truly historic day; a day when Territorians had their say on who will represent them as councillors in our brand new shire councils.
Two years after the announcement of our local government reforms we will soon see councillors take their place as the leaders of the shire councils, and our long awaited new era of local government in the Territory will properly begin. A new era with the great majority of the Territory now incorporated within the local government area, a system of solid and well managed shire councils replacing the inherently unstable mix of small, isolated and financially unstable local government bodies. It is a new era of consistent service delivery for Territorians living in the bush and a revised and refreshed Local Government Act.
There were 31 elections held across the Territory on Saturday: a popular election for shire president of the Barkly Shire and a popular election for the president of the Litchfield Council; and elections for councillors to represent the 29 local government wards.
Honourable members will be aware that there has been media commentary about some voters being unaware of the election or of the policies of candidates. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission was engaged by the shires to conduct the elections and to ensure the accountability and impartiality of the electoral process. Promotional work began in July 2008 with community visits and an enrolment drive. In recent months, the Department of Local Government and Housing regional staff, in cooperation with shire staff, have conducted many visits across the Territory, providing information and raising awareness of the elections and the opportunity of shire residents to have their say in the development of their shires.
More recently, there have been television commercials on regional stations; extensive radio advertising, including in local Indigenous language; posters; audio information in local Indigenous languages; information flyers; presentations, and using our local government reform website to get the message out.
In relation to publicity and information about candidates’ policies, there are four key issues: candidates are responsible for promoting their policies; voters have some responsibility to inform themselves and take advantage of information sources; the level of local media reporting of candidates and their views; and the role of government and the extent to which it might financially support candidates’ information being available, without becoming involved in promoting individual candidates. These are issues across Australia and I look forward to any comments the Electoral Commissioner, the expert in conducting elections, has in these issues following the review of the elections.
In recent days there has been media comment about low voter turn out. We need to ensure we are commenting on the facts, not speculation. I will wait with interest to see the final figures relating to voter participation. I expect the answer is that there will be some patchiness - high voter turn out in some areas and low numbers in other areas - reflecting the multitude of factors which influence voter participation.
A total of 211 candidates contested 117 positions for elected members in our new shires, as well as councillors for Coomalie, Litchfield, and Wagait Councils. I was impressed by many prominent and well-known community members nominating as candidates; Territorians put up their hands to be part of the future of local government in the Territory. I commend Territorians making the commitment to stand for election, and I congratulate those who will be announced on 3 November 2008 as the elected councillors.
I am expecting council meetings will be held within 14 days of the declaration of the results, and I am looking forward to meeting and working with the newly-elected councils.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Local Government for his report this morning. I join with him in congratulating the successful candidates in the election held on Saturday, even though those results will not be announced until probably late this week or early next week. I also commend the people who put their hand up to represent the people in their particular wards. It is important that local people in the Northern Territory get involved in their shires, bring to those shires their opinions and ideas, and have a say on how the local government system will work in their particular areas.
However, I note that there was an extremely low voter turn out on Saturday. If the government can be believed, that was the result of poor advertising or whatever; I do not know. Maybe the candidates did not get out enough and state their intentions and their policies. The bottom line is - and I am not a betting man, but if I were - I would put money on the fact that many people did not bother to vote on Saturday because they feel defeated. They feel defeated because the system, the new government reform, has let them down in so many areas. It was a rushed process. Although there was some consultation it is widely recognised across those shires that the consultation was simply not listened to by the government. I feel that the low voter turn out reflects the manner and the way this local government reform was implemented, at the beginning through its early stages and through until the present time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I make one note at the beginning. The minister keeps harping on the so-called fact that many councils were in a bad state, and obviously some were. However, when you make a broad statement like that, you actually put down those councils that were quite financially viable, who had hard-working CEOs and hard-working councillors working for their community. Nauiyu council, for example, was a good council, and there were quite a few others. The government, in its argument about having super shires, should ensure it does not denigrate those good councils which operated well but were amalgamated in the amalgamation process.
I agree with the minister that one of the problems with local government councils - whether it is a super shire, Litchfield Shire, or small councils - is that local government, unfortunately, does not rate very highly in peoples’ ideas of government or their concerns about government, until the rates turn up, or the pothole occurs outside their front gate. Therefore, it requires candidates to make more effort to go out into the community and say who they are. That is a big enough problem in Litchfield Shire, which has just four wards. This is one of the problems which will continue with the huge councils.
One of the northern councils in the Barkly Shire, at the last count I saw, 199 people had voted. There were three candidates. It is about a third the size of Victoria. Even though it might be easy for me to stand here today and say: ‘Go out and tell people who you are’, can you imagine the effort that is required to go out to all places in such a big area?
There is a role for LGANT - it needs to go out there as well. Because the councils did not have councillors when they started, the CEOs could also have played an important role in promoting the elections. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. It is very much about getting involved. These councils do a great job. They are on the ground doing the basic services they need to, and playing a key role in regional development. This process of local government reform has been coming for over 10 years. Both sides of the House, and the Independent, have said there is a need for local government reform. It was this government that delivered it and we will work with what we have and it will evolve over time.
I believe it is about moving ahead. We have a new structure, new legislation, and new leaders. We all need to embrace them and support them in delivering local government reform, but also playing a key role in regional development. I accept the comments made by the member for Nelson about Nauiyu Nambiyu. It is a good council. I hope that all communities within the Victoria Daly Shire come up to the standard that Nauiyu Nambiyu set within its functions. I look forward to working with them in the future.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VIOLENT OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 4)
(Serial 4)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is an important bill, though any attempt to explain this to members opposite will require an extraordinary effort on the part of opposition. The capacity to hear and understand beyond spin appears to elude this government. When we went to the early election that was called on supposed grounds, the good people of the Northern Territory assessed those grounds and found those grounds wanting. It was a spurious call.
The community was very concerned, and remains very concerned, about the need to shift the balance from offender to victim - to redress the balance. Those good folk in our community have weighed very carefully the attitude and the actions of this Labor government. In running a campaign, if your objective is solely and predominantly to hold onto power, as we have seen, a government - this government - will do whatever it takes to achieve that objective. And that comes to the issue of the messages that are delivered and the impression that has been established in the minds of the community. Fortunately, due to the good judgement of the community, they have found the message wanting in its credibility and believability. They know that there is a need for a firm and clear response to the issue of violent assaults in our community. They are on the rise, and the community is desperate for leadership to be exercised to send the strongest possible message to those who have the capacity to inflict violence on other members of our community.
With that in mind, and speaking in a political context, government recognised that and were able, with their significant resources – much of those not ethical resources – to draw upon the resources of government and to paint a picture for the purposes of holding onto power. That being: ‘We recognise your problem, community, we recognise there needs to be a strong stance taken against those who visit violence upon citizens and, make no mistake, we are going to get tough’. So said the glossy brochures and public messages.
Sadly, the substance of that was not matched by the spin. Fortunately, the community have made that judgment. They have seen the actions and have assessed the attitude of this government which is more inclined to side with the offender than to stand robustly alongside the victim and stand up for what is right.
This bill is an attempt to assist government to move closer to a place of credibility and restore trust in the government by the community. To say that you are going to get tough and to use words such as ‘actual prison time’, in substance, does not effect the changes that are required. There needs to be an absolutely clear, beyond reasonable doubt - or any doubt - message sent to those who commit violent offences.
The fine point here, which may elude members opposite, is that behind the rhetoric and the spin, there is still the capacity for a sentence to be imposed which is: ‘until the rising of the court’. At that point we differ. We want to be absolutely clear about that and ensure we make that beyond any possibility in the interests of standing up for what is right, that is: sending a strong message to those in our community who visit violence upon other citizens.
The bill amends the Sentencing Act and sets out specific, minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offences and all second and subsequent offences. The bill removes the ability for suspension of any of the minimum sentence and suspension of sentence for second and subsequent offences within 10 years of conviction of a previous violent offence.
The current arrangements provide for gaol time, however, this may simply be ‘to the rising of the court’. That is the concern. That is what is not revealed in any of the advertisements or the public statements of this government - to their shame. It is not beyond the capacity of this government, in the interests of political manoeuvring and the acquisition of power, to reach out and lodge deliberately an impression which is not true.
There needs to be a change. It needs to be beyond the capacity for a sentence to be imposed ‘to the rising of the court’. For those who have suffered violence and those who want to see standards defended and protected, they need to know there is a strong and clear response and consequence. That is what they expect. If you want to restore law and order, you need to have a strong position, such as this. Anything less than that creates confusion and resulting disorder within the community.
The amendments will allow the court to decide the outcomes for first time offenders, except where serious harm is caused to the victim. Much was made of this during the campaign. Perhaps it was a first time offence: a person glassed another person in a front bar in Mitchell Street, and inflicted serious harm. There should be no doubt. In that case, there would be six months as the minimum - no possibility of wriggle room - so the community can see there is an absolutely clear response.
The purpose of this is to defend a principle to not favour the offender in any way. The moment we move our attitude towards the offender, we have lost our connection with the levers necessary to strengthen the notion of consequence for action and developing a defence within our community. So that some security is developed within the community, there needs to be a minimum sentence. It could be more than that, but that is the minimum. At this point, it is possible for it to be imposed ‘until the rising of the court’. That is possible. I think the community needs better than that.
That is what this amendment provides and I will outline how this clarity can be established if this bill were supported. The support for this bill will salvage some credibility for government which said one thing and, in fact, did something quite different. It also goes to a Chief Minister saying: ‘I have heard the community, and I will now respond to what I have heard’. Here is another opportunity.
Principally, there is a new section called Section 78BA, which only applies to adults and it is as follows. It sets out who the act will apply to. It sets out that the court must record a conviction and impose a term of imprisonment. It prevents the court from suspending any part of the sentence for an offender who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence within the preceding 10 years - it makes it clear. It allows the court to suspend the sentence in part but not in part in other cases. It sets out the various minimum periods of imprisonment. It excludes the possibility of ‘until the rising of the court’. That is the point; the point that this government did not take the time to communicate.
If they were truly open, honest, and transparent, as they plainly are not, they would have made that clear. They did not, in the interests of establishing an impression for the purpose of holding onto power. And they are only holding on by the narrowest of margins. That is not something for us to gloat upon, but it is to reflect on the community that expects more. They expect honesty when you are dealing with matters of genuine concern to our community. They expressed that concern quite plainly and a Chief Minister said quite clearly he was now listening. Well, what else was he to say?
The community was judging the Chief Minister when he said that, and I trust the community were caused to check to see whether they could listen and respond to what the Chief Minister had to say at that time. How would they judge that? By the actions that followed. And what actions followed? Little. There were opportunities in the first session of parliament to act on that by bringing forward these changes, but they failed to take that opportunity, failed to follow through. There is a vast difference between saying something only or saying something and then acting.
People are beyond the point. You know that cynicism is increasing in the community with regard to those who hold office, and that cynicism is fed by those who say things but do not act. The community has had enough and they are calling out for real leadership. The government has had its opportunity and has failed. This Chief Minister has failed. Making a statement such as that to the face of the community, after leading them to an early election and not following through, is appalling. It will visit upon this government until the day we go to the polls again.
There are various minimum periods of imprisonment. For the second violent offence, serious harm - 12 months, full stop. The minimum for an adult first violent offence, serious harm - six months. That was an impression that was gained but not carried through in the substance of actions of this government in this Chamber. Adult second violent offence – (a) and (b) do not apply and aggravated circumstances - three months. And so on, Madam Speaker.
The principle of this is to actually deliver what you have said you would deliver. This provides the opportunity for the government to remove those blights upon their record in this community, to stand up for the victims, and to do something that reinforces the basic principles of bringing down a strong and clear response to those who visit violence upon citizens. Put it beyond doubt, so we can restore confidence in the decisions made on their behalf; restore their confidence in those who are charged with the responsibility of leadership, particularly in the primary issue of establishing a sense of order within our community, and that only comes through respect for law, so that games are not played. There is a minimum sentence.
I urge honourable members, in the spirit of those utterances which were made to the community, to support this amendment so there is a true strengthening of law and ensuing social order within our community by good and honest leadership, so that we speak plainly and act upon what we say.
Madam Speaker, I also table the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Acute Care Services NT Review Committee - Establishment
Acute Care Services NT Review Committee - Establishment
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
1. Establishes a select committee to be known as the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee.
one Independent member; and assisted by a representative from the Australian Nursing Federation of the Northern Territory; a representative
from the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory; one person with experience in the public health sector. The Chair to be
nominated by the Leader of Government Business, and a Deputy Chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
3. The terms of reference for the committee are to:
(a) investigate acute care services in the Northern Territory, with particular focus on the required level of nurse staffing levels
to deliver patient care;
into the death of Mrs Margaret Winter; and
(c) provide an analysis of the matters and make recommendations to this parliament.
4. In establishing the select committee, the Assembly does so subject to the Speaker tabling in the Assembly for its adoption a determination
authorising the operational structure levels and terms and conditions of payment and meeting sitting fees, travel allowances paid to the
committee members in similar terms to that of the Statehood Steering Committee.
5. The committee be empowered to compel evidence in accordance with Chapter XXVIII of the Standing Orders of the Assembly.
6. The Assembly requires the Chair of the select committee to report to the Assembly no later than the final sitting day in
February 2009, including in its report any and all recommendations.
Madam Speaker, we have brought this motion because of the systemic failures in the Northern Territory health system which were highlighted in the last parliamentary sittings, on numerous occasions and, most recently, following the very serious and tragic circumstances surrounding the death of 65-year-old Margaret Winter. In fact, the Coroner has said that the Health department contributed to the death of Mrs Winter. He said on page 1 of his Coroner’s report:
- I find that her death may well have been preventable. Nursing staffing deficiencies on 13 December 2006 contributed to both the fall and the failure to do observations;
the total number of nurses was too low, the proportion of agency and overtime nurses and nurses from a different area in the hospital were too high, and nursing skills
mix was problematic. This situation was compounded by barriers to calling in additional nurses if patient acuity required it. This was not a one-off situation but a
representation of a nursing staffing crisis at the Royal Darwin Hospital in 2006-07.
I will just repeat that:
- This was not a one-off situation but a representation of a nursing staffing crisis at the Royal Darwin Hospital in 2006-07.
It did not take many pages in the Coroner’s report to indicate very clearly what the reason was for the preventable death of Mrs Margaret Winter. What is worse, not only was Mrs Winter’s death preventable, but so were the numerous policy decisions that led to the circumstances on 13 December and, in fact, the long-term issues surrounding nurse staffing issues at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The Coroner found that the numbers of nurses on duty that day were too low - far to low. The Coroner had to call in an expert on nursing numbers to give evidence, given the failure of the department to cooperate to determine the adequacy of nursing staff. The expert was Professor Duffield from the University of Technology who gave evidence that on the night in question there should have been 25 nurses for 33 patients. On that night, Ward 4A had 18 nurses, so they were seven short.
As we know, the crisis started well before Mrs Winter’s preventable death. My predecessor, the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Minister for Health, Dr Richard Lim, stated in media releases - I can go back to 5 February 2007:
- 1100 Ways to Reduce the Quality of Hospital Care.
The Territory opposition has been informed that the Royal Darwin Hospital nurses’ roster will be short by a staggering 1100 nursing shifts for the month of February.
‘A daily shortage of 37 to 38 nurses to fill shifts is placing enormous pressure on the rest of the nursing staff at the RDH,’ says Dr Richard Lim, Shadow Minister for Health.
‘Such gaping holes in the nursing roster are undermining the RDH’s capacity to deliver an acceptable standard of health care.
‘It means existing nurses are being asked to work excessive overtime, to the point where the nurse’s own health is placed at risk and patient care is compromised’.
On 14 February 2007:
Nursing Our Hospitals Back to Health.
- Documents presented by the opposition in parliament today show Territory Health is short some 144 nursing positions.
The opposition tabled the Northern Territory Nursing Workload Review in 2005, showing the Territory has: …an overall shortfall of approximately 82 nursing (full-time
equivalent) positions. Page 23 for this financial year indicates a further 62 nursing positions vacant.
Highlighted more than 18 months ago:
- ‘Emergency Department at Breaking Point’:
- The conversion of part of the emergency waiting room into the treatment bay at the Royal Darwin Hospital highlights the deepening crisis engulfing the health system
in the Northern Territory.
‘Last week, it was patients were being examined in the back of ambulances in parking bays. Today, it is patients being nursed and examined behind office dividers.
Makeshift office dividers with sheets draped over them do not provide the necessary privacy and security that people need when undergoing examination by a
doctor’, says Dr Richard Lim, Shadow Minister for Health.
On 22 February:
- In the real world, Alice Springs Hospital, 27 nurses short. The Territory opposition has confirmed that the Alice Springs Hospital has both a full complement of rostered
nurses while being 27 nurses short at the same time.
Which one is it, Madam Speaker? The confusion in the numbers comes from setting the establishment figure for nurses at a very low number. The establishment figure is a bureaucratic calculation of the number of nurses needed to operate the hospital, based on projected patient numbers. The gap comes from a clash between the unrealistic bureaucratic estimate of future patient numbers and the reality of more and more patients coming through the door.
We have seen similar circumstances with police numbers across the Northern Territory.
Also on 22 February, ‘Perhaps Burns Really is Sergeant Shultz’ …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, on 22 February 2007:
- Health Minister Chris Burns’ performance in parliament today confirms he has failed to master the detail of his portfolio, says the Territory opposition. ‘In fact,
it was totally incompetent,’ says Dr Richard Lim, Opposition Health spokesperson. ‘For almost a fortnight the minister has floundered around in the crisis
affecting the Northern Territory health system.’
This is not new, this is 18 months old:
- ‘At no stage has the minister demonstrated a sound grip of the issues the last fortnight has presented.’
Dr Burns: Who are you quoting there?
Mr CONLAN: This is a media release from former shadow Health Minister, Dr Richard Lim, minister:
At first …
Dr Burns: Is that in relation to payslips?
Mr CONLAN: This is in relation to your ability to perform as a minister.
Dr Burns: Well, we might move back to that.
Mr CONLAN: This is what it this all about. It goes to the heart of your credibility, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you keep as close as possible to the motion which you put before the House.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am demonstrating the systemic failures across the Northern Territory Health system.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it does not discuss the minister’s abilities in the motion. Please keep it as close as possible to the motion, thank you.
Dr Burns: That was 27 February 2007, that media release from Dr Lim?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: On 22 February 2007.
Dr Burns: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: You go and track that down. Nevertheless, whatever it is about, it demonstrates the inability of the Health Minister to get a grip on the health system in the Northern Territory, hence why we have systemic failures, hence why the opposition is calling for a review. It is very simple. There we have it, a highlight of examples going way back to early 2007.
We have two Executive Directors of Nursing, Marie Hughes and Professor Di Brown, both saying before and after the events of this crisis - that is the death of Mrs Margaret Winter - that it is harming patients. We have the NT Branch of the Nursing Federation saying that the safety and wellbeing of patients and nurses are being put at risk because of the crisis. The General Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital in the Coroner’s report, page 46, said:
- RDH is inadequately staffed by nurses to meet patient needs. To compensate for this, nursing staff have been asked to work increasing amounts of overtime and
agency staff are extensively used. Despite this, many of the wards are still understaffed and the skill mix is poor. For example, in the roster period beginning
February 8, there were over 1100 unfilled shifts and as many as 55 shifts a day staffed through overtime and agency employment.
One of the most appalling events of this sorry saga is the minister’s unwillingness, of course, to accept any responsibility for the nursing staffing crisis at RDH which led us to this health crisis and has led this opposition to call for a review. We have pointed out, in no uncertain terms, this death could have been prevented if the Health Minister and his department heads had done their jobs properly.
The Coroner also stated:
- This was not a one-off situation but a representation of a nursing staffing crisis at the Royal Darwin Hospital in 2006-7.
- The Northern Territory government stood by its health staffing record today while denouncing the opposition’s attempts to politicise the current EBAs.
In the Hansard on 11 October 2007, the Health Minister says:
- Since becoming Health Minister, I have actively worked with the department and senior management team at RDH …
I believe someone needs to explain the meaning of the word ‘actively’ to the minister because he has clearly failed in his attempts to address the problems facing the Royal Darwin Hospital and, in particular, the nursing staffing crisis facing the Northern Territory.
Ms Carney: He has consistently failed.
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely, member for Araluen, consistently failed and, as we have pointed out, this is not new - this has been going on for a quite a while.
The Coroner has accepted, as we do, that there are problems securing nurses in the Northern Territory. However, he does not accept, and nor do we, the department’s position that recruiting difficulties, outside the department’s control, were the key cause of staffing issues in 2006. This goes a lot deeper. How deep? We do not know. This is the reason to establish an acute care review committee. How systemic is this? Is this just confined to the Royal Darwin Hospital? Are other health facilities in the Northern Territory stretched to breaking point? These are questions that need to be asked and we owe it to Territorians to find the answers to them.
Are other hospitals exposed to this crisis as much as the Royal Darwin Hospital, as highlighted in the Coroner’s report into the death of Margaret Winter, released on 4 September 2008? Does the Tennant Creek Hospital have the same issues facing the Royal Darwin Hospital, albeit on a smaller scale? Does the Gove Hospital have similar issues? Does Katherine Hospital? Does Alice Springs Hospital? Do they have the same issues that have been highlighted at the Royal Darwin Hospital? I suspect that there are issues.
I suspect there are some very serious issues facing these hospitals. I have toured these hospitals and spoken to health professionals across the Northern Territory in an official and unofficial capacity. I know that there are problems. How deep they go, we do not know, and that is the reason the Northern Territory opposition called for this inquiry.
The minister has criticised this, citing travel allowances and sitting fees and the like, as the motivation for the inquiry. Frankly, it just seems absurd and it is insulting to members of this parliament, some of whom will make up this committee, and to health professionals who will, potentially, be part of this select committee, not to mention the general public who deserve the answers and to view the findings of this committee if the government agrees to it.
Acute health care is defined as ‘treatment of a disease for a short period of time in which a patient is treated for a brief but severe episode of illness’. I turn to Aboriginal health, very briefly, and highlight this from an NT Review of Medical Education and Training. This report came out in October last year; it is about 12 months old. I will read briefly from this on Indigenous health issues.
- Indigenous Territorians suffer the worst health status in the world on some indicators, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular disease and renal disease. These reach epidemic
proportions in some remote parts of Australia, especially in the 1216 discrete, very remote Indigenous communities which house some 108 085 people nationally. This is
approximately one quarter of the total Australian population, of whom over half live in the Northern Territory.
In remote communities, Indigenous infants and children suffer 3.9 times the rate of respiratory disease, 3.6 times the rate of skin infections, 5 times the rate of intestinal
infections and have extremely high rates of otitis media resulting in hearing problems prior to starting school, when compared to other Australian children.
To put the health status of the NT Indigenous peoples into perspective, between 2000/01 and 2002/03, excluding day admissions to renal dialysis, about 7% of the Northern
Territory Department of Health and Community Services hospital resources were used for hospitalisations directly caused by acute manifestations of chronic diseases. When
renal dialysis is included this accounts for approximately 45% of hospital resources spent on chronic disease related hospitalisations.
Madam Speaker, we can see that Indigenous health in the Northern Territory and acute care treatment is staggering when you take into account those facts and figures.
I believe that the Northern Territory has not only the ability but a responsibility to be leading the way in Indigenous health. We should be punching above our weight and we should be showing the other states and territories that we mean business when it comes to addressing Indigenous health. We are a small jurisdiction, we cannot do everything, but we should be leading the way when it comes to Indigenous health and education. It is very hard to front up to school when you have glaucoma or gingivitis or any of those other diseases that these kids have.
Health is the number one priority and I believe we should be leading the way in this country when it comes to Indigenous health. I do not think we are doing that. I believe we have failed Aboriginal Australia. I believe previous CLP governments have failed Aboriginal Australia. Previous Liberal governments, previous Labor governments and current Labor governments have failed to show the way on Indigenous affairs.
There are problems facing every single jurisdiction when it comes to education, policing, all the other big issues, and Indigenous affairs. Our commitment to those other areas is always going to be tough, but we need to be seen, or be trying to be seen, to be leading the way in Indigenous health areas and Indigenous outcomes.
Looking at that report yesterday which was tabled, it was half of our expenditure – half the Northern Territory budget – into Aboriginal issues. I do not have quite the exact term; I do not have the report with me.
A member: 52.4%.
Mr CONLAN: Fifty two point four percent, so it is a lot. I do not think that we are seeing the appropriate outcomes. That is not a fault of this current government, necessarily; it is a fault of past governments way back, and current governments as well. I firmly believe one thing this parliament can be doing is leading the way in Indigenous affairs, punching above our weight, showing the rest of the country that we can do it, providing better outcomes for Indigenous Territorians and, in turn, providing better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
Sometimes I feel like just grabbing the member for Arafura and shaking her and saying: ‘Will you straighten up and fly right’. This parliament needs the member for Arafura. The Northern Territory needs someone of her stature; this country is looking to her for leadership. She is very good at her job and she is the most senior Aboriginal parliamentarian in this country. I am very proud to be in parliament with someone like that, but some of the other issues perhaps have tainted that, and that is a shame. Nevertheless …
Ms Scrymgour: Watch out you do not shake me because that will be assault.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Well, metaphorically shaking, that is. Nevertheless, I believe if there is one thing we can do as a parliament it is to lead the way in Indigenous affairs - and we are not doing it …
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, we are.
Mr CONLAN: Well, I do not believe that we are doing it. I believe we need to be seen to be doing more, and we need better outcomes for Indigenous people, particularly in areas of health. Once we can address some of those areas of health, then we can address some of those more serious areas of education. We cannot have sick kids turning up to school, because they will not go to school.
I wanted to highlight our review because it is a very important part of the Northern Territory; it should be part of our responsibility for the rest of the country. There would be some interesting information gathered in the review if we were out there talking to people about health outcomes for Aboriginal people, particularly in remote areas.
I met with the Professor John Wakeman from the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs who …
Ms Scrymgour: A fantastic bloke.
Mr CONLAN: A good bloke. He was telling me about Utopia and how the community is displaced or not close to – people are not living around the …
Ms Scrymgour: Dispersed.
Mr CONLAN: Dispersed, that is right. There is a lot more focus on bush tucker and the like, so there tends to be much better health outcomes. People are not presenting with these diseases we see in some other Aboriginal communities. So this …
Ms Scrymgour: It is called community control.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. I believe if we can get people off Chiko Rolls and back onto bush tucker, then we are also doing a great service to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Gingivitis is also something worth looking at. Do you know that gingivitis can be directly linked to heart disease? Aboriginal people are twice as likely to contract heart disease as non-Aboriginal people. We need to get people to clean their teeth - something simple. We all grew up with mum and dad saying: ‘Clean your teeth’. You can bet your bottom dollar, if your mum and dad do not tell you to clean your teeth, you did not clean your teeth. This is not happening out in the bush. If you are made to clean your teeth once or at least twice a day, then you have a less chance of contracting gingivitis and, in turn, possibly heart disease, than those who do not. There are some broader bigger picture issues which this committee can investigate while out there in the Northern Territory community.
Bed block and access block is also something this committee would be very interested in investigating on its travels. I read from Access Block and Overcrowding: A Literature Review. This was prepared by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine at the University of New South Wales. It says:
- There is clear evidence that the main cause of access block and ED overcrowding is a combination of major increases in emergency admissions and ED presentations with
almost no increase in the capacity of hospitals to cope with the demand.
- Access block and ED overcrowding impact on ED staff, resulting in work-related stress and decreased staff satisfaction. Many staff choose to decrease their clinical hours in
emergency medicine, thus exacerbating workforce problems.
It also says:
- It has been proven that GP patients do not cause access block or ED overcrowding and persistence of this belief is detrimental to finding real solutions. Access block has a
huge impact on the health system but can be addressed by increasing the capacity of the system, most directly by increasing available beds … Only when all
stakeholders agree that the problem is systemic and hospital-wide can solutions be implemented.
That is a big problem facing our hospitals right across the Northern Territory - Alice Springs; Gove; Tennant Creek; Katherine, and, of course, Royal Darwin Hospital, where we have heard so much about hospital waiting lists which are absolutely appalling in the Northern Territory. In fact, we are amongst the worst in the country, in some cases only ahead of the ACT. We have seen the leaked report which came out of the Alice Springs Hospital; it was during the election campaign, so it was August, highlighting that figures for waiting times at the Alice Springs Hospital were, indeed, worse than they were reported.
They were already amongst the worst in the country, as I say, in some cases only ahead of the Australian Capital Territory, and this report has indicated that they are, in fact, worse. Some patients have been taken off the P1 and put back on to the P3, or put on to the P3 and put up to the P1. These are serious systemic problems across the Northern Territory.
Access block and bed block are real problems affecting acute care services in the Northern Territory, they are under enormous pressure. I have highlighted some of those Indigenous health issues. If we can go a long way to fixing some of those broader picture issues - getting kids to clean their teeth; getting people to eat properly; getting people off grog - we could go a long way to addressing some of these areas. However, it is not just Indigenous people causing bed block and access block. Clearly, it is happening right across the country, and it is happening in our own hospital system in the Northern Territory.
This is why the Northern Territory opposition is proposing this review into acute care services in the Northern Territory. I would like to read this motion out again for the record:
- That this Assembly:
one Independent member; and assisted by a representative from the Australian Nursing Federation of the Northern Territory; a representative
from the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory; one person with experience in the public health sector. The Chair to be
nominated by the Leader of Government Business, and a Deputy Chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
We believe this a very serious and very pressing situation we are facing in the Northern Territory. It is about the health care of Territorians. Territorians expect their government to govern for them and to provide essential, core services for them. We all know that health is a big issue. There are problems right across the country. In fact, I believe there are systemic failures in our health system right across Australia, in every state and every territory.
I believe we have opportunities to stand out in health care delivery in the Northern Territory because of our unique demographic and the unique circumstances we have in the Northern Territory, particularly with Indigenous affairs.
That does not take away from the fact that there have been problems - problems that have been highlighted to the minister - which we believe the minister has not acted upon. Going back to 2006-07 there are some media releases which I am sure the minister will have answers for. They are political media releases, so there is some toing and froing. However, the point I was trying to make by highlighting those media releases was that this has been going on for quite a while and the former member for Greatorex was well aware of those.
Having said all that, this is why the opposition believes it is time, in the interests of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government, health care professionals across the Northern Territory, and Territorians, that the government support this motion and allow this review to take place so we can address the very serious problems facing Northern Territory health.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Greatorex. It is a very important issue as he has outlined, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about this motion to set up a committee.
Before I turn to some of the detail of what the member for Greatorex said, I welcome his comments about the need to improve Indigenous health. I gleaned from the comments the member for Greatorex made that he is very sincere and, as Health Minister, I want to engage with him on that endeavour. It is a very difficult and hard endeavour and I will outline my personal commitment in this area. I have been working in this area of Indigenous affairs and Indigenous health …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order; Madam Speaker! I am not aware that the minister has been granted leave to speak from a seat that he does not ordinarily occupy.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a second reading debate and it has usually been the practice for a minister to sit in …
Ms CARNEY: It is not a second reading debate, it is a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a motion. I allow the minister to sit in this chair. I have given my approval.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Much of my working life has been spent in this area, as a researcher and as an educator, educating Aboriginal Health Workers. I was involved in one of the first Aboriginal Health Worker courses at a tertiary level in Australia. It is probably where I first met the member for Arafura, who has also worked for many years in this area. It is a very difficult area and she and I might have even had a few disagreements over the years on this issue; such is the complexity of this issue.
I have endeavoured to make a contribution in this area and a whole range of areas. I believe if people care to read my CV, they will see my commitment over a long time in this area. It was probably, amongst other things, a big reason why I came to this parliament and wanted to be part of this parliament and why I aspired to be Health Minister and still aspire to be Health Minister.
I welcome the comments by the member for Greatorex - we have had our moments as well - but I believe the member for Greatorex has grown in his role as shadow health minister, and what he said today is very important and I accept what he said. I was very heartened to hear what he had to say last night about the Stolen Generations. I do acknowledge the work and the sentiments of the member for Greatorex.
If you talk to any state or territory Health minister, and we have a new one in Western Australia now, each one will tell you that being Health minister is one of the hardest portfolios - if not the hardest - of any Cabinet ministry. The reason why it is a very difficult portfolio is that there is an incredible demand on resources, and the member for Greatorex touched on that. With more technology in medicine, people are expecting more out of the system and the resources are struggling, as I believe the member for Greatorex alluded to, to actually keep up with this increased demand. I believe that is part of what Michael Costa said as he exited the political stage: that there are impossibilities around many areas in the delivery of public services, and he was probably talking in terms of health to a large degree, just meeting those competing demands and competing tensions.
It is a very difficult area. I have been Health Minister now for approximately two years and three months, and as I look around Australia at the Health ministers there is certainly a changing brigade. It is a very difficult portfolio; probably one of the hardest you can get. That does not stop me in my resolve to deliver the best possible services within the Northern Territory.
As the member for Greatorex and the Coroner said, the death of Mrs Margaret Winter was a preventable death; a very sad death. The member for Greatorex also talked about the nursing staffing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital, in particular, and throughout the Territory and for that matter, throughout Australia. He also acknowledged, as did the Coroner, that it is very difficult to recruit nurses. Nonetheless, there was a failure at Royal Darwin Hospital for adequate numbers to be on the ward the night Mrs Winter died. And, as the Coroner said, that was part of a wider problem. The Coroner also named very clearly in his report where responsibility lay. And responsibility lay, not with the hospital administration, as the member for Greatorex said, but with administration further up the line. The Coroner named one individual in particular, and did so in a fairly extraordinary fashion in a further media release to clarify his position on that particular issue.
We went back to some of the debates we had in October around this very important issue. The member for Greatorex quoted what I said about my role. My role as minister, and government, is to set policy and to ensure adequate funding for the agency. Ministers do not become involved at an operational level within an agency. That is not what ministers do. This is a government which promised in successive elections, 2001 and 2005, more nurses. That was one of our central themes and one of our central planks. In terms of the funding made available to Royal Darwin Hospital in particular, there is more than adequate funding available for them to recruit nurses. That is the disappointing aspect in terms of the Winter Coronial.
The member for Greatorex quoted from some media releases by the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Health minister. He was doing his job and he was pointing to difficulties within the system in recruiting nurses. He was also highlighting, quite rightly, the number of shifts that were unfilled and needed nurses to back up, either through overtime or through agency nurses. I have no problem with the former member for Greatorex and the former shadow Health minister in doing his job and highlighting a very important issue.
The issues I had with the former member for Greatorex was how he talked about my incompetence and that I did not know what was going on in our public hospitals and that I was uniformed. The vehicle he used to do that was to stand up in this place - I am not sure exactly which seat it is now, I think the one behind the member for Goyder - and produced some payslips which he purported showed a nurse had worked 21 hours in one day. He had other ones which might have been for 19 hours and 16 hours, saying these were examples of nurses working 21 hours in one day, and it was clearly unacceptable. What emerged was that the member for Greatorex had produced payslips which, he had been informed by the ANF, were not for one day, but for a two week period; the nurse had actually worked 21 hours overtime in a two week pay period.
That was my issue with what the former member for Greatorex had to say. It was not long after that, I think it was at the April sittings in Alice Springs that I raised this issue – and it was not long after that the member for Greatorex exited the scene. He may have his own reasons for that but in my mind his credibility had been shot because he had actually been told by the ANF the real situation with these payslips. So, let us have a debate - I welcome debates - but let us stick to the facts. Let us not spin it out.
I have a prepared speech for responding to the member for Greatorex. Before I turn to that, he talked about bed block and access block. Once again, rightly so, member for Greatorex, they are very important issues within our health system and health systems elsewhere. However, if I could respond to that before I turn to my direct reply to your motion. You talked about a paper which quite rightly pointed out that hospitals have to contend with increased pressures without an increase in capacity.
If we are talking about Royal Darwin Hospital in particular, there has been increased capacity at Royal Darwin Hospital, including the Rapid Admission Planning Unit which has 24 beds, and there are now approximately 100 extra beds at Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power. That is a significant number, and includes the 24-bed RAPU, 18 currently in 3B, with another six to come within this term of government, if not this financial year. So there is a significant increase in capacity. The work that RAPU has been doing is cutting down bed block by keeping patients in that area, where decisions can be made and diagnostic tests done, whether they are to be admitted or discharged home. That has been a significant step forward.
The other issue which is really problematic in Royal Darwin Hospital and in other hospitals is the number of aged patients within the system. I am advised that, at any one time, there are approximately 30 to 40 people at Royal Darwin Hospital who really do not need to be in hospital; they really should be in an aged-care facility where they can get nursing and medical support and other care. There are 40 beds right from the start that are blocked. That is why this government is working to establish a facility on the old Waratah site to alleviate that. There has also been some increased capacity through the Masons at Tiwi. There are things happening in the community, but the last one I mentioned is a very important one in alleviating bed block.
I do not completely agree – unless I misheard what the member for Greatorex said – with the conclusions reached by the paper he quoted from; that lack of GP access is not a factor in driving demand on EDs. I am not sure that is what you said, that is what I thought I heard you say, member for Greatorex. There is other literature and other studies which have been done that clearly show the reason why many people lob into an A&E at night, in particular, is a lack of access to after-hours GP care. There are conflicting views on that, but my own view is that we need to build after-hours access to GPs. I believe that will have a beneficial effect on pressures on our ED and within hospitals ...
A member: We could do with a hospital in Palmerston.
Dr BURNS: Well, we are. So the …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, I am talking about our super clinic at Palmerston. I am not sure what you are talking about ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: …if you are talking about the hospital, which was about a third of the price it should be, that was announced during the election; we are certainly not going with that ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It is important that we have high quality, robust clinical governance processes in place to reduce errors in what is a very challenging work environment. It is also important when errors occur that we quickly learn from them, put improvements in place, and raise the standard of care for all Territorians.
The select committee proposed in this motion will not achieve these goals. The opposition seems to be of the sincere, but mistaken, belief that more committees mean better government. That is one issue I would like to highlight. If this motion had come up more or less by itself, for a discrete committee of the parliament to look into this, it would have had more credibility in my mind. What are we up to now - is it seven committees that have been proposed by the opposition? I would describe it as opposition by committee.
If this had been by itself, one off, it would have had a lot more credibility, but along with the myriad of other committees, it has just been drowned in committees.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, I might call you the Committee Liberal Party, or the Liberal Committee Party, or some variation of that.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is reflecting to the detriment of the committee system in this parliament. I ask that you caution him against that, being a member of this House, and knowing the faith we all have in the committee system.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: In reality, this proposed committee, this one committee, will most likely cost Territory taxpayers around $1m, and jeopardise or delay necessary reforms already under way. It will serve to second guess the Coroner, and replace expert reviewers with inexpert and self-interested politicians who will descend into political bickering when Territorians want independent, expert advice and clear government action. And that is what is going to happen – that is what is happening, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the minister table the figures he is reading from so the parliament can be enlightened on how it could possibly cost $1m.
Dr BURNS: It is an estimate.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is part of my speech. Inquiries have been made …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is quite right. The minister is reading from the document. Under standing orders, he can be requested to table the document. That is the request.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, this document has my own writing on it …
Madam SPEAKER: It does not need to be tabled, thank you, minister. Please continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Based on the operations of the statehood committee, which is mentioned in your motion, we have estimated that it would cost close to $1m.
It will serve to second guess the Coroner and replace expert reviewers with inexpert and self-interested politicians. It will, of course, all too quickly descend into political bickering, when Territorians want independent, expert advice and clear government action. For these reasons, the government opposes this motion.
As members are aware, upon the release of the Winter Coronial findings, I directed implementation of a comprehensive policy and procedural response. These directions provided the Department of Health and Families with a clear way forward to improve patient care across the Territory hospital system. This has been done in two ways. First, through the accreditation process, which has been brought forward, and second, by a specific review of clinical governance.
I will go first to accreditation. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards has brought forward a comprehensive Quality and Systems Survey at Royal Darwin Hospital; this will commence on 3 November 2008. As members would be aware, the commission is a not-for-profit and independent body respected throughout the world for its activities in the oversight and accreditation of health care providers. Many hospitals in Australia are accredited by the council, which was jointly established by the AMA and the then Australian Hospitals Association. Information about the ACHS members and hospital accreditation status is publicly available on its website.
This survey will conduct an in-depth examination of Royal Darwin Hospital and assess its operation against 45 specific criteria in three functions: Clinical; Support; and Corporate. This will be a very thorough survey of the capacity of the hospital to deliver quality health care for Territorians. It is not only RDH that will be comprehensively surveyed by the council. Alice Springs Hospital has just commenced its survey process. Gove and Tennant Creek hospitals will also be surveyed in November. Katherine is scheduled for its full accreditation survey in 2009. Any recommendations resulting from these surveys which require advanced completion will need to be implemented within 60 days of the completion of the survey.
Importantly, over the last year, the Quality and Risk Management Unit of Royal Darwin Hospital has been redesigned, making it well placed to respond to any newly recognised risks across the three functional areas I identified.
The second component of my response to the Winter Coronial is the establishment of a parallel, though separate, review focusing on clinical governance at RDH. Clinical governance is the proper integration of clinical decision-making within a management and organisational framework and it is the foundation of good quality and safety in hospitals.
The consultation phase of this review, also being conducted by the council, is already under way. This review is scheduled to report to the government by February, and I have undertaken to make the results of this review public. It is well ahead of any realistic steering committee time frame, despite the date listed on the original motion. I will be driving the implementation of its recommendations to ensure clinical governance at RDH is at the top of the tier of Australian hospitals.
One of the tools that hospitals use to assess its practices is the Root Cause Analysis process. By addressing the root cause of problems, rather than any obvious symptoms, there is a much better chance of reducing recurrence of that problem. In the Winter Coronial findings, the Coroner queried the Root Cause Analysis which had been completed by the department. The Coroner recommended the processes be improved. To address this particular issue, I have directed the department to engage expert Professors Cliff Hughes AO and Karen Lineger to review the Root Cause Analysis processes and swiftly implement their recommendations.
Ensuring our hospitals have adequate staff and facilities to handle the workload is a key component of proper patient care. Since 2001, this government has recruited an extra 433 nurses, 162 doctors, and installed an extra 127 fully staffed beds into our hospitals. There have been significant staffing changes specifically implemented at Royal Darwin Hospital. These include putting in place divisional co-directors and recruiting to the positions of Director of Nursing and Director of Medical Services. Most importantly, the nursing hours per patient day nursing workload and roster model is being phased in across all Territory hospitals.
As I announced last month, Professor Christine Duffield will conduct an independent oversight of the implementation of nursing hours per patient day to ensure it meets all staffing requirements. The Australian Nursing Federation is a member of the nursing hours per patient day Implementation Steering Committee and has agreed on the nursing workload benchmarks after assessing extensive data.
In contrast to this clear and comprehensive government action, we have received a six point motion from the member for Greatorex, seeking to establish yet another committee, at a likely cost of $1m - I am interested to know from members opposite what they think it is going to cost - and which will inevitably bog us down in endless process. Opposition members …
A member: $1m dollars, you are kidding yourself.
Mr Mills: To improve our health system?
Dr BURNS: … to this parliament on the difference between inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Yet here they are on general business day seeking to establish committee after committee - absolute opposition by committee. Of course, such a motion is much easier than actually developing a comprehensive alternative health policy when in opposition. The Labor Party did it, and there were many policy powerhouses in opposition: Peter Toyne, Syd Stirling, Clare Martin, Paul Henderson, and Jack Ah Kit, and they worked very hard in opposition developing alternative policies. This mob just want to have committees. I have talked about what the estimated costs may be. However, I have been informed that the …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek some clarification from the minister as to where he has derived this $1m figure, because I believe it to be misleading. He is comparing it to the statehood committee which has been around for a long time. This committee has not even started, and we have said that the Assembly requires the Chair of the select committee to report to the Assembly no later than the final sitting day in February 2009. At best, it will be a three-month committee. I ask the minister where he gets $1m for a three-month parliamentary committee …
Dr BURNS: That is a very ambitious time frame for a parliamentary committee.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, if you have details, please provide them.
Mr Conlan: He is making it up.
Dr BURNS: They are some calculations based on the costs of the statehood committee. I am interested to know what you think it is going to cost. The review by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards will be approximately $100 000. Point 2, list of proposed members, fair enough. He talks in his second point about the public health sector. I need to correct the member for Greatorex. The public health sector – he should say someone from the acute care sector or the hospital sector because the public health sector, if he just wants to turn to the budget books - Public Health Services: environmental health, disease control, alcohol and other drugs, health research. It is just a small thing, but I just thought I would point it out.
Point 3 was to seek to re-examine various models of nurse staffing to deliver patient care; but the debate has well and truly moved on. Everyone agrees that the nursing hours per patient day model is best suited to provide the highest level of patient care. This is being implemented at Royal Darwin Hospital and other Territory hospitals and is being overseen by independent expert Professor Duffield.
Points 3(b) and (c) pertain to the Coroner to a large degree, and intentionally or otherwise, also seem to call into question the Coroner’s investigation and findings in the Winter Coronial. I am acting to implement the coronial findings and I have given an undertaking in terms of the review that is being commissioned.
Point 4: we have already started to talk about the costs, the terms and conditions of payment, meeting and sitting fees. Do not forget, everything has to be recorded in Hansard and published, and you will be calling expert witnesses. There is a whole range of things that need to occur as part of this. I believe the Statehood Steering Committee is doing an excellent job and plays an important role in establishing viable statehood. I am not sure whether some of the committees proposed are a worthy use of taxpayers’ money.
Point 5 provides the power to compel evidence. The Coroner already has that power. Once again, is the opposition implying the Coroner has not done his job properly? I have talked about the time frame. I understand that debate of this motion had to wait for General Business Day and I question the time frame that is actually on the motion to do the work that is required.
For all these reasons, the government does not support this motion. The government knows we are carrying out the recommendations of the Coroner. We have also implemented and commissioned an expert review by people who are familiar with hospitals, familiar with what acute care is, who will take submissions, interview the major stakeholders and come up with recommendations around clinical governance, which is right at the heart of the issues raised by the Coroner in the Winter Coronial.
In short, Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am interested in the minister’s comments about the committee. I note that this year we do not have a Sessional Committee on Substance Abuse. I would have thought this would be a reasonable replacement for that, especially if it was only going for a short period of time. I would have thought the government had in its budget a certain amount of money for sessional committees. If it does not, we will be frozen out of having any committees during this term of office.
When this debate occurred in parliament, I made a couple of statements. One was that I thought that we should have had a public inquiry, which would have been slightly different to what has been proposed by the member for Greatorex, but was a similar desire to find out exactly what issues sprung from the Coroner’s report in relation to the running of Darwin Hospital. The Minister for Health announced that he would ask the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards to look at a review of Royal Darwin Hospital. I appreciate the briefing I received from the CEO of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. I am not saying that this review is not important, but I believe it is part of an overall strategy to make sure our hospital is being run as well as possible.
My concern is still, even though this review is on the way, that it tends to be dealing with a layer which will deal with professionals, etcetera. We need an opportunity for people who are either clients or individual health workers who do not necessarily want to be represented by a body - whether it is the nursing federation or whatever; and that is not putting that federation down - to put some ideas forward to this committee, which they may not have a chance to do under the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Review. The wider public may also have stories to tell on issues that have arisen from their contact with the Royal Darwin Hospital or other hospitals in the Northern Territory.
I see the two being complementary. One is, to some extent, dealing with the more professional outlook, the professional aspects of how the hospital is run. Considering the amount of interest, media attention and discussion being held in parliament relating to this particular case, and some of the comments made following the Coroner’s report, the community needs an opportunity to put forward some of its concerns. It may not only be concerns. If you are going to have committees like this, you should also be able to hear if people are happy with some of the systems that are working at the hospitals; they should also be encouraged to come to such a committee. There are times, and I get them in my office, where people do have genuine concerns about how they have been dealt with in the hospital system. I also have people who are very happy with the way they have been looked after. Sometimes, much of that can boil down to personalities, not necessarily the system. People deal with people in different ways and some people can find that most upsetting and some people find they have been well and truly looked after.
If we clear the air a little - I do not think it will cost the money that the minister said; the statehood committee has been going for donkey’s ages. We would have money, I presume, in the Legislative Assembly budget for another sessional committee. We do not have the substance abuse committee running in this session of parliament, so there is the opportunity here to fill that gap - at least for a short period of time. I believe it would be of benefit to Territorians, to people like me in parliament, to hear what people have to say away from a more formal review run through the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. I am by no means knocking what they are doing; that is very important.
I thank the minister for also bringing forward some of that review earlier than normally would have happened. The minister, regardless of matters gone by, is sincere in saying we have to do something about it - his opinion is this is the way to go. I believe it is complementary to what the member for Greatorex is doing and, because of that, I support the member for Greatorex’s motion today.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Greatorex, and also the member for Nelson, and endorse what the member for Nelson just said.
I take up a couple of points in relation to a number of things that the member for Johnston, in his capacity as the Minister for Health, mentioned. He said there is no need for an inquiry. It has always been my understanding that, as member of the Northern Territory community, inquiries have been held on a regular basis throughout the time I have been here and, in my younger days in Western Australia, I heard of inquires happening all the time.
The couple of quotes, if I heard correctly, were that the inquiry is going to be too expensive, it is going to be for self-interested politicians and just about political bickering. My understanding of inquiries is that you can actually ask people to come and give you information. They are the public, they are interested people.
I tabled a petition in this House this morning. In this petition there are 659 signatures - in fact 658, because one of them is mine - of people who just walked passed my office. In the time I was out the front of my electorate office talking to these people, they are angry, disappointed, and upset. They want an inquiry. They were very happy - in fact, people were so quick to come and sign this that we did not get a chance to even ask them. They simply saw the sign, came over and wanted to sign it. There are interstate visitors who have heard through caravan parks and travelling, about the condition of our health service.
I would be interested if the minister can actually have a look and see how many interstate people are on this petition, because these are the Grey Nomads who invest heavily in the Territory. In the winter months down south they come here on holidays - they take off; it goes to the road system, so many complaints. It was a great exercise, I found, standing outside my electorate office talking to them, not only about the health issues, but many other related issues which demonstrate that there are systemic failures in the government’s attitude towards many things.
As for $1m, well, I do not know. If you spoke to people like Mrs Winter’s family, $1m for an inquiry into why their mother, grandmother, and sister, died, would be nothing compared to the loss of a loved one.
Another comment from the minister was it is just going to bog us down. I understand the member for Greatorex has said we want a short, sharp inquiry into this, and I do not know whether bogging us down over a period of three or four months is going to be a bogging down issue.
Other things the minister raised, and he quoted – there were four, I only have three names- previous members of the ALP government – Stirling, Henderson, Ah Kit: ‘… worked very hard to develop policy, and this mob on the other side just want to have a committee’. I suggest that the previous people – Stirling, Henderson and Ah Kit – mentioned by the minister, have not actually done a very good job of developing policy, because there are still failures in the system and people are dying in our hospitals.
Maybe we really do need a committee, given that the policy they have developed, and the policy the government is working on, is actually letting the people of the Northern Territory down.
Other things the minister said included that formerly he was a researcher and an educator, especially with Aboriginal Health Workers, raising awareness, etcetera, with educational programs. I find that that sort of thing is about building confidence in the community, that they have trust in their health system, are educated and briefed on things through good solid research and medical evidence. If you really wanted to get to the crux of these things, I thought that the minister might actually take on board some of his own background and research these things, through a committee, and get the ideas and research done through the public having input into an inquiry; and he could take that and develop some decent policy and then implement it through his CEO.
The minister says that it is not his job to actually go in there and run the department. And I agree with that; I think that is a good idea. However, it is the government that sets the policy, and the minister said that you cannot go in and direct things; he said it on a number of occasions, both today and previously, that you cannot direct the public servants and the CEOs exactly how to run the business. That is true. However, the government sets the policy and, I am assuming, their Cabinet sets the policy and the minister can go in there and implement policy change. It is also my understanding that you communicate that policy change to the CEO, whose job it is to implement the change.
Mr Mills: Leadership from the front.
Mr STYLES: Exactly. There are a few more things. Twenty-one hours work a day that the minister raised in relation to it. I was talking to a person last night who gave me some information about the overtime worked. It is fine to come into this House and present figures and statistics, but the actual perception out in the community is that we do not have a very good system. Confidence is lacking. The government really needs to look at something, not only in fixing the problem, but also restoring the confidence in people out there, both local and interstate people. You know, the old saying, ‘when in pain, get on a plane’, is alive and well out there and people are saying that to me on a regular basis. These 658 people who came past the office all had a similar belief. Some of them were actually initiating that saying. We have been in the Territory for a long time; ‘when in pain get on the plane’ used to be 30 years ago. It got better and, for some reason, it is getting worse.
We always hear there is adequate funding; we are putting funding in. I pick up on something the member for Port Darwin said yesterday: ‘Money into these problems is an input, not an outcome’. You can put all the money in the world you into it, but if you are not going to get the outcomes then, obviously, the policy needs to be changed and we need a new direction for these sorts of things.
I was talking to someone last night and they gave me some information. The ABS figures out yesterday - and I have not actually seen these, but I am led to believe from what I was told - indicate that nurses in the Northern Territory have the highest workload and patient-to-nurse ratio. I would be very happy to stand corrected by the minister on that information, but they are figures which came out yesterday. The information is that they have the highest births per nurse and the midwifery staff, especially, are overworked and constantly having to perform overtime to cover the basic staffing requirements.
We have heard recently and in 2006, that staffing levels were capped; we have heard allegations of that. We have also heard the story from the minister who says: ‘No, they were not capped, it was just various things happened, and that was Mr Campos’ domain, anyway’. It is still my information, as recently as 24 hours ago, that there are still issues with calling out staff to cover increased demand for services. The hospital staff may say: ‘That is fine, we have a policy’. But the people who are at the coalface are the ones who have to work day in, day out with these sorts of restrictions on them, and if they are feeling the pressure of the restrictions, there is obviously something to do in educating them in relation to the need to work harder - and I find that that is going to be very difficult, given the number of nursing staff who are on this petition - because they believe they are being pressured not to call people in; to actually work harder and handle the situation.
They say this is one of the major issues and problems as to why it is so hard to attract staff to the Northern Territory. Some of the people I have spoken to, and who are on this petition, have friends who come here to work at various times during the year - they travel overseas, they are what is called semi-retired - and they come here because they used to love the lifestyle. The comments going around these days is that the lifestyle has changed and they do not really like the lifestyle that much; you cannot get accommodation; it is very difficult to get reasonable accommodation at a reasonable price; the salaries now being offered do not reflect the cost for these people to live here, so they are choosing to go elsewhere.
We hear from the Health department that they are trying very hard to recruit staff - and I applaud them and say that they do spend and there are people out there who are obviously very dedicated people - desperately trying to recruit quality staff to come to the Territory and then to retain them in the Northern Territory. However, some of the complaints are, and people are now looking for excuses to say to their friends: ‘Well, we are not coming back next year – it is too hot, houses are too expensive, I cannot even get accommodation at the nurses’ quarters at Royal Darwin Hospital’ - I am not sure what is happening in Alice Springs and other places, but this is a Darwin issue I am talking about – ‘the wages are insufficient compared to the cost of living here. We can go interstate, we can earn almost the same amount of money where there is better housing, lifestyle, family; all those sorts of things.
It may be we have to reapply things which used to happen in the past here, where people in our essential services were actually subsidised and assisted to stay here. It goes across the whole range of essential services, be it police, teachers, nurses, doctors. We need to do something to stem the tide flowing outwards from the Territory.
I hear numbers all the time in this House: ‘Oh, we have recruited this number and we have recruited this number’. What I do not hear is the attrition rates. In the police department, I recall when we hit 204, the Chief Minister stood up and said: ‘We have recruited 204’. Well, my information was that 202 have resigned in the same period, or retired. We are constantly required to recruit people at great expense to the Territory taxpayer - that is all of us here, that is my kids, that is my two grandkids. This is their future we are investing in, and the continual outflow of money in recruiting and into employment agencies to provide agency staff is astronomical. The cost of flying nurses in and out of communities because they cannot live there due to security issues and other housing issues is costing us a fortune.
It is amazing. People ring you up and they come along and talk to you when you stand outside your office. I am amazed that the member for Johnston, who stands outside at the Rapid Creek Markets every Sunday, has not also talked to 650 people. Even if you are the person who wants to advise him of a crisis, you cannot talk to him. If you stand out there with a sign saying: ‘I am looking at health’, you will find there will be hundreds of people wanting to talk to you. It is a little suggestion for the member for Johnston, if he wants to get some information as to what is really going on at the coalface in his health system - stand outside your office with a little sign. You will also find out all sorts of other fascinating and interesting things.
When the minister says we do not need an inquiry, I believe the minister has already determined what the outcome of that inquiry is going to be. He has already said that it is too expensive, there is self-interest and political bickering, it is going to cost $1m and it is going to bog us down. Do we apply that analogy to every inquiry we are going to have here? No, because if it is good for this, why is it not good for that? This is about people’s health. This is about people dying in our hospitals.
I note with interest that in January 2008, the New South Wales government, which had a similar set of problems to what we have, implemented a special commission of inquiry into acute care services in New South Wales public hospitals to inquire into and report on various matters concerning the delivery of acute care services in public hospitals in New South Wales. I ask that the government consider this and take heed of what their colleagues and comrades in New South Wales did and bring the public in, bring the experts in and get some expert advice. It appears to me that they are failing the Northern Territory people and failing us.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pink Ribbon Day - Speaker’s Prizes
Pink Ribbon Day - Speaker’s Prizes
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call on Question Time, I would like to congratulate the member for Arnhem, who might like to stand, and the member for Brennan, for winning the members’ competition for the pink hair. They are too shy to stand. Congratulations. I also congratulate the two staff members, Diana VIdotto and James Lantry. I thank all honourable members for taking part.
MOTION
Acute Care Services NT Review Committee - Establishment
Acute Care Services NT Review Committee - Establishment
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Greatorex, in his motion that this Assembly establishes the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee. The reason is quite obvious. We have all heard about the nursing staffing crisis in the Northern Territory. It has been on the front page of our local newspaper, it has made media headlines both on television and radio, and it is quite obviously a problem for all of those people who will require some form of health treatment in the future.
I have listened to this debate with some interest and heard some of the views of the minister in his opposition to setting up this committee. I find it extraordinary that the government would oppose establishing this committee. The committee, as outlined by the member for Greatorex, would be made up of members from a whole range of very well thought of organisations who have specialist abilities in the areas of health and who should be able to comment on the nursing staffing crisis and all matters of professional medical staffing issues that need to be looked at in the Northern Territory.
The minister made some bizarre comment that the cost of this committee would be around $1m. I do find that quite bizarre. I note you based your reasoning for that being roughly what the statehood committee is costing Territorians, bearing in mind the statehood committee does extensive travel, as you would hope this committee would you do. You would expect that this committee would want to visit hospitals in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Gove and other health centres around the Territory, in order to gain a proper understanding of the needs of the health industry and their staffing issues around the Territory.
However, the statehood committee, on top of that, does a whole range of shows and events, hands out bags and badges, runs petitions and competitions - an extensive amount of activities. The statehood committee has also been running for many years, as the minister knows. On the other hand, this committee proposed by the member for Greatorex would report in February next year …
Mr Conlan: End of February.
Mr TOLLNER: At the end of February next year. So, the committee would run for approximately four months. It would be a big task for that committee to spend $1m even if they were staying in five-star hotels in all those locations that I mentioned and were drinking Mot champagne every night before they went to bed. They would still have a big problem spending $1m in four months, no matter how extravagant they were.
The minister also made mention of his aversion to setting up …
Dr Burns: People representation - have you factored that in? No, you have not.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, I missed that one. I will continue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, I cannot hear you.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the minister’s interjecting on board but I cannot quite make out what he is saying. I do apologise, I cannot hear your interjection.
I do know the minister is also very averse, or seems to be averse, to having committees set up. He does not believe in committees; says they are a waste of time …
Mr Conlan: Does not like them.
Mr TOLLNER: He does not like them. However, in this Question Time, we heard of the wonderful new 2030 theme that the Chief Minister has knocked up. Great news; they are going to look, what? - 12 years down the …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, 22 years down the track; he is going to look 22 years down the track. He has outlined at least a couple of committees in response to questions during Question Time. Goodness me, minister, maybe they are all $1m committees too. Committees seem to cost a lot of money these days, going by your assumptions. It seems to fly in the face of what the Chief Minister is recommending with the 2030 committee and that you would be opposed to this committee.
I cannot see any reason why we should not be looking at hospitals and health centres in other parts of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: We have, member for Greatorex, through the Coroner, had the extent of problems at Royal Darwin Hospital highlighted - dreadful problems. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, minister included, is happy with the Coroner’s findings. I believe he has even stressed that he is intending to do something about that. I do not think there is any debate at all that there is a nursing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital. We have had another Coroner’s report released today and we know that we have a range of them in the pipeline. We have to deal with them. We also have to acknowledge that if these problems are so systemic in Royal Darwin Hospital, there is every likelihood those problems will have spread right across the Territory.
It is high time that such a committee was established and given the opportunity to get around the Territory, particularly bearing in mind the make-up of the committee. The member for Greatorex has suggested having people from the Australian Nursing Federation and from the AMA, with the Chair to be nominated by the government. I imagine the Minister for Health would have some input in advising the Leader of Government Business of who he would like to see as the Chair. I fail to see what his opposition to such a committee is - apart from the fact the committee may well uncover other problems and failures in their deliberations.
I am very keen to support the call by the member for Greatorex to set up the Acute Care Services NT Review Committee, and I encourage all members to support it as well.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers. I thank the minister for his response. It appears he is not going to support the debate, the inquiry and the review, which is very disappointing. I can only say, I wonder what he is worried about. Perhaps, as the member for Fong Lim has highlighted, he is worried that it might uncover some deeper, systemic problems in the health system right across the Northern Territory. We have seen the problems at RDH, they have been highlighted in detail by the Coroner; the staffing crisis, among other issues facing RDH. One can only imagine what other problems there are across Northern Territory health facilities – the Alice Springs Hospital, Katherine Hospital, Gove Hospital, and Tennant Creek Hospital.
There may not be such systemic issues facing these hospitals as there are at Royal Darwin Hospital, putting this into context, because the RDH is a much bigger facility than the others. Nevertheless, it augurs well to suggest that there are issues. We all speak to people, to health care workers, and many of us are involved, whether we have been in hospital personally for treatment, or our family and friends. We all speak to people who work in the health care sector. I know that they are very hard working, but they are also free to come forward with some of the issues. They speak to us, often in confidence as MLAs, and hope that we will raise these concerns in parliament.
There are problems - I know that there are problems - but the depth and the level of those problems remains to be seen. I believe we really do need to get out there and investigate the level of systemic failures in the health system. The minister has said it is not all his fault. Health is a big problem right across this country; it is a big problem in the Territory. It has been a big problem in the Territory for years, prior to this government, and prior to the CLP government, prior to 1974. It is a problem across the Northern Territory. It is now a matter of: can we fix these problems, and how do we go about addressing these issues - where do we draw a line and where do we start?
I believe it is reasonable to suggest that we have a review of Northern Territory health services across the NT. We have spoken on the cost of this. Perhaps the minister was being flippant and trying to be funny about the $1m cost. It is ludicrous. He knows it. How you can spend $1m in four months, I have no idea, particularly in the Northern Territory. There is no way in the world it will cost anywhere near $1m. I am sure the minister knows that, even though he is shaking his head at the moment. The cost is one thing.
I do not believe that Territorians should be deprived of the best possible health care and the best possible health outcomes because of the cost. London to a brick, it is not going to cost $1m, but if it cost half of that, it would be money well spent if we were able to uncover and find better ways to solve some of these systemic problems facing the health system in the Northern Territory.
I thank all contributors, the members for Sanderson and Fong Lim, and the minister for his reply. I urge all members of this parliament to support an independent review; a committee made up of both sides of parliament, an Independent member of parliament, and members of the ANF and the AMA. We believe it is in the best interests of Territorians, the government, the Health department, health care professionals, and health care facilities in the Northern Territory.
In closing, I urge all members to support this. The opposition supports our review into acute care services across the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
New Darwin Correctional Facility
New Darwin Correctional Facility
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That the new Darwin Correctional Facility be constructed on its present site at Berrimah and not built elsewhere, and that the government build prison farm facilities throughout the Territory as part of an alternative strategy to the existing prison policy.
I have some photographs and I must, before I get into trouble, recognise that they came from Google Earth – there are two there from Google Earth - and one from the Northern Territory Planning department. I put them there for anyone who is interested. There is one photograph which relates to the second motion as well. For those who do not know the area, there is a picture of Berrimah Farm and the prison and the dots represent – the yellow one is Don Dale Centre, the red one is the low security prison, the orange one is the main gaol and the green dot is Berrimah Prison Farm. So people now have a bit of an idea what we are talking about.
I am sure the decision about the prison is already made. I do not know why I think that, but I know that sometime in the future I will be told where it is going and all the reasons why it should not stay where it is. Regardless of that, I still believe that moving the prison is quite a silly idea. Why? Because the prison is in an ideal place and it has not been a problem. It has only been there for approximately 30 years. The last prison we had is the one at Fannie Bay, which is probably not a bad place to have a prison, with all the sea breezes that the government talks about. It has been there for about 100 years. This prison has only been around for 30 years and we are already talking about demolishing it and moving it.
Why do I think it is a good spot? The prison is not near suburban residential areas. There are a few residents nearby but it has not caused them a problem. It is close to industry and I think there is potential for a prison to find employment for people outside the prison in nearby industries or to bring industries into the prison to help skill people.
I refer to a website which is related to a correctional centre I visited in Ohio a couple of years ago. It is called the West Central Community Correctional Facility. It is a therapeutic community. I will not go into that at the present time, but it allows residents of this facility – they call them residents – to work outside in the Marysville city, nearby in areas like the lumber yard, on the local council, and various other places in the community. They work there during the day and come home in the afternoon and are locked up for the evening.
This particular facility has many other fantastic programs. I was most impressed. I would recommend anyone who is visiting America to have a look at these therapeutic communities as a real option for changing people’s lives. If I have time today I might mention it, but I will not go into that just now.
Not only is the prison close to industry, it is also close to where people go to be told they will go to prison - the courts in Darwin, and the legal system, where the lawyers work, that supports them. We know there is a remand centre there and you do not want a remand centre too far away because people in remand are waiting to go to court, so you do not want them too far out bush.
It is also close to public transport which is essential for families who visit friends or family that are incarcerated. I say that because sometimes people can lose sight of the other side of the tragedy of people going to gaol. Whilst many of us – most of us – do not have much sympathy for people who end up in gaol, because they deserve to be there, many times that will be someone’s father, someone’s wife, someone’s brother. There is an effect on those who live outside as much as the person living on the inside. There needs to be a connection between the prison, the prisoners, and the families that need to visit. That is something we should not lose sight of. Most prisoners have to leave the prison one day. They need to be attached to their families, and you would hope that the attachment to their family may also help convince them that life back in prison is no good because they are separated from their loved ones and their children.
This prison is on a large block of land, in fact, it is 82 ha. If you look on the map you will see it is surrounded by an industrial block which is on the right side of the land. That has been developed as industry. You will now see more and more industry being developed there. Below it are some environmental areas which are planned for future development. To the left is the Berrimah prison farm, and to the north is Knuckey Lagoon Wildlife Reserve.
I have visited the prison twice. Obviously, the reason why the government wants to demolish the prison is not because of its age, but because of its design and because it is not big enough for the increasing number of prisoners. I saw a notice today saying we have record numbers of prisoners now in our gaol - we are up to approximately 900 - and this prison was not built for that number. I am not necessarily against building a new prison if it makes it more efficient and brings it up-to-date with some of the facilities we would expect in a modern prison. As the minister said yesterday, the education facilities are pretty woeful. Education is a very important part of a prison facility.
One reason I have been given for moving this prison - and this is something I heard on one of my tours and I accept it may not be official – is that the rest of this land is too wet. I find it difficult to believe, if that is case, because one of the reasons the government has said they want to shift this prison is to develop housing there. If it is too wet for the prison, it is too wet for the housing. You cannot have it both ways – it is one or the other.
Just for argument’s sake, let us say that the land is too wet in the lower portion here. The government also intends to sell off Berrimah Farm. If you look at the planning map, below here there are two yellow portions of land and an orange portion of land. Portion 2173 is the prison, Portion 1168 is Berrimah Farm, and the orange land is section 4195. Section 4195 is also part of the Berrimah Research Station. That is equivalent to 38 ha of high ground. That land is mainly under the flight path. If you look very carefully, you will see a waving line going across the land, and that is the 20 ANF contour for the airport - one of the reasons why some of the land at Berrimah Farm is not suitable for housing.
If the land is too wet for redevelopment of the prison, that land could be used. If you look at the photograph, you will see there is very little difference between where the prison is now and where it will be in the future. Although you might move it from the site it is on now, with the government saying that it no longer wants to use the Berrimah Research Farm as a farm, there is adequate land for the prison to be moved a couple of hundred metres to the west.
The other problem I have is that we have two buildings on that site which are relatively new. We have the low-security prison - which is where the orange dot is - that cost $7.6m and was only opened two years ago. Why are we destroying it? We have the Don Dale prison which was expanded two years ago and cost around $2m - I am not sure of the exact cost. I imagine it is going to be demolished as well.
The strange thing is we are still spending money there. I have the tender documents: ‘Tenders close 29 October, Tender: Darwin Berrimah Correctional Centre, Construction of New Visitors Centre’. I am not saying we do not need a new visitors centre, however, I struggle with the logic. If we are going to pull this whole place down, why are we spending money on a visitors centre? I know the government is putting money into some demountable accommodation because the prison has reached bursting point. I still believe it is strange that we are going to start building permanent structures, when we know we are going to pull them down in a short time.
I find it interesting that the government says one of the reasons it needs to move the farm is that it needs more land and we need to develop a bigger prison. I think part of the reason it wants to move it is because they want to put houses on Berrimah Farm, and they are not going to sell houses, especially a suburban-type development, right next to this correctional facility. I believe they are saying that the best thing to do is move it. They need to demolish it because it is not up-to-date, so they will move it. They may not agree with me there; they will say that is not true.
I still believe the prison is going to go to the east of Robertson Barracks. I do not know whether I should put some money on it, but that is where I believe it will go, somewhere near the so-called new regional waste facility site. It will cost a lot of money to put it there. There is no infrastructure, no water, no mains power, and there is no decent road up there. I understand it is a fair distance from any residences, and the site has been used for mining in the past. Surely it would be cheaper to develop this block of land where the infrastructure is already in place. It has the power, water, and the sewerage ponds. If you look at the bottom of this block of land, you will see a set of sewerage ponds which were built for the prison because, prior to that, there were problems with sewage overflow into the creeks below.
I am concerned that the government seems to have a policy which says we only have one alternative for prisoners - that is a big prison. In this day and age, we have to look at options. That is not to say we do not imprison people, but we need to look at how we imprison people. The sad thing is we did have a prison farm - we had the Gunn Point Prison Farm. My understanding is that Gunn Point Prison Farm closed down simply because of industrial action. The government at that time did not accept some demands by prison officers, I believe for increased wages due to the remoteness of the area, and the government decided to close down the Gunn Point Prison Farm.
We have had nothing like that since. We have had the town of Katherine asking for a facility like a prison farm. We have had people in Tennant Creek, even the previous member for Barkly, wanted a prison farm, however, that did not happen. Prison farms are not out-of-date. The Port Lincoln Prison, about 650 km west of Adelaide, can accommodate 90 medium to low security prisoners. It says here that the prison property totals just over 200 ha of which around 150 ha is dedicated to crop farming each year. Sheep and cattle are also raised on the property, and low security prisoners are an integral part of the workforce involved in running the agricultural areas of the prison.
Recently, the farm also began producing both hydroponic and naturally grown vegetables. The majority of the produce is supplied to local businesses within Port Lincoln and the surrounding area. Port Lincoln also runs a woodwork shop where medium security prisoners are currently constructing outdoor settings for the National Parks and Wildlife Service - and this is the most important part - as well as creating nesting boxes for a local chicken farm. This is what should be happening.
The Cadell Training Centre is for 145 low security prisoners. All the prisoners work, either on the prison farm where the focus is dairy production and packaging, citrus, and the new development area of olives; or in the prison service areas where prisoners can participate in maintenance, kitchen, laundry, grounds or servery work.
In New South Wales there is the Brewarrina Centre called the Yetta Dhinnakkal. This is a minimum security institution for Aboriginal males located 70 km south of the township of Brewarrina. The centre is a working, farming property maintained by inmates under supervision; they also do various TAFE courses. That is another example of what can be done.
I do not know why the government is not looking at these options; even the option of a work camp. I visited the Wyndham Work Camp two years ago and was quite impressed by the amount of work they do there. It is similar, to some extent, to the low security prison in Alice Springs, but I believe it is much more formalised and it is run by, I believe, the Department of Justice. They have six work farms operating throughout Western Australia.
What I am trying to highlight is: why are we concentrating only on this form of imprisonment? We know with the new laws coming in there will be an increased number of people in prisons. If these people go to these prisons there is a chance they will meet up with people with the same sort of violent tendencies. I do not know whether that will be any good for those people when they come out. In fact, I am of the understanding that if you are not in for six months or more, there are no specific courses to help you in the management of your problems.
I refer again to the West Central Community Correctional Centre. They have programs such as: a chemical dependency treatment program; a relapse prevention program; a healthy relationships program, which works in cooperation with local domestic violence shelter programs; rational emotive therapy; anger management; men’s issues; health and wellness; parenting; communication counselling; grief counselling; social skills; co-dependency; continuing care; career choices; and thinking errors. I recommend that people look at the options behind these therapeutic community-type courses.
In the same town as West Central there is the Ohio Reformatory for Women. They have short term offender units where they do daily classes of life skills; coping strategies; family services; health and wellness; recovery issues; and job readiness, etcetera.
I am concerned that we are going to put a lot of people into these prisons - they may only be short-term, they may have some issues we need to deal with - but are we giving these people options when they get out of prison not to come back?
Prison farms and work camps are alternatives. There should be short-term plans for people who are first time offenders for violence. They may not be what you would call recidivist violent offenders; they may have done something stupid. They may have got on the grog one night and clocked someone and they are going to spend a couple of weeks in gaol. Should we be ensuring these people have an alternative form of imprisonment, if it is possible? If they are imprisoned, should we have the processes and the programs which will help these people?
In this attempt by the government to build a new prison they seem to want to build an efficient prison. I am not saying the Correctional Services department does not have programs - they do have programs and many people try very hard. There is Wildcare NT, there are people training to work on boats, crocodile management - they do have some great courses. However, if we only rely on this big, concrete version of a prison - and some people deserve to be there - but if that is the only alternative, I do not believe we are going down the right path.
Eighty per cent of our inmates are Aboriginal, and I cannot believe that 100% of those people are dinky-di criminals. Many of them are in there for foolish things they have done. Much of it is due to alcohol and that is a fact of life. We need to be using our prisons to educate these people.
In the Women’s Reformatory in Ohio and the West Central facility, education was the main strategy. In fact, in the Women’s Reformatory, they have very modern classrooms. They wanted every woman they had to reach the high school standard where they would have been able to move onto other jobs. If we are going to go modern, that is, we are going to build an efficient, ‘you beaut’ prison, we need to go modern in other ways. We need to go modern in alternative forms of imprisonment. I agree that people who are violent should go to prison. Does that mean just a standard prison? Or does it mean something useful? You are going to work in the hot sun. You are going to weed the sweet potatoes, harvest the tomatoes and bananas, and bring in the cattle in the afternoon.
What is wrong with that? You are teaching people to be productive. They have lost their freedom for doing a silly thing. They will be giving something back to society. That is one of the tenets of the work camp system in Western Australia. They work there because they believe they need to give something back to society for the wrongs they have done.
I ask the government to reconsider demolishing the site. There is land there that can be used which will not cost a huge amount of money to the government because the infrastructure is already there. The public transport is there for those who cannot get there by car. It is close to the ports. It has industry close by. It is not affecting residential areas and it is an ideal site.
I ask the government to consider this: do not put our prison somewhere unsuitable. Look for alternative options. I would love to hear from the minister, when he is responding, why we are not looking at the option of at least one prison farm. I would prefer five. There are very few Aboriginal communities that have market gardens or a commercial enterprise, in fact, I do not know of any, except maybe Ali Curung. I used to run a market garden at Daly River and at Nguiu on Bathurst Island. They are all gone. They are all finished. The poultry shed on Bathurst Island is a Woolies shop, as far as I know. That is all there is.
If we could use the resources of those many Indigenous people who are in gaol, in a commercial sense, they will get paid. That money goes into the prison. Some of that money may go to the victim, and some of that money may go to prison and be put in a trust account. They could work on these farms, from Alice Springs to Darwin and to Nhulunbuy, which gives you a climatic area, where you can grow just about anything at all times of the year. You could have a commercial body – it might be one of those outback stores or the Arnhem Land Progress Association, ALPA, and they could supply those communities with fresh fruit and vegetables. Then you would not have the complaint that you are subsidising by using cheap labour. That is one of the arguments about prison farms. That is one option. One is we can give people good employment. They can earn some money, and we can supply good fruit and vegetables to those communities that otherwise have to get them from down south or elsewhere.
We need to think broadly. The government is talking about a 2030 vision. Well, if it is a real vision, then we have to think further than a big concrete block in the way we treat our prisoners. People need to be punished for things they have done wrong against society. However, when they come out we want them to be better people. We do not want them to come back again, and we want them to help our society, rather than hinder it. To do that we need to look further than what we are doing at the present time.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government not to knock this prison down, but to put a moderate size prison there and put the rest out in prison farms.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. The Berrimah gaol and its associated facilities do not need to be relocated. It is relatively new establishment. It opened in 1979, as the member for Nelson stated. The Don Dale Juvenile Centre was only upgraded recently, at cost to government and the community. The minimum security centre only opened two years ago. If this government had a plan to upgrade, renovate and remodel gaols, then surely they have been thinking about that over the last term, and not just suddenly come up with this idea that, oops, we need a new gaol because we cannot have the precious people living at the Berrimah Farm being close to a correctional facility.
A tender has gone out - it is currently in the commercial arena - for a new visitors centre. Why would this document be released - why would the government be committing to spend money if they are looking to relocate the gaol?
I have had constituents and other people come to me regarding the Berrimah gaol. There is speculation in the community, and the business community, as to where it may relocate. If the gaol is to move - and I urge the government to reconsider their decision to relocate the gaol - then they are going to have to be very careful. I do recall their comments that the gaol was not going to be near any domestic or residential areas. If that is the case, then the gaol is going to have to be further out, and that is going to cost a lot of money - more than the $300m that the government is talking about.
The gaol is on approximately 82 ha, which is approximately 200 acres. That is a fair sized piece of land. There is ample room for this gaol to be expanded. I can distinctly recall when the government announced that they wanted to redevelop Berrimah Farm. In the morning, the minister for Planning said they did not have any land to release. By that afternoon, the Chief Minister was on the radio saying that Berrimah Farm was going to be developed for residential. I believe the quote was: ‘It will be a lovely place because there will be prevailing winds’. The fact that it is a contaminated site probably escaped the government’s attention at the time.
It is located in an industrial area, or a semi-industrial area. There is Wongabilla, the pony, equestrian and rodeo to the east. What is going to happen when the gaol does move and we get this residential area? People are going to start complaining about the noisy rodeos, as they complain about everything else about Darwin when they come from down south. We have industrial areas to the south, the farm to the north and a major arterial road to the west. It is a prime place for a gaol, given its location to services and infrastructure and, more importantly, as has been pointed out, to public transport.
Members of the Chamber may not be aware, but there is an enormous amount of traffic that goes to and from the Darwin gaol and the Don Dale Juvenile Centre. The prisoners go to court, hospitals, dentists, and they have special leave for funerals. The minimum low-risk prisoners go on work camps and work expeditions. The ancillary staff, who attend the gaol, are large in number. There are doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and health professionals. If a gaol is to be relocated and developed in a location that involves more travel and time, then that will add costs to the contract price these people charge the Northern Territory government and, ultimately, additional costs to the taxpayer and consumers.
We are also overlooking the fact that the prison officers will have a large say in what happens with a new correctional services facility for the Top End. They are a strong union and association and, rightly so; it is good that they represent their members accordingly. This will be a greenfield site and, as a consequence, the prison officers will want to have state-of-the-art facilities which benefit their members.
The original quote the government came out with was $300m. I argue, that by the time a gaol site is selected - if it involves acquisition of land, compensation, introduction and development of infrastructure and services - and then the actual building of the establishment, that the cost will be far in excess of $300m. I do not believe there has been any modelling done. There has probably been a figure plucked out of the air for what this facility is going to cost. I have not seen any information on the planning to accommodate the increase of prisoners, if we are going to have that as our population grows. Berrimah gaol, as I understand it, has approximately 800 prisoners, and that could grow if we have the law and order problems that we have currently in our community. That is not a good sign.
I urge the government, and I support the member for Nelson in saying let us not have a knee-jerk reaction - as this government is so good at doing - let us plan properly. If the gaol does need upgrading and expansion, then look at it seriously and consult properly with the community and all concerned so that we do get a proper facility and we do not have a situation of moving it to a location which, ultimately, costs the community and all the stakeholders a lot of angst and upset, and extra money to the taxpayer.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson. I have spent a bit of time around the Don Dale Centre and the gaol, located in Tivendale Road, and also, I have been fortunate to have a number of tours through the Berrimah Farm. I agree with the member for Goyder. The prison has a few design faults, but if one is going to expand, we could expand further in the same area and save ourselves an awful lot of money which could then be spent on, for instance, housing or developing blocks there.
My understanding is that the extension of Tiger Brennan Drive will go smack through there, and we are going to lose maybe a third of the Berrimah Farm anyway. Also, if the government want to develop some residential blocks, there are issues. One is the soil situation and the contaminants in the soil and the work that will have to be done to ensure that there is no danger to kids playing in the dirt. Second, there has been no mention of schools. I do not see a school close by. I do not see suitable shops. I know there is a nice shop going over there that sells clothing, factory clothing, Harvey Norman, etcetera, but I am talking about access to other shops.
The current scheduling of buses is of great concern to numerous people. There are no bus services here, so I am assuming we will have to get some more buses to adequately service that area. The top part of this particular parcel of land, they call the Berrimah Farm, is within the noise - the line that they have here, what term do they use?
Mr Wood: Noise contour.
Mr STYLES: That is it, the noise contour. We hear of people who buy homes and put them on land next to airports. They buy the land at a good price, because they are close to the airport, and then, a few years later, they are agitating to have the airport moved. The people from around that area who have been spoken to have recommended that light industrial use of this land might be more appropriate.
If there is no reason to shift the gaol, apart from a design issue - the last time I was out there, it looked like the building was strong enough, it was not about to fall down - then perhaps we need to redesign and build adjacent to the existing infrastructure at a far reduced cost rather than build a complete new one.
There are powerlines that run through here, and there are health risks associated with living next door to high voltage power lines. There are a number of issues that have not been raised by the government in their haste, obviously, to develop this land. I would be really interested to know why they are not pumping any development costs down into Bellamack, and getting these so-called 500 blocks that were mentioned yesterday, that are currently on the market. I am very interested to know exactly where those blocks are and whether they are on the market, or if they are vacant blocks owned by people who may be sitting on them for whatever reason. It is just another interesting aspect of what the government is providing in relation to house blocks, or so-called house blocks, on the Berrimah Farm. I believe there are other issues, and some serious planning issues that have not been explained in this House as yet.
I commend the motion from the member for Nelson.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I believe he is very right: the prison is fine where it is. I have taken many clients to that location, and it is still fine. To date, none of the clients I have taken there have run away.
On the basis that it is sound and structural at the moment, I believe it is fine. It does need some routine maintenance, as did Power and Water. However, as we have seen with Power and Water, if you do not maintain it, it fails. We need to maintain the property to ensure that it has a long life of service.
It is the same with this great building that we work in here. We discussed only the other day that we have been in here for 10 plus years and we are rewiring it for the upgrade of technology. What have we done to the current prison? Probably not much in that time other than basic fixing of the sewerage as it gets broken or fixing a gas pipe that leaks. If you do not put the maintenance in, none of our buildings will be sustained for a long time. Yes, it is overcrowded and we do need to increase the space. However, some of that space needs to incorporate educational facilities so that we can reform, as a prison should do, and rehabilitate the people who are in there, so that they do not continue on this cycle of recidivism, as do many of our prisoners.
I come from a family of tradespeople and, shall we say, of correctional services. My father was a correctional services officer for many years in South Australia. I have visited the Port Lincoln gaol and it is a great facility. It is a great method for dealing with people who know how to work with their hands and if they do not yet, they can be taught how to work with their hands - so they give back to the community. I have visited the Port Augusta gaol and in fact, when I first moved to Port Augusta, I lived in the gaol, not as a criminal but I lived in the old part of the gaol as a little kid, I cannot remember how old I was. When we moved to the old part of the gaol it was still being used. It was built around the1850s and it was still, in 1981, being used as a women’s prison.
We have a gaol that is only 30 years old and we want to bulldoze it. It is ridiculous. It is farcical. It is a great waste of Territory taxpayers’ money and should only be expanded upon to benefit it. An argument they have put is that the prison cannot be near residential areas, yet we have a maximum security prison in Adelaide, within the central region cornered by North, South, and East Terrace. There is a prison right in the middle of Adelaide. What is the problem? It is called The Block, because it looks like a block. Everyone knows what it is, but no one runs away from it. Everyone walks past it every day to get their cappuccino. It is not an issue.
In addition, we need our low security prisons to develop. These are areas where we begin to pass on some thoughts and our trust to those who have breached everyone’s trust in society. Places where we train the people, and reform the people - that is the idea of work gangs. We have them going out of the Berrimah gaol and they are brilliant – you see them everywhere, and they do a great job. However, we need to expand on that and we need to increase our ability to train people.
Port Lincoln and Port Augusta are role models. Port Augusta has a small portion, and I cannot remember the correct name, where they have self-contained units away from the gaol. They only have cyclone mesh fences and some barbed wire on top that contains the prisoners. It is very low security - a series of little bungalows. They supply their meat and food; they put in the orders to the head kitchen for what they need for the next couple of days. They are taught the vital life skills that will help close the gap in society and that is what they do there. That model can be used in the Territory quite well, particularly somewhere like Katherine, where you could have the work gangs and they all come home to nest - crocodile nest, perhaps - and they learn life skills during the day and come home and learn other life skills, that could help them in their life beyond gaol.
I commend the member for Nelson for his motion. It is a very wise move for the government to follow a motion like this. You do not have to be foolish, you can change your mind and move forward with a better plan - if you are genuine about supporting Territory people.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the member for Nelson in this motion.
When it was first announced that the government would be spending $300m on a new prison, I was quite stunned. If you look around the Northern Territory, and while we have the Treasurer here telling us the Territory is in a great financial state, you do not have to be a genius to work out that the Territory has some significant bills coming its way.
The Minister for Essential Services tells us they are about to spend $1bn addressing the power crisis. Goodness knows what the nursing staff and health crisis is going to cost us; what the education crisis is going to cost us; what the law and order crisis is going to cost us, and yet the government seems to have a spare $300m to throw away on a facility which already exists at Berrimah Farm. To me it seems like complete madness that the government would be spending this money on something which is already in existence.
I also note that the government said back in September they would announce where the new $300m prison would be located. I sit here and look at the minister and I do not know if he is going to jump up during this motion and tell the crew exactly where it is going be placed. I very much doubt it, but we sit in hope.
It is a very important matter. People here are chuckling at the minister’s obvious discomfort, but it is an important matter. There are a range of people who currently work at Berrimah prison, who have literally had their lives put on hold since the announcement of the new prison. Those prison wardens and other correctional services personnel who work at Berrimah prison are, quite rightly, up in the air as to what their future holds. They do not know if the new prison is going to Yuendumu, Ayers Rock, Alice Springs, Katherine or Tennant Creek, maybe in the member for Nelson’s electorate or maybe even in Fong Lim. Goodness knows, no one knows, it is …
Mr Bohlin: Fannie Bay raceway.
Mr TOLLNER: Fannie Bay raceway is the suggestion from the member for Drysdale.
In all fairness, it is a rather serious issue. People who work in prisons are obviously dedicated, hardworking people and they have families. Those families require certainty, in order to make decisions for the future. People need certainty to know where they are going to buy their house, where they intend to live, and a lack of certainty disrupts people’s lives. I feel for those people who are currently working at Berrimah prison. They have been left hanging regarding where their new workplace may be, whether they need to find alternative employment or if they can get to the new prison, etcetera.
Understandably, Berrimah prison is now overcrowded. I notice that the member for Nelson’s motion includes a provision that the government build a prison farm facility somewhere else in the Territory, as an alternative to the current prison strategy. That is a great idea. I was a bit wary, in the lead-up to the last election, about our law and order concerns. I have seen a number of elections over the years in the Northern Territory where it becomes a question of who is the toughest on belting the daylights out of criminals, and very little attention has ever been placed on the rehabilitation or correction of those criminals.
I was extraordinarily proud to be part of the Country Liberals’ campaign on law and order aspects because, finally, we were addressing that crucial issue about how we facilitate the correction and rehabilitation of people caught up in our judicial and prison system. The idea of prison farms and getting people working, giving them real skills, giving them education, teaching them to read and write whilst in prison, I thought was admirable. I encourage the government to seriously consider going down that path.
I am very glad to support the member for Nelson’s motion, for that reason alone. In addition, I am very glad the member for Nelson is also advocating that we do not waste $300m on a new prison. That money could be used to set up a prison farm somewhere else - or a boot camp, whatever you want to call it - a centre that would, in some way, rehabilitate and educate prisoners, and give them some sort of work ethic when they come out of the prison system, in the hope that we can turn them into contributing citizens of our society which is, ultimately, what we all want. We do not want people constantly re-offending and going back into gaol. Member for Nelson, I support you in that regard.
I have an inkling that the reason why the government is considering getting rid of the prison at Berrimah is because they want the land to build some houses on. I am sure the minister and his ministerial colleagues on the other side have flown in and out of Darwin on numerous occasions. When you fly in and out of Darwin and you look out the plane window it is very hard to understand why there is a land shortage in Darwin. There does appear to be a lot of vacant land. However, we seem to have to pick the one spot, where we have a large existing piece of infrastructure, which only needs a bit of a spruce up, and it would do sufficiently for years to come.
I encourage the government to consider spending a bit of time planning. Maybe this 2030 thing, whatever it is that the …
A member: The multi-million dollar plan.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, the multi-multi-million dollar committee that the Chief Minister is proposing, could look at the planning concerns and at some areas that Darwin can expand into in years to come, rather than ripping down existing infrastructure. Goodness me, I am quite stunned that the Territory Treasurer would support a move to waste $300m on something like this. But, then again, she is the minister for Planning; she is the one who is actually lacking the planning skills. I suppose this is a bit of a way out for her.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very glad to support the member for Nelson’s motion. I am extremely glad that he has brought it on for debate. This is an issue that should be debated further in this Chamber. I encourage all members in the Chamber to support the member for Nelson’s very thoughtful motion.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the motion by the member for Nelson; it is a very important issue. Governments are charged with providing necessary public infrastructure; that is part of what we do. Whether that is hospitals, power infrastructure, or schools - prisons are part of that public infrastructure.
I share members’ concerns. It is a lot of money to be spending on a gaol, but I am convinced it is necessary. We have heard comments opposite: all it needs is a coat of paint, a bit of a working bee on the weekend, and it will be right. But it will not be right. It is aged infrastructure. The member for Goyder said it is only 30 years old. Well, it has had a hard life. Moreover, the design of the current gaol is completely incompatible with what is required for a modern facility. It is completely incompatible, not only for the lack of capacity to offer rehabilitation and education programs which, laudably, was a central part of the opposition’s plank in the election. I agree with the member for Fong Lim, that this was a very important issue that was raised and is something the government agrees with, and has been putting forward, for some time, as part of our rationale for a new prison.
It is not only that. It is the inefficient use of resources, namely, prison officers, and the ratio of prison officers to prisoners in this facility, currently, is far in excess of what is accepted practice all around Australia. The prison officers have lobbied the government very strongly for a new prison on a greenfield site. I am not sure if the member for Nelson or members of the opposition have taken time to discuss this matter with the prison officers. Colin Edwards put to me, very strongly, that this is what the prison officers want. Why do they want it? There are safety and supervision issues, and the issue of modern correctional facilities which rely on many types of modern technology, to assist the flow of prisoners around various areas of the gaol. That certainly cannot happen at Berrimah as it currently stands.
The current prison is a bit like Topsy; it just grew. There have been parts grow here and there, and it is a very difficult institution to implement modern correctional policies. It has had its use-by date. I have talked about the inefficiencies, and the difficulties in being able to provide education facilities for prisoners. Moreover, there are difficulties with having a working correctional facility as a construction site. That is a major difficulty.
I want to assure this House that government has looked very carefully at this issue. I will talk about the new site and the processes involved later on.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: There are a number of sites - well, there is actually one more now. The member for Drysdale said he did not really mind if there was a correctional facility built in a residential area, so I think you can add the electorate of Drysdale to the list of sites we have - maybe right next door to the member for Drysdale. He seemed to enjoy having a correctional facility next door to him.
The one undertaking I have given, in terms of the new site, is that it would not be proximal to housing, but I will discuss that in more detail later.
There was one issue - I do have a prepared speech – raised by a number of speakers regarding the issue of the new visitors centre. The member for Nelson raised that, and the member for Goyder. I have been advised, that with short-term expansion, for security reasons, we need a new visitors centre for the next several years. We have to bear in mind that this is a long-term project. The basis of a new correctional facility, I believe is for 800 to move there by 2012, and a further 200 to be there by 2016, and decommissioning of the Berrimah site by that time. We are talking about quite a time frame.
The current visitors centre would not allow family members expected access, and due to overcrowding, could lead to the transmission of contraband, drugs or weapons into the facility. The new centre includes appropriate searching areas. I am also advised that some fixtures can and will be moved and installed into a new facility. That is the advice I have had specifically about the new visitors centre.
I will now address the issue as a whole and specifically address the motion put forward by the member for Nelson. It is true that the member for Nelson has had a very strong interest in the planning and future development of the Berrimah site, including the Berrimah Correctional Facility. I believe it was the member for Nelson and the member for Goyder raised issues about a residential development there, which the member for Karama, as the Planning minister, has addressed on a number of occasions.
In terms of the process, there is always an assessment of land suitability, which takes into account many factors, including the ANEF levels of topography - a whole range of issues are part of that process. That is happening for the current site and the farm. Someone also mentioned that there are large power lines and a significant area under those power lines that cannot be developed, and would separate the two sites that you are talking about, member for Nelson, which would complicate matters further, including transport of prisoners to and from a prospective prison farm.
We are currently in the process of finalising a preferred site and design for a modern, expanded 1000 inmate correctional facility for the Darwin region. Despite what the member for Nelson has said, a final decision has not been made. I will talk about that a little later, member for Nelson.
This facility will be based on best practice architectural design to allow maximum access to rehabilitation and education programs, as well as artistic, sporting, and cultural activities. I inform the House that government did not sit down and say: ‘Oh, let us have a new prison’. ‘How much is it going to cost?’ ‘Oh, probably around $300m’. It does not work like that. We have consultants, specialised consultants, people who have been involved in designing and building correctional facilities in the Australasian region, who have advised government. Moreover, further advice always comes from Treasury and DPI. There are a number of sources that government has received advice from on the prospective costs of a particular facility.
Members are aware of high recidivism rates in the Northern Territory and we have all spoken about that. This is largely due to a high Indigenous prison population. A correctional facility needs to be daunting, in some respects, but it also needs to be structured to encourage offenders, as much as possible, to avoid committing further crimes and returning to prison. Any member, who has visited Berrimah prison, would be well aware of the pressing need for a new, much expanded facility. The structure is poorly designed, old, oppressive and at capacity and it reminded me of footage of the Bali Nine. That is what I thought of Berrimah, when I visited there. It has definitely reached the end of its use-by date.
We cannot keep on adding new blocks and hope it holds together forever. The opposition has argued that halting construction of the new facility will save the entire cost of construction, which is not true. The opposition refuses to take into account the much higher maintenance costs, prisoner numbers, and staffing expenses, which are quite considerable, in keeping an old expanded facility running. Over the years extensions have been made to cater for growing numbers, but have subsequently impinged on educational and outdoor spaces. Prisoners are required to stay in their cells for much of the day, not as a punishment, but because that is the way it is in the current facility - this creates intense boredom. It is difficult for officers to monitor and interact positively with inmates.
In my discussions with the Prison Officers Association, members have very strongly supported the new facility and believe it will improve their work environment and raise staff retention rates.
The crucial question is: where to place this new facility? Choosing an appropriate site in the Darwin region is a complex undertaking. It is being managed by the Departments of Planning and Infrastructure, Justice, and Health - obviously of interest to the member for Drysdale, who would need to really look at the midge and mosquito issue. These are very important issues and something that I have insisted on. It is also very important for both the prison officers and other staff, and also the inmates. That needs to be done correctly. Also, Treasury is crucial in this undertaking.
The central criterion for a prison site, conferred by myself and the Chief Minister on several occasions, is that it should not be close to residential land. The member for Drysdale will be glad to know, I am not going back on that undertaking. I will not be building it in the park next door to his house. He seemed to think that they were pretty good in residential areas.
While agencies were scheduled to report back on a preferred site this month, I have directed, with the support of the Planning Minister and the Chief Minister, the agencies, that they ensure all relevant considerations and concerns are taken into account when presenting their final findings to government.
This is a very complex undertaking. There is much data that needs to be collected and assessments to be done. I want to be satisfied, as minister, and government, when I go out publicly with these assessments, that the right site has been chosen; that it stands the test of public scrutiny. It is a major government infrastructure that will be operational for the next 30 years, at least. We are not just planning for the next five years but assessing Darwin’s population growth and expansion for the next generation.
In order to keep this process transparent, and provide comparisons, which I believe, is crucial, the present site is being assessed as part of the site selection process. I did not want to say: ‘Here are five or six sites, and this is how they have been assessed, this is the criteria by which they have been assessed’, and for someone, probably the member for Nelson, to come back and say: ‘But you did not really assess the current site using those criteria.’ That is why the current site is being assessed with another five or six sites. I want to keep it transparent, so the member for Nelson can say: ‘Okay, this is how the current site and the other sites are being assessed.’ That way we can be comparing apples with apples. That is why our government has directed that the current site be assessed in the mix with the others, to keep it transparent and to satisfy everybody.
Berrimah faces several large challenges as an option for the new facility, such as: insufficient space for a larger facility, limited further expansion option, low lying land in some sections of the site, required buffer zones, and prison security, when we have a major construction site in the same location as a working maximum security prison. Member for Nelson, with some of those issues, the constraints are shared by some of the other prospective sites. It is not clear-cut; however, government is looking at all the options and including Berrimah as part of the process.
I am advised that this last issue would reduce educational and vocational placement for prisoners during the five year construction phase. The Northern Territory government has also made a firm commitment to developing a wider site of Berrimah for residential and industrial purposes. Advice I have received, member for Nelson, is that the models proposed by the Opposition Leader and yourself - slightly different models - at the current site, would fail by 2012. They would fail because they would be overtaken by the increase in prisoner numbers. There has been some detailed work done on the increase in prisoner numbers over the next seven to eight years. That modelling suggests that the proposal put forward by the opposition and your own proposal, for an expanded gaol on the current site, would not meet the increase in prisoner numbers. That is a debate we will continue to have, and I am very happy to have with you, member for Nelson. I welcome your input and I want to continue the dialogue with you. When government releases the report or the recommendations of the report and the assessments, it will be quite clear why the prospective site has been chosen and why others have not been chosen.
I know the member for Nelson has been quite passionate about prison farms. It is a very good issue. The way you have been consistent with this has set government thinking. As someone pointed out, the former member for Barkly has been a great advocate for regional prisons, as is the current member for Barkly and the member for Katherine. It is something government needs to consider. While developing a government prison policy, a full assessment was conducted of constructing and operating a small, minimum- security facility in either Katherine or Tennant Creek but, unfortunately, the high construction costs, transportation issues, and expensive doubling up of infrastructure meant this was not a viable option. The Prison Officers Association also very clearly argued earlier this year a regional facility would be difficult to staff.
I am pleased to inform the House that the government is currently investigating the concept of permanent and temporary regional work camp programs - as you alluded to visiting in Western Australia. I have some information and it is my hope that I can travel there in the near future, possibly in the company of others, and have a look firsthand. From what I have read, they seem very positive and they do a very good job. This would provide an alternative to traditional punishment, and allow prisoners to undertake a range of worthwhile projects while improving employment skills. Similar projects have been operating in Western Australia for over a decade, and prisoners regularly improve national park access, and rehabilitate remote areas and community spaces. Training would be available in chainsaw operation, first aid construction, and building maintenance, and camps, can provide prisoners with living skills, as someone else alluded to, as they would be required to self-cater, do their own laundry and, generally, maintain themselves in the camp.
There could be other opportunities in some of our regional centres for regional work camps to do similar work currently done by the community work parties in Darwin and Alice Springs. I am very supportive of this idea. We need to do some more work on these proposals, as they are in a preliminary stage. I have asked the Department of Justice to assess options for Corrective Services’ work camps and develop a submission for the consideration of government in the near future.
I am very happy to discuss these ideas further with the member for Nelson. Regrettably, member for Nelson, given what I have said here today, government will not be supporting your motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not often I jump up like that; it is hard to know how you add value. However, the member for Johnston said something which made me think I should get up.
I am very keen for him to explain, at a later date, exactly what he meant by his comment - and I do not have the exact quote – in words to the effect: much is said about the recidivism rate and we know that because they are Indigenous - implying that people are going back to gaol because they are Indigenous. I have not checked the Hansard, to clarify exactly what you said, but I am pretty sure I heard you say that people go back to gaol because they are Indigenous. I would be happy for you to clarify that.
Based on those comments – and that is exactly what I heard - it is very important for me to support the member for Nelson in his motion about the new prison facility.
There are many reasons why people end up in gaol. I know a little about the Alice Springs correctional facility which currently has 400 beds with about 448 prisoners. Many of them are Indigenous, and I believe there is a 66% recidivism rate at that gaol. I spend a lot of time talking to those prison officers, and they tell me a number of things about why people go into gaol, and some of the issues and concerns they have, because many of these prison officers live in my electorate.
We need to get back to the reason why people are going into gaol in the first place. There has been a little talk about alcoholism; the members for Nelson and Fong Lim spoke about alcohol. We keep putting these people into gaol, without having appropriate facilities to deal with alcoholism. Until we deal with the issue of alcoholism, our gaols will continue to get filled. I believe $300m could go a long way to deal with the issue of alcoholism and keeping people out of our gaols in the first place. The fewer people who are in gaols, the more people are able to work and better support our economy. At the moment, we are just letting alcoholism continue, and we are locking people up all the time. Sure, they might have committed an offence, but we have to deal with the issue in the first place.
I spoke last week about the issues in Alice Springs such as lack of housing and overcrowding, how that creates antisocial behaviour, and the vicious cycle goes on with alcohol consumption and people end up in gaol. However, instead of trying to deal with the lack of housing, providing more police, or trying to deal with the issue of alcohol, this government wants to spend $300m building a new gaol. I am not talking about the site at Berrimah. Spending $300m building a new gaol in the Darwin region beggars belief.
I find it very concerning that many members on the other side are from regional areas, and many spoke about the economic direction of the third Labor government - which has been held off again - and they talk about the support, about how great the economy is in the Northern Territory, how great Labor is doing, how great the government is doing with the economy in the Northern Territory, but I never hear anyone demanding economic opportunities in the bush.
We hear these little fluffy ministerial reports in the morning: great. The economy in the bush is booming. We never hear anyone put anything into the bush. Not once. I am a town member, and many of the people over here are town members …
Ms Lawrie: $286m for Closing the Gap.
Mr GILES: … as I hear some dribble from the other side. I sit back and ask: why do I keep trying to support the regions? I am not sure. The people who should be supporting the regions are the regional members. When you have a $300m prison and evidence that we need another gaol - because the government is clearly not dealing with the numbers of people who are being picked up and going to gaol - I wonder why the members, who represent the regions, are not standing up and saying: bring it to our area. Let us try to get some economic development in our area.
I heard the member for Johnston say something like the prison officers do not want it out in the regional area because they cannot find workers. The member for Nelson and many other people on this side of the parliament, including myself, join with what members on the other side say about getting Aboriginal people working. Here is an opportunity to create some jobs in the bush; because that is what is clearly lacking.
We have a $300m opportunity and we have no vision to put this out in the bush, which is exactly where it should be going. I do not know how many jobs there are in a gaol that costs $300m, but I assume there would be at least 100 jobs that are not all fully skilled jobs, that could go into the bush to create jobs for people. The people who have jobs are not the people who are going to gaol. If we get people trained and working they will not go into the prison system in the first place. As opposed to not creating jobs for people, who are not going to school because there are no jobs, and they are ending up in the gaol system.
I cannot see that this government has any vision. They stand up when the cameras are here, and they will talk about all fancy little things with slogans and acronyms and, oh, our 2030 - we are not going to do anything until 2030. Never mind that they have done nothing for seven years and things are going backwards, and hang on a second, we better look to the next 22 years. Here is something right now, where the government can make a difference - $300m. We cannot even get $3m for headworks in Alice Springs to get new land released, and you are going to pump $300m into a gaol. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Why not focus on stopping the people going to gaol in the first place? Why not stop giving people $10 for a bus fare when they leave gaol? Where do they go? They go back to the same old thing. You wonder why, as the minister for Justice says, it is the Indigenous people coming back. Ten dollars and a bus fare, plus the sweetener on the other end: ‘I have no food or smokes, if I go to gaol I get $25 and a packet of smokes for $10 - that will be great. I will get three meals a day and a bed’. You spoke about trade school in gaol and carpentry and all of these different things - that is great. I have inspected Alice Springs gaol a few times and I am just about to go on another inspection and I think it is great. However, we give people $10 and a bus fare when they leave. What about a halfway house or some type of structure? So that when people leave gaol, they can go to this house, which is completely managed, and have a bed, food, and accommodation - the type of things that they get in gaol - but they go to work at 9 am and they come back at 5 pm. They could put their skills to use and help grow the economy. It could help reduce the rate of re-incarceration of people.
What about spending $300m on a school? We know the kids who do not go to school are the ones who will more than likely end up in gaol. There are a thousand reports that will tell you that. But no, we will lock more people up and they will re-offend because they are Indigenous, apparently.
What about using the $300m for the bush? If we really want to build the bush, let us put it out there. Let us have a tender that says: which community wants this prison project? If you are going to have it, you will have to provide employees and you cannot provide employees unless your kids have gone to school. We are prepared to give you this project. We might start building it small, to see how you go. Send your kids school, get them trained up and then they can have a job - first preference. There is a real regional economic development opportunity for a community in the bush in the Northern Territory.
However, what do we have? Put it at Berrimah. Instead of realising that the majority of the members of the government come from the bush. You stand there and preach to us about how smart you are with regional economics and how much you commit to the regions. Yet, not one person from the regions on your side has stood up and said, bring it bush. That is absolutely disgusting. It is appalling. To sit here and listen to the comments made - as I have said, I am happy to be corrected through Hansard - about recidivism rates and the correlation between them being Indigenous, I find highly offensive.
I believe that this government has a lack of foresight about what to do. I am not going to talk about the committee because there are no ideas on the other side; it was just announced as some sort of report or announcement during Question Time.
The comments made by the member for Johnston - as I sat here and stewed about whether to stand up - absolutely disgusted me. I support the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the government that today they have been promoting the 2030 vision.
My 2030 vision for prisons is that one day we will not have to build bigger prisons. We will build smaller ones because we do not have as many people in our prisons. Unfortunately, society as it is, the problem appears to be getting worse because the numbers are growing; they are not getting smaller. I believe we should be doing everything we can to stop people going to gaol and helping them during and after they have been in gaol. We cannot look at the issue about prisons without looking at the whole picture.
I believe that early intervention is the key. It has been proven overseas, and in parts of Australia, that if you can intervene, especially with young children when they appear to be first at risk, you can save - if you want to look at the economic side of it - government a lot of money. However, it is not just about economics - it is about saving people from ending up on the wrong side of the tracks.
I put this up today to look at alternatives as well as the basic issue of the whether the prison should be moved. I thank the minister for his statement which contained some good things, and what I have heard, especially from members on this side, was also encouraging, because I heard more, for a change, about what are we going to do about rehabilitation.
It is easy to say we will put them in gaol. I am not saying we should not put people in gaol, but I believe we would be very narrow-minded politicians if that is all we did. This job is more than a headline. This job is more than agreeing with the fellow leaning over the bar, who says lock them up and put them away forever. That does not happen. We want to make sure that a person who goes through the prison system comes out a little better, or a lot better - more educated and able to put something back in to society and never comes back again.
The prison farm should not be looked at from a viability point of view. The member for Braitling mentioned the economic advantages for a town. For example, putting a small farm in Tennant Creek or Katherine would create employment. I agree with the member for Braitling. Why not employ local people to look after minimum security prison farms? I am not disagreeing with the union, which claims there has to be some changes to the existing prison. However, I believe it is fairly narrow-minded to say that we cannot find people to employ in those areas. Are they saying we cannot find people from outside those areas who will come to these communities? I am saying let us look at those communities and see if we can employ people locally.
There is an area that is not being brought up very often these days - deaths in custody. From memory, one of the recommendations from deaths in custody was to try to have people as close to their families as possible. Approximately 80% of the people in the Northern Territory gaols are Indigenous. Are you telling me that 80% of Indigenous people live in Alice Springs and Darwin? Because these are the only two prisons we have. I am sure they live in other places. Why not use these prison farms so that we are able to relocate some of these people to areas where they are closer to their families?
That is not about viability; it is about social issues and creating employment. A prison farm will create employment because you will need suppliers of food, clothes, and basic items that everyone requires to live. There are economic benefits for local communities, there are some benefits for the prisoners and there are some employment opportunities for people in those areas. It is a system we should try. It is an alternative to the big, hard, cold, concrete prison that we put many people in, which I believe has a better chance of rehabilitating people and give them some life skills. It will not solve all the problems.
I agree with what the member for Braitling said: where would you rather be if you were in a house with 15 people, where people were humbugging you all day for money, you could hardly find a quiet place to sit, and you were never sure where you were going to get your next meal? Prison looks a nice option sometimes. We have to remember that these issues are not just isolated to prisons. They are also about the conditions in which people live and we have to make the effort to try to change that. We do not have the time today to go into all those issues.
Minister, the issue of work farms has not been thought through hard enough. If the main reason the government has decided against this is because the prison officers say there are problems employing people in those areas, then I believe that is too narrow. I am interested in talking - maybe it is too late in this debate – to the members for Barkly and Katherine about the unemployment rate in these communities. You do not have to be a PhD to be a corrections officer in the community. That is not saying they do not need some qualifications, but I believe that those people could be trained in the Territory, just as we train police officers and ACPOs. We should be able to train and employ them locally and that would be good.
Many of the people in the communities, like Tennant Creek and Katherine, would probably know some of those prisoners as well. Maybe it would help some of the prisoners because they would find it hard at times if they had no-one they knew, in an environment different to what they were used to.
I differ a little from some of the speakers. I have visited the prison, not because I was forced to go there but because I am interested. I visited prisons in Ohio in America, and I visited Alice Springs, Wildman River, and Wyndham Work Camp. I have tried to educate myself about matters regarding prisoners. The last time I went on a guided tour of the prison, I saw it is a strong prison; it is not going to blow over. I must admit it does have some funny designs. There are places where there is no roof and prison officers have to walk in the rain to go from one place to another. They have a ventilation system which is just a piece of arc mesh. I am not against it being redeveloped, if that makes it better.
I recall going to the women’s prison, which is on the outside of the main part of the prison. That was what the member for Braitling was talking about - the idea of halfway house. I am fairly sure - and I will be corrected if I am wrong - that the buildings at the front of the prison, on the right-hand side as you come in to the prison car park, were to be a halfway house. They were motel-type units. That did not happen and they have become the women’s prison, and it is unsuitable. They have expanded it by putting some demountables there. I was very disappointed last time I was there. Unfortunately, the little garden they had for the women’s prison had a building put right on top of it – goodbye garden. People do not have much to do in prison. If you can give people a little work, encourage them to do things during the day, learn some skills and not be bored, we should be promoting that, not putting a big building on top of a garden. However, people had other ideas. I might be wrong there.
I looked at the education facilities in the prison, and they are certainly not up to standard. There was a hall in Berrimah prison where they had concerts and meetings, which is now full of classrooms which are not really adequate for the job. When I went to the Ohio Reformatory for Women, there were modern classrooms and women sitting at desks. They were keen to change their lives because they had good education facilities. The people in Ohio realise the importance of educating these people. I do not think it is a trade secret that many people in gaol are from the low socioeconomic and low educational section of our society. We need to give them assistance.
I thank the minister for saying that they are going to look at the existing site. I suggest the top part of the Berrimah Farm as a possibility, because there is room on Berrimah Farm. There is also room on the existing site. It concerns me that we have a $7.6m low-security prison that was only just built. What is going to happen to that? Is it going to go? There is the Don Dale Centre. There was no response to that, so is that going to go? I have not heard about those things.
I can draw an area on this map, approximately the same size as the current prison and put that in at least two places on existing land. While I was sitting here I received an e-mail from someone who must have been listening to the debate. They said: ‘For horticulture there are two sewerage ponds where we could recycle water and turn that into a garden. We could use some of the effluent, treated and pumped back into a garden, to create a garden for the prisoners’.
I understand where the prison officers are coming from. I know that the reception area of the prison is hopeless. It is not a good system for anyone. It is not safe for prisoners or prison officers. The facilities for the recreation area have been upgraded. When I first went there it was terrible, it had not been upgraded since it had been built. You have to look after the people who work in prisons. They need to be given facilities. When they are having time off from work, they need a pleasant place to sit and, if they want to play a game of pool or something, they need good facilities - at least that has been upgraded. These are areas that we need to take into account.
My argument is not about whether we need to keep this prison, but if we are going to build a new one, let us build it on the existing site because there are many advantages. It has the infrastructure, it is close, it has industry - where we could possibly create employment, it is close to the courts, people on remand can come out here, and families can visit because of public transport. It is not causing a problem for people. No one will go crook if it is built next door.
However, we are making a decision that it has to go somewhere else, and the main reason for moving the prison, from what I have read in media releases, is that the government wants to use it for housing. We will get on to that debate later but I do not believe that is a good reason to shift it.
I thank all the members who have contributed. I am encouraged that this has raised a little more awareness of an issue that is a major scourge on our society: that we have huge numbers of people in prison, and the highest rates of Indigenous people imprisoned in Australia per head of population, is a disgrace.
If we have a 2030 vision, it should be to reduce that number and keep working on it. We need alternatives. This is the prison that has been here since 1979. Alice Springs gaol is no better - in some ways it is, at least it has a roof on it - but it is concrete and steel and it has a small minimum security area. If things are working, why do we have so many people in prison? I believe it is part of the law and order policies that the government is putting out. We need to audit them to find out if they are working. We are getting tougher - is that going to solve it? We have to balance it with finding ways for rehabilitation, ways to intervene early, or look at work camps. How many years did I argue about the retention of Wildman River? It was closed down and then Hamilton Downs starts up about six months before the election, and the government puts out a nice brochure saying: ‘Look what we are doing for youth’. That is correct, in the last six months, but not in the last six and a half years.
I thank people for supporting this motion. If nothing else comes of it at the present time, I hope it highlights to members that this issue is not going to go away. I will continue to raise it. Regardless of where the prison goes, I still believe we need prison farms. Why build a 1000-person prison, when we could build a smaller one, and put other people, low-security people, elsewhere in the Northern Territory? Why are we looking at only one option?
Madam Speaker, I move the motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Berrimah Farm Development
Berrimah Farm Development
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That plans by the Northern Territory government to demolish the Berrimah Research Station buildings and turn Berrimah Farm into housing should be scrapped and that a proper long-term plan for the area involving Berrimah Farm workers, community and industry participation be developed to set in place future long-term development of the facility and surrounding farmlands.
There are two important elements to this motion. First, that the plan to build houses on Berrimah Farm should be scrapped, and second, that a long-term plan should be developed which will govern the use of the area.
I will comment on the first element. The minister knows that I do not believe you can put housing there. However, I am trying to put something more positive than: no. I am putting forward reasons why I believe we should be very careful what we do with the Berrimah Farm. My personal feeling is that it should be used for light industry, on an industry-related report. I will give you my reasons for that. I am trying to put out something that the government may agree on: that we need community input into what should happen to this area because there has not been any to date. That is a great part of what I am promoting tonight.
The government has decided to include Berrimah Farm as a housing estate, using arguments that the previous Chief Minister highlighted in a press release on 8 October 2007 that this new development, and I quote:
- … will ease the pressure on our housing market and help Territorians into more affordable accommodation.
The present minister added a few other reasons such as: it is needed for in-fill; the costs of infrastructure; it is a beautiful location, it has harbour breezes and beautiful views; and a new reason was added with the announcement of Harbour Town near Harvey Norman.
Then I looked at the reasoning the government has put forward. It said it would ease the pressure on the housing market. Good planning would have meant that Weddell, the future town next to Palmerston, would have been designed and have the headworks in place, and even future suburbs would be ready to be turned off. Of course, nothing has happened. The only thing that has happened in this debate is whether Cox Peninsula should be developed instead of Weddell - an idea which, when you look at the infrastructure requirements, has rocks in its head. What all this means is the government is looking for short-term fixes to cover their lack of planning. This is a repeat of the Glyde Point heavy industrial estate fiasco.
The second reason is: this will help Territorians into more affordable accommodation. There is no doubt that housing for many people is becoming harder to acquire. The government claims that its plans for housing in Palmerston and Lyons will alleviate the problem. Without too much debate, Lyons will not be the place for those trying to establish themselves on a HomeNorth loan, with land prices of approximately $300000. It has yet to be seen if Palmerston will be any better, as the government will not say what the prices will be in the new suburbs. Why should the opening of Berrimah Farm mean there is now going to be affordable housing? There is no reason - it is just spin.
Berrimah will still require major infrastructure on top of the cost of removal of any contaminated soil, which the member for Goyder has mentioned a number of times, already estimated at - we do not know. I was talking to someone who worked there just the other day, and they said for every tree that was planted, they poured in Dieldrin - in the old-fashioned way. Every tree planted on the farm had Dieldrin administered to it, and that will not have gone away.
Unless the land at Berrimah is sold directly by the government to Territorians, I do not believe the blocks of land will be any more affordable or unaffordable, than other places like Palmerston. If it is, then the government has not supported that claim with any facts. It has not told us how affordable this land will be. If you go to Berrimah Farm and look across the sea, you can see across to the port. If the government is going to build the houses where there is a nice view, I can guarantee that people accessing HomeNorth will not be buying those properties; they will be top of the market.
The government says we need to have infill and the cost of infrastructure is probably cheaper if we use existing infrastructure. There is some logic with the infrastructure, but the infill argument is really an excuse for lack of forward planning. There is a general plan for Darwin. It is under the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan. The government has never rejected this, but it is now saying: we have this corridor between Palmerston and Darwin. I do not have the larger version of the Google map here, but if you look at this coloured map, the blue areas are industrial - there is the industrial end of Palmerston and Winnellie. We are going to put houses in there with the idea of joining Darwin and Palmerston along the corridor.
Most of the land is unsuitable for housing, it is already industrial, and you are going to have a little ghetto, on a restricted portion of land, surrounded by industrial land. You could probably argue infill for Darwin where you have old suburban blocks and now you have high-rise. You are increasing the density of the population in the CBD and it is replacing old Darwin house blocks. That is infill. This is not land fill, but it shows a lack of vision and it shows a lack of desire to keep the concept of Darwin and Palmerston as distinct entities. Why do I think that is important? If you limit the size of the population of your city, you keep a sense of community. I came from Melbourne. I could not say I had a sense of community with some parts of Melbourne; if I went back there now, I would have less. The country town where I used to stay with my aunty and uncle is now nearly suburban because the sprawl has continued.
There are important reasons for trying to have discrete cities - not too big - and that those cities be broken up with green areas, industrial, defence or rural blocks. There is good reason for not allowing an urban sprawl. Cost of infrastructure may be an argument, but surely if Weddell had been laid out by now, we would not be having this argument. We have expediency. We have a government which has basically dropped the ball when it comes to planning ahead for housing, and it has to think of ways to counteract the criticism that there has not been a good supply of land. This is not the way to go. You need to stick to your plan. You need to stick to a vision.
The government says that infrastructure costs may be cheaper here than Weddell, but they have not taken into account the cost of relocating the research facilities of the farm. What are the costs of the new buildings or staff relocation? Their time to travel to different places - has that been taken into account? Infrastructure might be the pipes and the power lines, but this is a farm where government research already operates.
The fourth reason the minister gave is that it is a beautiful location, with harbour breezes and beautiful views. There is no doubt there are. However, some of that is right next to existing industrial land. I am not sure if many people on the industrial land are going to like people on residential land backing onto them. There is no doubt that is the case. If you look clearly at the map and look at these photographs, the second photograph shows, roughly in the middle, there are three Ws on the left, which is the Hidden Valley racing track. The mud racing is the closest one to Berrimah Farm. There are going to be noise issues. There is the airport - the contours go across the top of Berrimah Farm. There is also industry. Why do you want to get close to industry? There are companies like BHP who operate from Berrimah, and they put on their overhead lights at 5 am to load up equipment for the oil rigs, and you have people living close by – there will be problems, there will be issues.
There is a four-lane highway. If you want to see how big the four-lane highway is, look for the bright red line going through the property - that is Tiger Brennan Drive which will cut the property in half. If you look at the planning, below that is not planned for housing, it is planned for future development in relation to the port.
I have been told by fairly reliable sources that, at the bottom of the farm, you will get midges. You will get them badly because the mangroves are just here, roughly where Berrimah Road and Tiger Brennan Drive meet. There are midges in the valley like you would not believe and, yet, we are looking at putting housing there.
The last thing the minister spoke about was Harbour Town and how convenient it would be for the people who live there. Harbour Town is not going there because of Berrimah, the same as WOW did not go there because of Berrimah. They are going there because: (1) there is a good piece of land, and (2) it is a convenient place between Darwin, the northern suburbs, and Palmerston for people to visit. It is in the midway region.
Minister, as you would know, the land around Berrimah Farm has a number of uses and constraints: it has industrial land; it has a recreation reserve, Robbie Robinson; the Stuart Highway; the flight path; the high voltage line; and as the member for Sanderson said the prison - still there; the Hidden Valley race track; the East Arm port; and a four-lane highway. It also has Kormilda College nearby …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is further on. There are some wet areas that feed into Hudson Creek, which need assessment. Of course, you have the farm consisting of many buildings; many of them are not old. However, they are old if you are looking for a reason to destroy them.
Berrimah Farm is a really important place. I quote from the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines website:
- The Farm comprises an area of 215 hectares. It was established in 1956 as a district research farm to carry out field research for industry development in
the immediate Darwin Region. Over time the farm’s role has changed and it has become the headquarters for the Primary Industry and Fisheries Staff of
the Department.
The farm complex provides the campus accommodation for 200 staff …
We believe it is 220, because if you do a search on the NT government telephone numbers, you will find 220 people whose names relate to Berrimah Research Farm. It goes on to say, it:
- … provides the laboratory facilities, such as the NT Veterinary Laboratory; Fisheries laboratory provides infrastructure facilities needed for primary industry
and fisheries services and projects such as glass houses, cool rooms, animal housing and animal handling facilities, fisheries licensing, and provides the
farm facilities.
The Berrimah Farm was also a communication facility during the war - a very important facility that provided communications between planes which were coming to and from Darwin. It is called the World War II RAAF Operations Room and is on the NT Heritage Register. I quote from the NT Heritage Register:
- The former RAAF Operations Room was developed as a direct response to a direction of the Air Board to provide a coordinating role for the control of aerial defences,
including Radio Direction Finding and anti-aircraft defences in the North Western Area of Operations in the north of Australia during World War II.
It goes on to say that it was:
- Manned twenty four hours a day until 12 November 1943, the date of the last recorded bombing raid …
It was rediscovered only a few years ago. I do not have the details of the person who found it, but you will find a concrete slab, which I saw the other day, with details of what the site was. So, there is heritage value, as well as a number of other important facilities for primary industry.
I again quote from the department’s website regarding the farm’s role, to:
provide secure farm land, machinery, animals, and farm infrastructure required to conduct research and demonstration extension projects;
industry training programs, industry development programs, fisheries research and management programs, fisheries licensing activities and various
relevant extension programs.
Some of the projects are, and I quote:
National Arbovirus Monitoring Program - is an integrated national program funded by the sheep and cattle industries, and the federal and NT governments
to monitor the distribution of economically important insect borne viral diseases.
Maternal Antibody Arbovirus Trial - investigates the role played by arboviruses infecting cattle during pregnancy.
Sentinel Pig Project - Early warning detection system for exotic virus diseases conducted in cooperation with Australian Quarantine Service (NAQS).
Horticulture Genetic Collection Orchard - Securely retain potential horticulture genotypes for future use in plant breeding programs for the NT.
Horticulture Ornamental Breeding and Selection Program - Provides and tests new ornamental plant varieties suitable for commercial production in the NT.
Strategy and progress of the genetic improvement of African mahogany in the Northern Territory of Australia - The establishment of series of clone tests on
NTG Research stations at CPRS, Katherine, DDRF and gene conservation facility at Berrimah Farm for identification of superior genetics; and then
commercial deployment of clones.
Improved Pasture Species Selection and Cultivar Seed Maintenance - Tests and evaluates improved pasture species for potential for NT conditions and
maintains viable seed supplies for crop and pasture cultivars that the NT is responsible for.
- Berrimah Farm Demonstration Extension Projects:
- Major Land Use at Berrimah Farm:
The Berrimah Veterinary Laboratories (BVL) are the only veterinary laboratories in the Northern Territory of Australia, and are the most northern on the Australian continent.
The closest veterinary laboratories are at least 2000 km away.
The Berrimah Agriculture Laboratories house the operational components of the Resource Protection Division which provides information, advice and facilitation for services
in plant health regulatory control and agricultural resource protection to the Department’s clients.
The Horticulture Block, ‘Hort block’, consists of the main plant propagation facilities and shade houses for flowers and nursery plants, and forms part of the mango variety
collection and tropical exotic fruit trees. The successful tropical flower-breeding program is based at this site which is close to quarantine, tissue culture and post harvest
laboratory facilities.
The ‘Hort block’ plays a complementary role to the Coastal Plains Research Horticultural Research Farm, some 40 kilometres to the East.
Post-Entry Quarantine (PEQ) Facility provides a secure quarantine and tropical growing environment for live plants imported into Australia but forms only part of a full plant
introduction service in Darwin. This facility is the largest in tropical Australia, with 160 square metres available to importers. Recently rebuilt, the PEQ provides cyclone
coded state of the art facilities with a professional horticulturalist permanently on site to ensure the successful and safe release of imported material.
It is open to everyone, including cut-flower growers, the nursery industry, home gardeners, plant enthusiasts, horticulturalists and government departments.
Agricultural Development:
Berrimah Farm is used as a base for the Agriculture Development program. Small trials involving intensive management are carried out on the farm.
Northern Territory Seeds Laboratory:
The Seeds Laboratory works under the rules and regulations of the International Seed Testing Association. It provides services for testing for germination, identification,
moisture content, purity and viability.
Berrimah Library and Information Services:
The Primary Industry and Fisheries Groups are strongly orientated to undertaking research and development to contribute to the continued expansion of the Territory’s
economic and the sustainable management of its resource base. This requires a specialised library service that provides a full range of services to work with the department’s
scientific and technical staff, members of industry and other research workers. The library also services staff throughout the Top End, including the Katherine regional staff and
those at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre.
It is not just the Berrimah Farm. There are many things there which I have highlighted to show people how important the farm is. The government has done an audit. I have not seen this audit but my understanding is that nearly all the buildings there are to be demolished - I think that is a disgrace. We really need to see what this audit says because the government has said there will be only be 8 ha of land left. If you look at the first map I gave you and take out 8 ha, there will be many buildings going. The African mahoganies are going; the mangoes at the bottom end will go; there are many buildings which will go. Has the public had a say in this? Have the people who work there had a say? Has anyone seen an environmental impact statement? The member for Goyder mentioned the contaminated land, and I have heard there is some contaminated land. We need to look at that, but we have not heard of a statement.
Minister, we have all these matters which need to be taken into account and yet we have had no public input and no public consultation. Here are a few possibilities for the area. I suggest light industry, and I say that, not because light industry or heavy industry is important, but there is the port - most of these green patches are mangroves - the only way this place is going to develop, as the port gets bigger, is in this direction. We have this small portion of land next to the prison, which is an ideal place because it is not going to be used for farm land, but you can still use it as a laboratory. It could be used for light industry.
The second photograph will give you an even better idea. When I Googled it, only the tip of the port turned out, which is approximately 4 km. That is the only available land - except the land being developed in little pockets around the mangroves - that is the next available land. It has the railway, a four-lane road and the Stuart Highway going past it.
It makes sense, if you look at the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, this area was shown as purple - industry. And it makes sense for the future. Here is the port and this is where you are going to need the infrastructure to develop the port. Surely, you would not put housing there simply because it has a nice view. If you wanted to have the nice view, then you should not have put the port there and it should have been developed as a suburb. The port is there - it is not going away; it is getting bigger and bigger. Industry is going to need a place to stay - put the industry there and do not move it.
There are other options. The green belt: the concept was to keep Palmerston and Darwin separate - as distinct cities - and I believe that has much merit. You already have Knuckey Lagoon. For people who do not know the area, the map shows Knuckey Lagoon - one of the best kept secrets in the Darwin area. I do not know how many people go there, but if you want to look at birds, go there at the end of the Dry Season and have a look at the pelicans and the magpie geese. You can get in from the Stuart Highway, or Myilly Lane and Radford Lane, running off Lagoon Road. It is a great place to go. It is nearly right in the heart of Darwin.
You have these green belts that can break up the sprawl of the city. It could be kept as a prison farm. Why not use part of this land as a prison farm in relation to the existing prison? The word I have from people who know the area well, this top piece of land, which is pasture, is some of the best soil you will ever see. It has been well looked after year in, year out, and it has great potential for that type of use.
Kormilda College is nearby. I did not realise the possible options. Kormilda College is out here by itself. One of the options may be to talk to Kormilda College about VET courses using the farm facilities and people to develop the horticultural area. Perhaps an aquaculture area, as fisheries is mentioned quite often here as well. You have two uses: one as research and the other for opening it up to many people. There are many Aboriginal kids going to this school. There is an option to use it for VET courses.
Leave it as a research farm. That is still an option. Maybe you do not use all the land but at least leave the research part there. I am putting these forward because I am showing you that there are many ideas. The government seems to have ignored all those and said there would be housing. I believe, as the member for Goyder mentioned, the minister for Planning was interviewed on radio in the morning about housing and she talked about Palmerston and other places, but Berrimah Farm did not get a mention. Later on, I believe it was 20 minutes later, the Chief Minister got on and all of a sudden they announced that Berrimah Farm was going to be used for housing. That is what gives you the impression that it was a bright idea - but not well thought out.
Minister, I am trying to highlight the fact that your government has decided to close down Berrimah Farm and redevelop it for housing and some light industry, without any public input, plan, consultation, expression of interest, or environmental impact statement; without anything that would send a message to those concerned about the haste and shallowness of this decision.
The minister for Justice mentioned how much input he had from the NT Prison Officers Association regarding whether the prison should be moved. That is fine. How many of the staff - not the managerial people - at Berrimah Farm have had input into what they think should happen? There are 220 staff, many of whom have worked there for many years. I grew vegetables at Daly River and Bathurst Island and we would bring people to Berrimah Farm for the open days; it was a place I remember well. I have known a lot of research extension officers such as Kate Benson, Mike Poffley and Kevin Blackburn. These people were down-to-earth, knew a lot about the industry and were practical people. They worked at this farm for many years. There were people in the insect laboratories and others who studied plant diseases. People whom I have known for many years have worked at that farm. What are they saying about the idea of closing this place down and relocating it? If we relocate it, how much is that going to cost? I am not sure - simply because somebody said: ‘Oh there are some nice views there. Let us put up some houses’? That is a short-term approach.
There are so many matters of concern to the primary industries staff - the clients, the people of the horticultural industry, the agriculture and fishing industries. What do they think? What about the general public? It is their land. What do those who take an interest in the future of our research stations and the future of Darwin Harbour think? The Leader of the Opposition has often spoken about where we are going with our research stations. Here is one research station that is basically going to be closed down.
Surely, minister, it is not too hard to put the government’s plans in the freezer for the moment, go out and talk to people who care and would like to have a say, and then develop a plan from that. Good governance and good planning require a vision. You spoke about a 2030 vision. Why is that not included in here? If you really believe in the welfare of the Territory, in good economic development, then let us develop a plan and include people in it.
Let us not forget the role the minister plays in this. This is what always amazes me. This area here, for those who do not know, is East Arm Port. It does not belong to Palmerston. Litchfield is on the other side of the highway and Darwin starts in the Berrimah industrial area. So the prison, the Berrimah Research Station, and all the land from the port are under the East Arm Port Authority. When there is a development, the normal process in Litchfield, Palmerston or Darwin, where you have an independent development consent authority made up of five people who make decisions about planning applications, is not done in this case.
The minister is the Development Consent Authority. The minister has already announced this is going to be housing. The government has announced that this will be housing. The minister will be the person who decides when the planning application comes forward for development. She will decide and make the decision on the planning application. How can you make a decision, if you are the minister who has already, through Cabinet, decided this will be housing? There is a conflict of interest, similar to the conflict of interest within INPEX. That is certainly not the way planning should go.
I am asking the government to put this on hold, to put out a paper if they need to, outlining all the options, and ask the staff at Berrimah Farm, the public and industry - when I say industry I do not just mean the horticultural, agricultural and fishing industries - but the people who use the port, the people who will need facilities that are related to the port activities. See what they think. It is worth driving round Berrimah Farm to see how beautiful it is - beautiful parkland with laboratories amongst that parkland. It is a beautiful little area; it is a bit of an oasis really, when you consider there is industry right next door. It would be wise of the government to put this decision on hold. They are talking about the blocks of land they have in Lyons, Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli - I nearly called it zucchini - and Mitchell. They have land that they are starting to develop; there is no hurry to close down Berrimah Farm; there is no hurry to make a final decision.
If the government believes in honest and transparent government and in a vision which takes the people along with it, then it will stop: put out a paper, ask the people to comment, call public meetings, and come up with a plan. Personally, I believe it should be light industry. That may not be what the people to have to say, but put it out there and give people a chance to have an opinion, so that we make wise decisions, not just some decisions made in Cabinet completely apart from the community - the people, Cabinet say, they represent.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this motion from the member for Nelson, calling upon government to rescind their decision or plans to have Berrimah Farm area released for new housing. It should be scrapped and a long-term plan for the area involving the Berrimah Farm, the workers and the industrial areas surrounding the farm developed so there is proper planning in place to ensure there is no detriment to the community.
I am on the record previously in this House talking about the Berrimah Farm area and the unwise decision of government to try to develop the farm for residential. I agree with the member for Nelson.
I can distinctly remember the day, on 8 October, when the minister for Planning said in the morning there was no land available for housing and, by the afternoon, the Chief Minister at the time, said they were going to have this new housing estate – 700 residential dwellings were to be built, and it was going to ease the pressure on our housing market. Well, it does not seem to have done that. The media release says: ‘It complements the government’s release of land at Bellamack for 700 more dwellings’.
We all know what has happened with Bellamack - we are still waiting. If Bellamack is any indication of how things are going to be run, then I guess Berrimah Farm will never be developed – and that can only be good. They called upon the Howard government to release affordable land at the aerial farm near the Stuart Highway/McMillans Road intersection. Well, they have two chances of that – Buckley’s and none. The Commonwealth never gives up land and that is, obviously, an important piece of land for their communications systems.
I like this part, also from the Chief Minister’s media release, that this development was going to be so lovely and ‘enjoy prevailing breezes’. The fact that they will probably be on contaminated soil has, obviously, escaped their attention; but they will have lovely breezes to keep them cool. Perhaps their family and children will suffer as a consequence.
The minister at the time, Mr Natt, said, and I quote:
- … the whole of Berrimah Farm was no longer needed for agricultural research on the same scale …
I find that very disappointing coming from a minister who, at the time, was in charge of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. It is symptomatic of this government; they are dumbing down our research capability. They do not appreciate what is happening and they do not understand research. They do not encourage professionals into the department, they do not encourage research, and they do not attract research grants into this very important department covering primary industry, fisheries and mines. The government is keen to promote the Northern Territory and those industries as being the economic cornerstone of the Northern Territory and our prosperous lifestyle. However, when it comes to really supporting the industry, with research grants and appreciating the work they do, they do not come through.
The farm was established in 1956. Prior to that, it was a very important component of Australia’s World War II effort. It was a RAAF front-line communication base, and nearly all the operation room communications for Australia in World War II were from Berrimah Farm. Following that, it was utilised by the Army in different ways since World War II. There are World War II rubbish dumps at Berrimah Farm, covered with soil over the years. Two of my constituents have told me they know where these dumps are located. They both lived on or near the farm with their families and the children played at the dumps because there were many good things for little boys to play with, including shells and things like that.
It was a quarantine station for products from the agricultural and horticultural industry which had come in from overseas. Perhaps some of these needed to be sprayed with herbicides and pesticides. As the member for Nelson said, the standards of the day when this happened, 20 or 30 years ago, were not as stringent or tight as they are today, and there was a lot of slaphappy usage of these chemicals. The most notable was a forestry impregnation plant operating at Berrimah Farm. I have a structure on my property that was impregnated at the farm with chromium, copper and arsenic. There is a 44 gallon drum with arsenic contaminated material buried on the farm. There are people in their late fifties still around who know the locations of these.
If there is one kind of drum buried at the farm, it is more than likely that there is more material buried at the farm that we do not know about. Unfortunately, with the passing of time, people have either passed on or passed over, and we have lost that information. I know the government has commissioned environmental studies at the moment, and that company is conducting baseline studies in the soil contaminants and where they may be. They will probably move on to water sampling, to find out how far any leaching has gone and whether the land is suitable or not.
I hope when the report and studies are completed, that the government will share that information with the opposition and the member for Nelson, and that it is not hidden, pushed under the table, or somehow manipulated to get the answer they want.
The location of this development is a big concern to the opposition, to me, and the member for Nelson. It is surrounded by industrial land, major arterial roads and highways - the Stuart Highway; the main flight path into Darwin where aeroplanes are between 500 to 800 feet as they pass over that area, which means there will be a lot of noise. There will be people taking up residence there who will find out that it is a noisy place, and they will complain about the problems of the airport.
Industrial land is to the south - McKinnon Road and Anictomatis Road – where there is light to heavy industrial activity going on. There is also industrial land to the north of the farm, including a crematorium for animals which is located very near to the entrance of the farm. It is really going to please a lot of urban people when they find that dead dogs and cats are being burned next to their beautiful subdivision.
The other serious issue which the member for Nelson spoke about is the North Australian Safety Centre, which has a peppercorn lease, at the back of the farm. They have been there for many years and provide a vital service to the business community, particularly to the offshore oil and gas industry. I recently went to the opening of the new fire training centre. The government is keen to promote the oil and gas industry, and they are also keen to promote those businesses and industries which service the offshore oil and gas industry.
We keep being told that they are a gas government - gas girls and gas guys. If we lose the North Australian Safety Centre, we will lose the Underwater Helicopter Escape Training Centre, a well established, well credentialed centre. That business will go out of the Northern Territory; it will go somewhere like Perth. They have had discussions with the government and the government has basically said: you have about a year to move and then bad luck, go find your own ground.
This business is not a commercial business. It is a not-for-profit organisation which provides services, not only to businesses, but also to NT government services such as the Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services; they use the training grounds and the training facilities and enrol in the various training courses.
In addition, there is still the outstanding issue of local government governance. I understand the government has had preliminary discussions with both the Darwin City Council and the Palmerston City Council, and neither of them wants to take on the project because they know there are issues surrounding it. They know that the residents will never be happy because of the location. Yet, the government is trying to push the Berrimah Farm development onto one of these councils, and they are not happy about it. This is indicative of how the government has gone about this. The government woke up one morning and decided it needed something to get some media attention. That is when it came up with the concept to chop up Berrimah Farm - to get rid of all the scientists - we do not really need to do that kind of work - industry will be fine; however, we need something to sell to the media.
I urge the government to support this motion to rescind their decision to put people in an industrial area, on a contaminated site. We have no understanding of how far it is contaminated and what it is going to cost to remediate and rehabilitate. I ask the government: if this is going to cost a substantial amount of money, as have the old fuel depots on Dinah Beach Road and the Hastings Deering site on Goyder Road, which were contaminated sites, will it be passing that cost onto the developers? Or will it be absorbing those costs or passing them onto the taxpayers in the community in some other way?
I support the member for Nelson’s motion and urge the government to rescind their decision to chop up Berrimah Farm.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nelson. I have discovered over the last couple of months that the present NT government seems to be hell-bent on reducing available resources and facilities for people in regional Northern Territory. It has been happening for a long time but it has come to my attention strongly in the last few months, given my change of job.
The Berrimah Research Farm is an integral part of the primary industries portfolio of the Northern Territory. I have to be honest: I am surprised that the minister would consider supporting the reduction or loss of this facility, or the continued reduction of services to people in the primary industries sphere. If I were in his position, I would feel somewhat slighted - and I do not know whether the Primary Industries minister agrees with the proposal that has been put forward by the government – that my government colleagues had pulled out the rug from underneath me.
Research and development in any industry in the world - and name any research and development - is a cornerstone to the continued operation of industry. It is a cornerstone of continued progression for that industry to find more modern methods, materials, etcetera. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution, particularly because he has outlined all the services at the farm, which should be considered extremely important.
It appears to me that the government does not think they are important, otherwise they would leave it alone or come up with a plan which would not impact so severely on the facilities of the Berrimah Research Farm. I know they are leaving some part of it there so the hierarchy of primary industries can stay there, but it is the services that I am talking about, those services to regional Northern Territorians. Yes, 110 000 people or so live in Darwin, but the remainder live in regional parts of the Northern Territory. I find it unbelievable that the government continues - and this is a prime example - to remove services and facilities from regional Northern Territory. The Berrimah Farm is contained within Darwin, so it is not regional in its geographic location; however, its services are for regional Territorians.
I strongly support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson. I urge the government to reconsider their position on this. If they go ahead with it, I believe there will be an acute upwelling of ill feeling towards the government from regional Northern Territory. I put them on notice when I say that. I am warning them that this will cause an enormous amount of grief for people in regional Northern Territory and that grief will flow back to the government, in no uncertain way.
I commend the motion put forward tonight. I ask that members of government look within their hearts to see the right thing to do and not to just follow party lines. There needs to be some more thought given to it and there needs to be a better plan. As pointed out by the member for Goyder, it is not a place suitable for residential development. There are so many other factors that need to be considered. This is another example of the lack of consultation I have seen occurring across a number of portfolios in the government of the Northern Territory. I urge government members to reconsider their position on this, and ask that they support this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I do not wish to speak to the motion. I want to point out to the House that we have a dinner break scheduled for 6 pm; however, we also have a very full agenda today. It might be better if we continue with the business of parliament rather than breaking for dinner, and do what we used to and cycle through the dining room as the business of parliament goes on. This is for your consideration.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a sessional order which has been agreed to by the parliament. I will seek some advice while you are speaking, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If you like, Madam Speaker, and I will put it up as a motion. There is a motion before the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is a sessional order. Therefore, I will seek advice from the Clerk. Member for Port Darwin, would you like to speak to the motion that is before the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. The dinner break is scheduled into the business of the day, however, we have a very full agenda today. Consequently, I think it would be worthwhile to suspend the normal process of having a dinner break and continue with the business of parliament. There are many important issues on the Notice Paper - there are 20.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Keep talking, but you are supposed to be talking to the motion as moved by the member for Nelson, which is not about a dinner break.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I thought you were inviting me to keep talking.
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Port Darwin, I called you to speak on the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: I misunderstood, Madam Speaker. I thought you were talking about me speaking on the motion of the dinner break.
Madam SPEAKER: No. The motion is not about a dinner break.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! There are many interjections. What is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order is for clarification. Obviously, the member for Port Darwin thought you called him in relation to something else. Can he still put the same suggestion, by way of a motion, just before 6 pm when we break for dinner?
Madam SPEAKER: There is something before the Chair at the moment. I will clarify the situation and get back to you. That is fine. Is someone else speaking on the motion - not the dinner break?
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin, obviously, had the vital part of his stomach talking to him which needs to be fed. You never know, we may have some Territory beef out the back there, with some Territory vegetables and, perhaps, some exotic tropical fruits later. If we shut down Berrimah Farm, or if it had been done before, we would not have any tropical fruit. Our beef industry may not have developed to its potential.
A member earlier talked about our potential growth. How are you going to achieve that if you shut down the research? Research and development will assist you in growing those industries; they are extremely vital. If you spend more than 30 seconds talking to some of the scientists who are involved, you will know they do not support the idea of closing down this farm because it is a vital link. Not only does it have historical links and, perhaps, some very nasty hidden secrets in its soils - which may not be good for kids to play in - it is also a very vital link in our industry. If you take away the link, the fabric of that industry, we will go backwards.
The Territory has come a long way in a very short period of time. It is through no mean feat that these scientists, working at the Berrimah Farm over many years, have achieved this headway. We would not have cattle production if we did not have some of the input from the Berrimah Farm. We have the sentinel chooks, the sentinel pigs ...
Ms Purick: Sentinel sheep.
Mr BOHLIN: ... and sentinel sheep. It sounds quite funny. It sounds like there are all these sheep and chickens standing to attention. The member for Nelson might like seeing all his chickens stand to attention as sentinels, but the stark reality is, we are on the doorstep of many other countries. Some of those countries have suffered greatly - ‘greatly’ is probably a very light word to use when you talk about bird flu. Do not forget about bird flu; it is out of the news at the moment, but it is real. At the time, they talked about the possible ramifications of bird flu coming to Australia. Where do you think it is going to land first?
As it comes floating in on the winds of the great Arafura Sea, it is going to land right here. That is why we have sentinel birds and our other sentinel friends, standing side by side. They are here to protect not just Darwin, but to protect the entire Australian industry - Australia’s people - because there are real threats in the world. We need to be very mindful of that, and there is no better place than where they are currently. Keep that in mind when you make these foolish, half-hearted decisions, because they can have huge ramifications if you get it wrong. At this stage, I am saying you have it wrong. You have it extremely wrong.
We need to think about it. We talk of the Northern Territory’s growth, so let us remove a keystone to its growth. Let us remove the keystone to agricultural foundation for the Northern Territory. How would you feel about that, member for Casuarina? Do we remove the keys that set up the foundation of growth in this Territory? We cannot just rely on the gas, and we cannot just rely on mining. If you cannot feed the people who will mine those fields and pipe that gas, what will happen? What if we cannot survive because a bird slipped through the net and took out most of Australia’s fowl population and, perhaps, people’s lives, because bird flu does claim people’s lives. This is not something to mess around with; this is not something to flippantly throw away a media release on - this is vitally important.
Go back, be bold and brave and say: ‘That was probably not the best move’. Wind back the clock, stand up proudly and say, no, there have been some good points made by the member for Nelson, and we are strong enough to say we need to maintain this facility, for various reasons. We need to grow this facility, reinvigorate it with our researchers so that we can protect, grow and develop our industries, because they are vital.
If we look at the crops which are grown throughout the world, as the environment is changing we see that crops will not grow in some places. Will they grow here? How will we know, until we prove it? That is part of what the facility is for. We have third world nations that cannot feed themselves. Are we going to destroy part of what provides us with the knowledge to feed ourselves in Australia? You need to think about what you do.
I commend what the member for Nelson has said. It is a motion that I urge the government to consider - not just for their short-term gains, but for the protection of Australia’s agricultural industry and its people – and do not break down the very important Berrimah Farm.
____________________
Statement by Speaker
Dinner Break
Statement by Speaker
Dinner Break
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have conferred with the government on the point of order called by the member for Port Darwin in relation to not agreeing tonight on the sessional orders for a dinner break. I inform you that the government is quite happy with that for this evening, because we have a lot on the business paper to continue to work through.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks to the government for their understanding of the business of this House.
____________________
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I listened to the Chief Minister explain to the House what a great future the Northern Territory has, and that they have a planning process for the 2030 committee.
I have been fortunate in the last couple of years to have travelled a little, and there are a couple of places which really come to mind - one was Paris, the other one was Saigon - and I have also seen a few pictures of Hanoi on Google. One of the things I note from the planning process is that these places have nice wide streets. Many years ago, when town planners planned those streets, they probably thought to themselves: if we do this right and we make plenty of room, in years to come when there is an expansion required, we can actually expand and build bigger roads; there will be more traffic, cities will grow, etcetera. I believe they did a very good job.
Town planners all over the world, in some instances, get it right. Of course, there are other times when they get it horribly wrong. The coloured map which the member for Nelson so kindly provided, demonstrates one thing about options for expansion. If we are looking at gas, at 2030 and, as the Chief Minister tells us: ‘We are in for a great future – there is $50bn investment coming into the Territory’, on the map the port is here, surrounded by mangroves, with only one way for expansion to occur in this area of the Darwin Port Authority - straight through Berrimah Farm.
What the government is proposing is to put a small suburb of houses surrounded on one side by light industrial area and, on the other side of the Stuart Highway, by rural blocks. There are no services at the moment, so we have to put in things like sewerage, electrical services and all the other headworks. There is no school and no bus service. We are very light on for recreational facilities and if some poor kid wants to go somewhere, he will have to go across a number of four-lane highways. We know that kids like to get on their bikes, go to the shops and go and do things. It will be difficult to negotiate traffic in this area, given that will be an extremely busy port facility - an industrial hub. I wonder how long it will be before people start to say: ‘We want this, we want that, we want traffic lights, and bridges’, so young people do not get killed or knocked off their bikes.
We have a major problem with people being killed on our roads. I stood up in September and extrapolated some numbers and said if we were not careful we would have a death toll of about 66 by the end of the year. I believe we have actually hit 66 and it is not even the beginning of November; we still have Christmas to get through yet. It is an appalling situation. We are about to create another appalling traffic situation by putting a high density population in an area where they will have to cross four-lane highways.
If we are truly looking at the future, then we would be saying: let us keep the laboratories at Berrimah Farm for the time being and leave it there for industrial development, so that we can actually push further across. I suspect, in the not too distant future, when the gas comes and we have a huge shift in the industrial land requirements for this area - and for Darwin in general - that people will want to move into this rural area for light industrial. There will be nowhere else to put the distribution sheds and the storage facilities.
We have plans for stages 2, 3 and 4 of the Darwin Port, which will involve expansion and an increase in the requirement for light industrial land for the service industries. My understanding is that we are trying to attract and make Darwin a hub - a transport hub - so we can bring all the containers from Singapore to Darwin, put them on trains and articulate them to various parts of Australia. With the high fuel costs of ships and the delays involved, it will probably become an economic necessity when the price of fuel goes through the roof or becomes scarce.
I am not looking at two or five years down the track, or even to 2030. I believe we need to look forward 100, 200, 300 years and allow for the expansion of the light industrial area through the Berrimah Farm and across the other side of the Stuart Highway. If we do not, then it is going to be our children and our children’s children who will criticise us and say: ‘They were not very bright, they stuck a suburb in there.’ People will have to buy out that land, rezone it and turn it back into an industrial area in as little as five, 10, or 15 years.
I believe that the land usage, for a short-term gain by the government, is very poor planning. I believe it goes to the core; that this government has failed to plan for land releases further in the Palmerston region. I recap on what the member for Nelson said. There needs to be a satellite city - because that was the plan – and that there would be a break. There is a major break, with the industrial area at the port and a light industrial area either side of where this little group of houses is planned.
There is also a noise problem with the flight path for the airport so close. There is a line drawn on this coloured map that puts the noise factor for about one-third of the land available for housing.
Are there environmental concerns with any of the freight, goods and services? We were talking earlier about iron ore dust. What happens if the iron ore dust starts to go through residential areas? Will we have to shut the port? Or will we have expensive mitigation services to get rid of the dust, the noise, or other issues?
As Darwin becomes a gas hub - which I believe it will - it will require a huge service area onshore and we will need to expand into the Hudson Creek area. My information is that Hudson Creek is almost full - there is no room to expand. Therefore, businesses wishing to service the port are unable to buy land there. I do not know exactly what services there are, but anecdotal evidence suggests it is getting hard to find services there. There is the old Trade Development Zone, but all those areas need to be increased. What happens when that runs out? I do not think it is going to be too many years until we do run out of land in that area. It is confined - we have to move.
Where do we move, straight through a residential area? If we make that a residential area, I firmly believe we will be criticised in the future. It will put an impost on business and industry to have to try to buy an entire suburb so they can expand. If you make it residential, there will be many problems with industrial noise, environmental issues, etcetera.
We have to consider other issues: schools, shops, transport services, aeroplane noise, and Tiger Brennan Drive cruising through small public and private housing areas. The houses that are built there, as the member for Nelson said, might have a view; I do not know whether that justifies spending money on headworks and other infrastructure on land which we may also have to spend an enormous amount of money on rehabilitating.
I suggest that this land is only suitable for light industrial. It has power line issues; it is isolated and totally surrounded by industry. It is only a small area. It has been said that Harbour Town will be coming to that area, and that is fine, but I suggest that these people will do exactly what they would do if they lived in Palmerston - they would drive to Harbour Town.
Future expansion is something the government has not looked at in its plans. I ask the government to refer this to their 2030 committee. Their 2030 committee, they claim, is a group of very eminent people who would be able to give due consideration to the plan to turn this into a residential area. Throw this idea to them, open it up for people in industry and people who work there. There has been no consultation - which I am aware of - with industry or the Darwin Port Authority to look at opening up that area for light industrial.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion the member for Nelson has put forward. I ask the government to consider their decision carefully, to rescind that decision and give it to the 2030 committee for further deliberation on whether it is suitable.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, obviously the sale of the Berrimah Farm is going to end life as we know it, and the sky is going to fall in.
I disagree with the member for Nelson, but at least his arguments were logical. On the other hand, I know when you want to oppose something you will try to find any excuse, because none of the other members who spoke about the Berrimah Farm gave any logical or reasonable excuses.
The noise contours, as published by the airport and the RAAF, show that the noise exposure in the area finishes on the Stuart Highway. It does not extend further than the Stuart Highway. Harbour Town is on the borderline of the noise contour in which you are allowed to build industrial premises. Further west from the Stuart Highway, the noise contours are so low that you can actually build a residential area.
Regarding the airport noise, when I used to live in Coconut Grove in 1993, I could tell you from the noise which airplane was taking off and where it was going. I could tell you when the airplane, a Fokker 100, was flying out of Darwin for Broome. I could tell you when the 727 was flying out to Melbourne, because that suburb was built so close to the air corridor. I remember it well, because my little boy used to scream when the Singaporean airplanes participated in the exercises. There is noise in the Marrara area, and the member for Sanderson knows the complaints we get in Marrara, and how well we know when the aircraft from Singapore takes off in the middle of the night - not to mention Karama.
As for it being surrounded by industrial area, do I have to remind you that it was the previous government that developed the area of Woolner in Bishop Street and the old brewery, which is surrounded by light industrial area and manufacturing?
Was it not the previous government that developed Bayview Haven without any bus services? Bayview Haven - or Baygon Haven, I called it at the time because of the midges - did not have any sewerage, power or water, and the developer had to put in the services.
In regard to the sentinel chickens and the sentinel animals; yes, they are necessary. I was very surprised and pleased to hear the support for this project, because I remember when I was arguing in this very same parliament about the dangers - probably the member for Nelson remembers it - of illegal fishing and the diseases it would bring. The members on the other side were strong supporters of the federal government in Canberra opposing any motion from us asking Canberra for stronger action. The sentinel chickens do not have to be located at Berrimah Farm.
As an Environmental Health Officer in Port Hedland, I used to bleed the sentinel chickens in different houses in the town for viruses - encephalitis and others. They do not have to be housed in a particular place; they can be at my house or a house in Driver, and they would give exactly the same result. As a matter of fact, it is better to be spread around the town site because you get a more representative picture of what is happening in your city, rather than having them located in one area.
The member for Katherine said by closing Berrimah Farm we are reducing the resources of regional areas. It is exactly the opposite. Would you prefer to have some of these experiments that take place at Berrimah Farm at Katherine Farm? Would you prefer some of these experiments and the trials we do for animals to happen at the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs?
A member: Will it happen though?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is currently happening. At Old Man Plains in Alice Springs we are doing trials to breed and feed cattle in arid zones. In Katherine, we have the trial with sesame and one of the favourite products of the member for Nelson, GM cotton. We have had a number of products which we have experimented with in Katherine. Very little or none of this research is currently undertaken at Berrimah Farm.
However, let us go back to Berrimah Farm. Berrimah Farm is 228 ha, 1 times the size of the suburb of Lyons, and about one-third bigger than the future suburb of Muirhead, which is going to be developed in my electorate of Casuarina and in the member for Wanguri’s electorate. It is a significant parcel of land. It did not happen because the member for Karama drove around one day and said: ‘That is a nice big empty block; let us develop it’. This map was published in 2006-07 and shows a section of Berrimah Farm and also the RAAF antenna area as potential residential areas.
When I worked in environmental health, I was involved with the decontamination and reclamation of the fuel tanks site in Stuart Park, which had been there for 50 years. If you think there is anything more contaminant than petrol, diesel, additives, oils or fuels, you are wrong. This site has been rehabilitated successfully and is now available for housing.
There probably were some very strong chemicals, like Dieldrin, used at Berrimah Farm. However, let me remind you that most of the housing - if you live in an old house, built pre-cyclone in Darwin, even after the cyclone - was treated with Dieldrin or DDT for termites, because that was the only chemical at the time. It has a life span of approximately 30 years. It breaks down after 30 years and you will find very small residuals in the soil. Do not ask me why I told you that; it was part of my profession when I had a life - in my previous life. I studied it at university and they are things I use all the time and I know well, and I believe I am more than qualified to comment on this.
Berrimah Farm was established in the 1950s. At that time Berrimah Farm was in Woop Woop - there was no Nightcliff or Karama. Darwin was a small town down near the port, and if you wanted to go to Berrimah Farm, you had to catch the bus and take a cut lunch - it was so far away. Unfortunately, Berrimah Farm is now in the middle of the town. If you consider the whole residential area, including the city of Darwin, the city of Palmerston, and the rural area, it is right in the middle of the town and, at the moment, it is 220 ha which is under utilised. There are parts of Berrimah Farm that are still utilised effectively, and these are the areas where we have the laboratories. That is the area the department has looked at, approximately 8 ha of Berrimah Farm which will remain as it is. The laboratories will remain on the same site, and only some of the very old buildings that are past their economic life, are to be demolished.
As minister for Primary Industry, I am not aware of, and I have not authorised any review for the demolition or the destruction of these laboratories. On the contrary, we are working well with the department of Planning and the Department of Business and Employment on how we can best utilise the laboratories and continue the research we are doing. They are not chemical warfare or viral laboratories; they are laboratories we use to identify seeds and to identify some of the diseases our cattle suffer - they are benign laboratories. We can still use them and they can be next to a residential area, the same as a biological laboratory, which could be in the middle of Nightcliff Shopping Centre.
We have available land, for example, the Berrimah Farm, and further up is the old farm that the Navy and the RAAF used. That land was regularly sprayed with chemicals to increase the conductivity over ground for better reception of the antennae. I do not know the chemical or the drug used, but this can be decontaminated and is a normal piece of land which can be utilised for further industry. We do not have to start growing out. We do not want to have the same situation as Perth. Perth is a capital city which extends 150 km from the north to the south, because people do not want to live east of the hills; we do not want to have that situation. What we are doing now is to extend the residential area from Berrimah Farm all the way to Coolalinga, and there is nothing else but houses. We can infill the empty areas currently within the footprint of Darwin and Palmerston before we start extending to new satellite cities.
Let us have a look at the Berrimah Farm. Is Berrimah Farm the only research station with all the facilities, or the only one that can be utilised by people? No, there are other research and demonstration farms. There are farms at Beatrice Hill; the Coastal Plains Horticulture Research Farm at Middle Point; the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs; the Katherine Farm, which is part of the work of the Daly Farm; Ti Tree; and Tennant Creek. There are a number of farms currently owned by the government strategically located around the Territory that are utilised for different research. For example, the Ti Tree farm was utilised for the development, believe it or not, of asparagus, with great results; and the vine industry. The Daly Research Farm is utilised for the cultivation of spinach and other vegetables which grow in the Dry Season. At Coastal Plains, they are doing research on bananas, tropical fruits, and tropical flowers.
The member for Nelson mentioned the mahogany trees trial which will be finished by 2010. That is another program that was put in place at Berrimah Farm which will be finished by that time, and others can and will continue at Beatrice Hill and the Coastal Plains. We are not going to abandon or close our research because Berrimah Farm has to change its use from an experimental farm, as it was in 1950, to something different.
The reality is that Berrimah Farm is strategically located between Palmerston and Darwin. It is also located strategically close to the Casuarina Shopping Square, and where health and other services are located. Berrimah Farm is a strategic location.
I will now discuss pollution of the port. I do not know if any of you have been to the port at Fremantle. The only thing that separates the city of Fremantle from the port is a fence - where the port starts and the city finishes. In some other cities, the port forms part of the city. Previously, ports were dirty, dark, medieval places, but they have changed. Also the current techniques practiced for loading and unloading containers, cattle, and minerals have changed significantly, so any possible pollution that may result from unloading or loading iron ore and manganese is limited. After all, every pound of dust that escapes is money that is escaping from the pockets of the miners and the investors.
I travelled to the port today. It is approximately 8 km from the Berrimah Farm turn-off to the port. It is not 1 km or 600 m. As a comparison, from Darwin it is a bit further than Parap, in a straight line - it is not that close. Hudson Creek, I agree with you; it has been sold and development is limited. However, the Land Development Corporation still has land available in the old Trade Development Zone area which is not sold, it is currently under development and there is more land between the old TDZ and Tiger Brennan Drive, which can be developed, especially with backfilling from the development of INPEX and the other facilities in the area. There is no lack of land for industrial development or light industrial development, because no one in his right mind would put heavy industry near the port or where the old TDZ used to be which is now the Land Development Corporation’s area.
I understand the member for Nelson; I can sympathise with him on some things. He has this nostalgic view of the farm. You used to go there for open days and look at the cows. The cows cannot live close to town; they do not get close to Harbour Town or Casuarina. The cows have to be in a better environment, rather than in the middle of the city.
We want to utilise the land that is surplus to our needs and transfer the research to somewhere that is more appropriate, like Beatrice Hill, Coastal Plains, the Katherine Farm, the Daly River Farm or the AZRI.
We are with politicians in this parliament. Unfortunately, our parliamentary process, the Westminster process, is adversary. We have to be at each others throats during the sessions. Instead of us playing politics, I believe it is better for us to highlight some of the points like you did, member for Nelson, and I appreciate that, rather than knock everything down.
After all, this farm is not going to be under my control - it is not going to be sold to me or the government. It is going to be sold to Territorians, who would like to have their first house, if possible, close to Darwin, rather than past Coolalinga or other rural areas, as happens in Perth, Melbourne, and Sydney. I cannot see any reason why Territorians, especially young Territorians, cannot buy their first house 8 km from Darwin, rather than 30 km or 40 km from Darwin.
We can provide this, and with the new assistance we provide to first homeowners, I believe that land can be well developed. Let us not forget that under the process we have now, 15% of all land developed has to go to social and affordable housing. Of the approximately 1300 blocks there will be, around 180 blocks will be available for first housing and social and affordable housing.
I oppose the motion on these grounds. I believe it is fair for us to provide land for Territorians close to Darwin, especially for first homeowners and for young Territorians. That land is surplus. It is 280 ha that is currently under-utilised and we can find a better use for this land in Darwin.
________________
Explanation of Speech
Member for Sanderson
Explanation of Speech
Member for Sanderson
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to explain, I believe …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Sanderson has already spoken. It is a contravention of the standing orders for a member to speak again.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I could just confer with the Clerk, please.
Member for Sanderson, I am advised that you may endeavour to seek leave. Alternatively, you can make an approach to me to lodge a personal explanation.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, my application is under Standing Order 54, where it says a member who has spoken to a question may again be heard …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have yet to seek leave, member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am not trying to be difficult; however, the member is trying to explain why he is on his feet. I believe we should at least let him get through that part - it may well be as a point of order. I have not heard what he is trying to say, perhaps he is speaking as a point of order or is, I suspect, quoting from standing orders.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am seeking leave to speak. My understanding is that under standing orders there is a section that allows me to do that for specific purposes. That is what I was just trying to discuss with you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to pause while I confer with the Clerk on this matter. Thank you.
Member for Sanderson, if you believe you have been misquoted or misunderstood, then under the standing orders you are required to make a personal explanation through the Speaker’s Chair.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, when should I do that? I admit I am not familiar with that part of the procedure. My understanding from reading the standing orders is that was available …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I appreciate that and can I just confer with the Clerk one more time, please? Like you I am also new to these matters.
Member for Sanderson, the advice is that as long as you are not introducing any new material and you are brief in raising your explanation, you may do so now.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Casuarina said, and I believe he quoted me, saying that the corridor of aircraft noise exposure is on the Stuart Highway. I did not say that. I said that it is about one-third of the land available. I wanted to clear that up for the member for Casuarina.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I would like to say that I did not misquote him. I referred to the noise control as produced by the airport and the RAAF. I did not misquote you. I did not dispute your claim. I said that it finishes west of the airport, and the borderline is the Stuart Highway. The Stuart Highway tends to be on the other side of the Berrimah Farm.
Mr STYLES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is again from …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Sanderson has had the opportunity under Standing Order 54 to identify where he believed he had been misquoted or misunderstood. The member for Casuarina responded, under Standing Order 54, that there was no misquoting or misunderstanding. If there is a further matter the member for Sanderson wants to take up, he can do so by way of personal explanation. He can approach the Speaker and give his personal explanation and seek leave to provide a personal explanation to the Chamber.
Personal explanations, by their nature, are discussed with the Speaker. That is the convention of this parliament; that is how this parliament operates.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a debate to move on with. The member from Sanderson can make his personal explanation by approaching the Speaker. However, I believe it is now time for debate to proceed, in convention with this Chamber and the standing orders of this Assembly.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Member for Sanderson, you do have the opportunity to make a personal explanation to me at a later time.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
________________
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion from the member for Nelson for the same reasons I supported his previous motion.
I can see no reason for the destruction of such a significant piece of infrastructure in the Darwin region. I listened closely to what the member for Casuarina had to say, that everyone has the right to have a first house; people have to live somewhere. I reiterate to the member for Casuarina and other ministers: when you fly over Darwin and the Top End, there is plenty of land available on which houses can be built. The wanton destruction of such a strategic and worthwhile piece of infrastructure is completely unnecessary.
Many high-level economists tell us that the commodity of the future, the real gold of the future, will be food. Agriculture production is inextricably tied to that. My concern is that this government has an appalling prejudice against farmers, agriculturalists, pastoralists - anyone who is trying to make a living from the land. We have seen the attack to close Berrimah Farm. We have seen the attack on the farmers in the Daly River region, where they continue with the moratorium on the Daly. This is an area where the government does not want to go. It does not want to see increased food production or agricultural uses of Territory land. It flies in the face of what has been happening around the rest of the country, and the focus that the rest of the country has on the north.
I was very privileged to be a part of the federal Northern Australia Land and Water Task Force the year before last. It was chaired by Bill Heffernan. I had the wonderful opportunity to travel across the top of Australia, investigating ways that our water and agricultural areas could be best utilised. It was very clear in those meetings and visits that we needed to concentrate on the science; of making sure that whatever we did, in relation to agriculture, was exactly what the science determined.
The big concern at the time was that the federal government wanted to send in the bulldozers and clear the land. This was massive scaremongering, it was a scare campaign of the highest order and it flew in the face of the reality. The reality was that Australia was in the midst of a drought, and still is, with two-thirds of Australia’s rainfall on one-third of the country, and the Top End of the Northern Territory is one of those areas which has better than average rainfall, compared with the rest of the country.
People would have to be crazy not to consider utilising this resource, provided it was done under the best scientific direction and knowledge. The Commonwealth, together with the Western Australian government and the Northern Territory government, funded the TRaCK program. TRaCK is the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge program. I believe $30m was put into that program to gain a better understanding of waterways across the top of Australia, and to understand which parts of Northern Australia are arable.
Closing down the Berrimah Research facility, I believe, flies in the face of the commitment that the Territory government made to the TRaCK program because all of these things are interlinked. We need to understand our soil, our underground aquifers, what crops will grow, and a whole range of other things. I find the government’s attitude towards farmers, pastoralists, agriculturalists, and miners appalling, in their frenzy to stop farming.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I look across the Chamber and here is the member for Daly jumping up and down, yelling at me across the Chamber. He is one of those people …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Daly was not jumping up and down. He was interjecting loudly but he was not shouting. He was not jumping up and down. Do not mislead this Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, you tell me what he was doing, Treasurer. He was bouncing up and down, I am sorry. He was bouncing up and down like one of those smiling dogs that you put on the dash of your car.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You look across the Chamber and you see the …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to direct his comments through the Chair, as is required by the standing orders. The member for Fong Lim is deliberately trying to be provocative.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, in accordance with standing orders, I ask you to speak through the Chair, please?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look across the Chamber and I see the member for Daly, sitting there with his head nodding around …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have been asked to speak through the Chair, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that mean I need to look at you?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I look across the Chamber and I see the member for Daly sitting there with his head nodding around like a little dog that you put on the dash of your car, and it is smiling at you. He is sitting in his chair, bouncing up and down and making some sort of comments. He supports the stopping of agriculture on the Daly - in his own electorate. I find it quite alarming that he takes that attitude. I note that the Labor Party ran very strongly on this particular issue at the last election campaign. They wanted to stop all development on the Daly – they were very pro-active about getting out there and telling Territorians that they wanted to shut the Daly down; no more tree clearing, agriculture, or pastoralism - nothing happening on the Daly. Forget the farmers out there.
Therefore, I suppose shutting down Berrimah Research Farm ties in with their policy of shutting down agriculture in the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: What a lot of nonsense, we are not shutting down agriculture in the Territory; a very long bow to draw.
Mr TOLLNER: What are you doing? The Treasurer interrupts and says she is not shutting down agriculture in the Northern Territory …
Ms Lawrie: Correct.
Mr TOLLNER: What is whacking a moratorium on farming in the Daly region? What is selling off the Berrimah Research Farm for houses? It is all due to the Treasurer and the Planning minister’s lack of effort to take the time to look around the Top End and find suitable locations for houses years ago that she now finds herself in this situation where she has to scrabble around, like a headless chook, trying to find areas to put some houses.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He is insulting chooks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, member for Nelson, I should not have likened the member for Karama to a headless chook. This government is hell-bent on shutting down agriculture and has been sending messages to the pastoral, agricultural, and horticultural industries, and others involved on the land, that they do not want their business in the Territory - they want them out. That is why they are shutting down Berrimah Farm.
I was listening closely to what the minister, the member for Casuarina, had to say in his presentation. He said that this is no different to what happened in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, and that they do not have these sorts of things. For the illumination of the minister, I will let him know that these things do occur in nearly all the capital cities around Australia.
In Adelaide, South Australia, there is the Waite Agricultural Research Institute and Urrbrae Agricultural High School; South Perth in Western Australia has the Department of Agriculture complex; Burnley and Knoxfield in Melbourne; Indooroopilly, Cleveland and Mount Cotton in Brisbane; New Town and Launceston in Tasmania; and Rydalmere and Camden in Sydney. These are major capital cities with agriculture research facilities right in the city. For the minister to say these places are being shut down and sent into the scrub, flies in the face of reality.
For some reason this government has a major axe to grind, as far as agriculture, pastoral and other land-based industries are concerned. I do not know why. I am sure many members will be wondering why. That is one reason they are shutting down the Berrimah Farm. They are also shutting down the Berrimah Farm because of their complete lack of planning and ability to find other suitable locations for housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson in his motion. Berrimah Research Farm is an asset to the Northern Territory. One day we will be without a Labor government and when that time comes, with any luck, we will have a government that does support agriculture and rural industries, and Berrimah Farm will be valued again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a little surprised that the minister for Planning did not comment on what is mostly a planning issue, although there was certainly a fair bit of kafuffle on the department of Primary Industry debate.
There is one map that I did not put in the folder, which I am willing to table. Before I do, it is the map in the back of the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, 1990. People may believe that I think of these things in my spare time, but this was part of the concept or vision which the minister and member for Casuarina do not understand. This is a map of the Darwin Peninsula. It has Darwin as a city, including Casuarina, with Palmerston below it and, lo and behold, the interconnection between Palmerston as industrial, as it largely is now, and all the East Arm port area is shown as industrial. I would like to table it to show that when this plan was put together there was some understanding that the Darwin port would expand with rail and road connections. For the minister for Primary Industry to say there is no necessity for it, there is plenty of room there, is very short sighted.
We have to think further than 2030 - 2030 is a nice comfortable zone – it is 22 years. Maybe a few younger people like the member for Drysdale might still be here, but I guarantee most of you, including the member for Karama, will not be here, and I definitely will not be here. It is not very far away. We should be thinking longer-term than that. We do not need to use this land for housing. We could leave it as it is for the time being and look at it in five years time to see whether it is a good idea.
The minister for Primary Industry said there are 215 ha. There are only - and I am using the minister for Planning’s statement on 17 June 2008 - 65 ha of land suitable for housing. That is a relatively small amount of land. If you look at the map you have been given, do not believe that will all be housing - there will be 65 ha, because the road cuts it up and there are other restrictions on it. The minister might say that the noise contour is wrong, but the minister for Planning has not said that; she said that 30 ha are constrained by aircraft noise, in response to my question during estimates this year. Is the aircraft noise contour now wrong, when it was right on 17 June this year? It sounds a bit strange that it has already changed.
At the Aboriginal community on Lagoon Road I can just about read where the aircraft tyres were made or what brand they are - that is how low the planes are when they pass across that little community. Those people are probably happy to have a house. I have been to a meeting there and I said: ‘If this were not an Aboriginal community, there would be so many complaints that aircraft would all be coming in from the Ludmilla end.’ Normally we would never allow residential subdivision, in today’s planning guidelines, to be within those contours.
The government even restricts, to some extent, the type of development we can procure in Howard Springs, which is kilometres away, simply because the forestry land at Howard Springs is on the approach to the Darwin airport.
There have been many things said about the closure of the farm. I am not saying, and I have never said, that the farm area - that is the farmlands - could not be used for something else. I would like the government, before it decides to demolish some buildings and limit the amount of work done there, to put that out for public discussion. I have only heard from the government, that is the ministers, and management. There are 220 people based at Berrimah Farm. I would like to hear what they have to say. Many of them have worked there for a good part of their working lives. I would like the government to allow me, or someone, to ask those people what they think. I hope I do not have to start using whistleblower-type legislation to obtain information from public servants about an important area of planning for the future of the Territory, and to get an understanding of what those people who work there think. They may agree with the minister. They might say: look this is antiquated, we do need to move - I do not know. But it is very difficult for those public servants to talk to me, unless they do it in the dark of the night down the back of the port. How do I know what they think?
Surely there is an opportunity, which is part of the motion I put forward, for the government to put this on hold for a minute and put it out for some public consultation. The minister for Primary Industry showed some cartoon-style maps - I have seen those types of maps. Do you really think that I could take that seriously as a planning document? It is one of those you stick in the office at Casuarina and ask people to comment. I can tell you that the people of Casuarina would not have a clue about Berrimah Farm.
There are many people in Darwin, who are genuinely nice people who love the area, but when it comes to some of the more serious planning considerations they would not have the foggiest because they are not interested in some of those things. You have to be a little careful when you stick out a plan like that which just says ‘what do you think?’ without opening it up for some more reasoned debate, where you hear both sides of the argument or alternatives. A piece of paper in a shopping centre does not necessarily mean you have discussed these issues seriously with the community.
I have put forward a series of notions of what that land could be used for. The minister and the government say housing. I have said it could be part of a green belt. The minister also said there will be some light industry. I am assuming it is the land at the top of the Stuart Highway where the ANF noise contour is. That did not come up in the discussion from the government tonight. It could be used by Kormilda College for VET courses. It could be used as a prison farm for a Berrimah prison which is built on its existing site. There are 32 ha of land which, I am told, has some of the best soils you will find in the Darwin region.
I am saying that there are some alternatives. I have never had a chance to be part of the decision-making process in relation to this land. The government has made that decision; it has not included the community. It claims it is inclusive, open, and transparent. When it comes to some of these important decisions, it locks people out. The only chance I have of putting forward some alternatives is to come to this place and put those alternatives. I know that we will be defeated tonight. The member for Casuarina said: ‘Oh, it is disappointing that we have this politics’. This is a political forum in the true sense - not in the party political sense, but in the true sense of politics, which is to discuss these issues.
Unfortunately, minister for Primary Industry, I am not in the loop, because when you are on this side of parliament, for some reason, you are not in the loop. I would love to be part of the forum which discusses the future. What harm would that do? What harm would it do to call a public meeting on a Saturday afternoon, or in the middle of the day, when you have all the staff from the area come and discuss freely, with no limitations from management or government? They could speak freely about what they thought about the area. They are the people who live there. Invite people from industry, the Port Authority, the East Arm port development, the ones planning the future of the port - get them to speak. What are their viewpoints on how much more industrial land we need? I would only be able to guess.
It is simply by trying to use logic, but this development is very close, 6 km - not eight - from the tip of it to the base of the port. You have to remember that there is only a very narrow peninsula of land which comes out from the port, and that will need a place to expand. I do not quite agree with the member for Sanderson saying they might put some light industrial on the other side of the highway. There are major environmental constraints there. There is the aerial farm which I know the government is looking at for housing, and that would be quite a sensible place to put industrial land as well; you would then have a corridor of industrial land from the outskirts of Palmerston to the outskirts of Darwin.
I get concerned when the minister says that no-one wants to live past Coolalinga. Well, 17 000 of us do, and we do not have a problem. Casuarina, believe it or not, is not a place that many people from the rural area go. They do not like it; they like Coolalinga. They go to Palmerston, and they might go to Casuarina occasionally, and they hardly ever come to the CBD. If you ask someone to visit you in Darwin, many rural people do not know where they are going. They just do not come here anymore.
The reality is you need to have some discrete cities around your harbour, where the harbour is the centrepiece. Within that city, you have the facilities like Casuarina Square, WOW, and Harbour Town, so people do not have to travel all the way and we do not have an urban sprawl. I mentioned at the Chamber of Commerce forum, there were people like Walter Burley Griffin and his wife, Marion, who came from America to do design work for Canberra, housing estates and house designs in Australia. They came from a philosophy of trying to develop in harmony with the landscape. In other words, you do not just wipe the landscape out and put, boom, development - you try to use the landscape for the benefit of the people who are going to live there.
There are great places in Darwin that we should not destroy. Knuckey Lagoon is a fantastic place - do not ever urbanise that area, leave it for rural - leave it as it is. We have the harbour - that is the landscape, and we have the rivers and creeks that feed into it. That is what annoyed me so much about Mitchell Creek. How did we ever destroy Mitchell Creek? I have been up here long enough to have seen Mitchell Creek when it was a perfectly good, natural creek running into the harbour. Now it is a fandangled, you-beaut, concrete channel, with lovely manicured lawns. It is stuffed. Now it attracts all the fertilisers, rubbish and all sorts of things. It should have been a natural corridor.
I accept that the previous government made mistakes, and I am not …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The mistakes were selling land not suitable for development and giving carte blanche to developers to do whatever they liked with it. I do not know whether this government has changed the map yet, I will wait and see. There are some good things in the new eastern suburbs development of Palmerston. I do not know whether that has been approved yet, by the way. I have not seen the final outcome. We should be using our natural environment to make our cities better. We do not need to have a sprawl.
Berrimah Farm has basically been a farm. It does not have as much natural beauty as other areas we are developing like Weddell or Palmerston. There is no doubt it is close to the port. It can separate Palmerston from Darwin; there is no problem with that. Palmerston will be a discrete community which will develop its own culture and industries - it already is - it will develop its own feel; that will be Palmerston. You will have Darwin, which has been around much longer, and it will develop its own community – it already has. I am not saying it is going to develop into something new, but it will change - it will grow within its own boundaries.
I believe we have these areas which are worth preserving. There is some beautiful bushland where the people sell watermelons on the highway at the 11 Mile, which is Commonwealth land - it would be great to have a strip of the original bush still there; it is a nice break in the road from Darwin to Palmerston. I would hate to see the bushland go; I do not want to see wall-to-wall suburbs. I was brought up in a city like that. I reckon we could do things a little bit better.
We need to do our planning properly, and we need to have some foresight. This is close to East Arm Port - an area which the government knows is becoming increasingly busy. There is a statement from the minister for Primary Industry today talking about the first loads of copper, and then he talks about nickel and coal bake coming from the Browns Mine at Batchelor. This is only part of it. There is now talk about phosphate which is going to be brought out of the Barkly Tablelands and will be shipped, I presume, to the rail and into Darwin.
We have a port which was designed to grow; let us not stifle it by a silly concept of a ghetto, because that is what it will be. It will be a small suburb in the middle of nowhere - not connected with anyone. And what is that when it comes to community? A little body of a few hundred blocks of land not connected to Palmerston or Darwin. I believe it is a tragic mistake if the government goes ahead with this. If they do not believe me, and I can accept that, but at least hold off for a while and put it out for some public consultation and input; put it out for an environmental impact statement - let us look at that. Put it out for an economic impact statement; ask the business community what they think about the future of that area.
Do not ask the real estate agents; they will sell anything. If you offered them a block of land on the approach to the airport, I bet you they would say it is a great idea: ‘We can sell that.’ They are in the business of selling; they are not in the business of planning. Ask people who know about these things. Look at the mistakes we have made in the past. Look to the future. If you really believe 2030 is what this government is about, then use some vision. Do not use some short-term, stopgap measures to cover up the lack of affordable housing.
Minister, why not open up a few blocks in the forestry land - land that is actually marked as residential? It is on your own plans as residential. You will not. Yet, you will open up land that is marked for community purpose and for future development. I believe we are going down the wrong path and we will regret it one day. When the businesses in that area start complaining that there are people knocking on their doors in the middle of the night, do not look at me, because I believe that is what will happen.
Ms Purick: Do not forget the pet crematorium.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I forgot the pet crematorium. I am not sure whether we are allowed to advertise, but I believe that is the one on Wallaby Holtze Road …
Ms Purick: No, we bury them. We do not burn them.
Mr WOOD: That is a little distance off. It is a bit of a commercial plug in the middle of this debate. I will leave it there.
I ask the government to consider: we are not in a big hurry to open up this land yet. Let us give it some more thought; let us ask the community. Surely you would support that. Then let us see where we go from there.
Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Traffic Act – Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles for Certain Offences
Traffic Act – Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles for Certain Offences
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the NT government amend Part VA of the Traffic Act which deals with the impounding and forfeiture of motor vehicles for certain offences, specifically to allow for -
- (a) the confiscation of a vehicle for 48 hours if an offender has been found guilty of a first prescribed offence;
- (b) on application to the local court the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months if an offender has been found guilty
of a second prescribed driving offence; and
- (c) on application to the local court, the forfeiture of a vehicle if an offender has been guilty of a third prescribed driving offence.
The government has informed me they will be amending my motion, and I am reasonably happy with that, as it is similar to what I am going to debate. My only concern is that there should be a date when they introduce this into parliament. I still want to talk about this issue, because people need to know where I am coming from.
The motion I am putting forward is that the government amend Part VA of the Traffic Act which deals with the impounding and forfeiture of motor vehicles for certain offences.
In February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament based to some extent on the Queensland model. This bill amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles for hoon offences described as burn-outs, speed trials, racing, and deliberately damaging road surfaces.
I might be plagiarising some of my own speech, as I have given this speech before. I have been studying Ms Bishop’s efforts lately, so I am making sure I recognise my own writing.
When I introduced my bill, the government decided to introduce its own version in November 2003 which was debated on 18 May 2004. The main difference between the two bills was that the government decided not to allow for the impoundment of a vehicle on the first offence, but allowed impoundment on the second offence and only through the local court.
I supported the bill and I was happy we had some legislation, therefore I withdrew my proposed legislation. It seems the problem we have now is the new law is not working. Why? Take the rural area. If you go to Howard River Park - which we sometimes call Howard Rubber Park - Hicks Road in Girraween, Jefferis Road in Humpty Doo, and McMinns Drive in McMinns Lagoon, you will see that the law is not working. This same motion was put to parliament on 2 May 2007, nearly one and a half years ago, and the response from the minister was not to support the motion.
The reasons given were that she believed that an infringement notice was the appropriate way to approach a first offence and this was consistent with most other road offences. The minister also said that legislation is not a tool; police enforcement is the most effective tool in anti-hooning. She also said that all the measures the government had put into place, such as an active Traffic Branch for police, go a long way to addressing the concerns of hoons on our roads. She also said we now have demerit points.
The minister also said that she was happy to refer a review of the legislation to the Road Safety Council, and would refer the issue of anti-hooning legislation into that reference group. The minister also said on 16 October last year, in response to a question from me, that the Road Safety Coordination Group had indicated to her that the results of that review would be available early this year. We are at the end of the year, and still no findings appear to have been released. That is why this motion has been put forward again. People, including the police, are sick of waiting for this important legislation.
Let us look at the facts. First, hooning is a major problem in some parts of the Territory; it is a major problem in parts of my electorate. Hooning is dangerous to the people who hoon, to other motorists, bike riders, pedestrians, horse riders, and is also the cause of damage to property. At the time when I originally introduced this legislation, the figures showed that there had been one confiscation before the court - not exactly a great success.
Let us look at why the minister rejected my motion the last time. She said she believed an infringement notice is the appropriate way to handle a first offence. However, if you look in the other states you will see we have the weakest laws for the first offence. I have a table here which is the interstate anti-hoon laws for 2008.
In Queensland, they have an act called the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. It has an interesting chapter, called the ‘Motor vehicle impounding powers for prescribed offences’ - and I like this bit – ‘and motorbike noise direction offences’. The first offence in Queensland is to impound for 48 hours; the second offence within three years is to impound for up to three months; and for the third offence within three years the vehicle is forfeited to the state.
In New South Wales, this is even better. They have several acts. They impound for three months on the first offence - three months. An offence can occur preceding 10 days. Second offence or third offence - that is two or more offences - the car is forfeited - end of story. This is the interesting bit: the vehicle may also be crushed. They call it a crash test. I do not know what they do.
Under the Victorian act, they impound or immobilise for 48 hours; a second offence within three years, impound or immobilise up to three months; a third offence within three years, confiscated and your licence cancelled - and the offender has to pay.
In Tasmania they also have hoons. They confiscate for seven days on the first offence; second offence within a year, they confiscate for three months; and for a third offence within a year, they confiscate until resolution through court or forfeited.
In South Australia, first offence is impound for seven days; within 10 years - you do not want to do it again - your car will be impounded for up to three months and, within 10 years for the third offence, impound up to six months; more than three offences within 10 years, forfeited.
In Western Australia, they have just made some amendments. Impound for seven days, first offence; second offence, impound for 28 days; third offence within five years, vehicle confiscated. It says here, since the first anti-hoon laws were introduced in Western Australia in 2004, there have been more than 2800 impoundings.
In the ACT, the first offence, impound for three months; second offence, two or more offences, forfeited; and the third offence, two or more offences, forfeited.
The Northern Territory, on the first offence is yellow ticket, and second offence you have to go to the local court and your car might be confiscated or impounded. It is high time we made some changes. The problem with weak laws is that they do not remove the problem. Impounding gives the neighbourhood some respite. For instance, if the hooning is driving people mad or is a safety concern and you confiscate the vehicle for 48 hours, then you have no noise or safety issue - at least for a short time. The yellow ticket will mean, as soon as the police are gone - back on the road again.
Hooning is not just about public nuisance. There are issues relating to safety, noise, smell, and even side effects like selling property where this type of behaviour occurs. I know that happened in Howard River Park. Prospective buyers of land turn up in the street, and there would be rubber everywhere and they would turn around and go home because they did not want to have hooning outside the front of their place.
Our roads are supposed to be subject to road rules, to protect people when they go for a walk, ride a bicycle, or a horse, or take the dog for a walk. Children catching the bus to school or walking home in the afternoon can be at risk, and I have seen that for myself. The figures given in a recent letter from the minister regarding the number of anti-hooning offences since the law was introduced were 128 infringements and 93 notices served and, I know this is probably out of date, but that is what I have - and not all drivers who received an infringement were served with anti-hooning notices. The government might say that shows the law is working, but that is not the case based on the evidence on the ground. Cars I have seen involved in hooning still drive the streets, and if police do catch them, they just get a yellow ticket.
The legislation, of course, is only part of it. Catching hoons in the act is quite difficult. Residents will ring up the police, and by the time police arrive, the hoons have gone or are driving around like angels. As soon as the police have gone, away they go again. Residents are asked to take photos or film the infringements. I know that some of the hoons would intimidate those residents and scare them from taking the pictures required to take them off the road. The government needs to give police the funds or the equipment to collect the evidence. If that means 24-hour camera surveillance on known trouble spots, then so be it. This will allow the evidence to be collected, and with the stronger legislation I am proposing, and I am pleased that the government is looking at changing that too, there is a chance that hoon behaviour can be curtailed.
Although I have not written it in the motion, there needs to be an effort by the government to ensure that police have this type of equipment. Surely it can be made available in known trouble spots so the public does not have to try to take these photographs themselves, especially when they know there is a likelihood they are going to be targeted by these people if it is found out they were the ones taking the photographs. If someone was to take a photograph from a property, and the photographs were used in court as evidence, there is a fair chance the offenders would know exactly from what property those photographs were taken.
I can say quite categorically that, in parts of the Howard River Park, those properties would be targeted, either by continual hooning, or just giving people the impression that they were being looked at and watched, and there will be public annoyance around their property. I know this is the case, because people have come to see me about it. There was a case at Howard River Park, with a Molotov cocktail being thrown over a fence where there were horses, simply because those people complained to the police about the actions of some idiots in the area.
Even if you do photograph the hooning, the picture has to be clear enough to identify the driver, and that is why these changes are needed. If you can photograph or film the number plate of the vehicle, regardless of whether you can see the driver, you can impound the vehicle without worrying about recognising the driver.
I need to say something on surveillance. I was driving back from the Masters in Alice Springs and the ABC was doing an interview with the Mayor of Ipswich, who was coming to Tennant Creek last week to talk to a business group. He was saying how CCTV had certainly reduced crime in parts of Ipswich. One thing that I pricked up my ears at is they actually have some portable CCTVS that they put around at various hotspots. I believe that would be good for the government to supply to the police.
These days you can get CCTV cameras that operate on long term batteries, that have hard drives, which can be put anywhere, and they have infrared vision. I believe that part of this program to get some of these hoons off the road is to give police the equipment to do it. I know the police are doing their best, but they need more resources, and that is why I emphasise the need for video surveillance cameras. We have looked at it; it is hard to get the information. I rang the Ipswich City Council this morning but, unfortunately, they were unable to get back to me in time about the type of equipment.
People are getting fed up with this type of behaviour and the government needs to be serious about curbing this antisocial behaviour. If it does not, it will be sending a message that it is not listening to people like those in Howard River Park. I can tell you of areas in McMinns Lagoon, down Acacia Road, Humpty Doo, Hicks Road and Whitewood Road - they are just some of the areas I know – where people just have to enjoy this hooning behaviour until they pack up and move somewhere else a little more friendly and quieter. I mentioned before how this can affect the sale of the land.
The minister has said legislation is not a tool; police enforcement is a tool, however police cannot act without legislation. If the legislation is weak, then they will not be able to change behaviour. It is like having a plastic hammer versus a metal hammer. The minister has said the government has demerit points; they will not stop hooning. If there is a problem with hooning late at night, you need to remove the offending vehicle, not just give the driver an infringement notice and a subsequent punishment of demerit points. Remove the car and they cannot hoon; give them an infringement notice - who cares?
As for police enforcement, I wonder if the minister knows how difficult it is for police to enforce the laws, especially in the rural area. At Alexander Park, for instance, they just put a car down the road with a mobile phone and they ring the hoons further down to tell them the police are coming and they all drive around like angels and the police go back. They know it will be at least 15 to 20 minutes before Palmerston Police Station can attend.
The minister said the government is putting into place an active Traffic Branch. I must admit I have not seen a lot of the Traffic Branch, maybe it is in unmarked cars. I see an odd motorbike fly around but I could not say we have a Traffic Branch that has a major presence. I wonder if the minister could expand on that in her response as I do not see any more police on the road than normal, except some motorbikes from time to time.
The minister said the results of the review by the Road Safety Coordination Group would be ready by early this year. The year is coming to a close and there is still no sign of the review. I ask the government to support what I have put forward today and I am happy they look like they will do that. I do not put this forward as a silly idea. We need to curb this type of antisocial behaviour.
I will give you an example of a place on Hillier Road in Howard Springs; the place is up for sale now and I hope it is not up for sale because of the hoons that go past there all the time. They have the most beautiful lawn. Lawns in the rural area, especially from the fence to the road, are not that frequent, but these people have made the effort to have a nice green lawn and they water it. Well, the number of times it has been ripped up by hoons. Recently, you could see the cars parked on the lawn, they just let off the clutch, ripped it up and drove right up through the lawn. Then they did it again, about a month after the poor gardener who works there had patched it up. That is the sort of thing that drives people mad.
I help look after the cricket oval at Howard Springs. We have had blokes come in there in the middle of the night, lift the wooden barriers out of the ground, go in there and do doughnuts on the football ground or the cricket ground. It is so disappointing because it is mainly kids who use it for cricket, and they have to try to patch up the ruts. It is not very good when you are playing cricket to have a ball bounce off the rut and hit you in the face. It is an issue, and I believe we need to change people’s behaviour. There has been a lot of talk about road safety, and this should be part of the road safety program which the government is trying to put forward.
Someone came to see me recently and said: ‘You are being a bit tough.’ I said we are not really out here to stop a bloke who, when it first rains, drives out of a T-intersection and maybe does a bit of a slur if he is not careful; it is not the odd little moving with the vehicle, it is the stuff that is deliberately dangerous - it is the doughnuts, the S’s, and racing the cars side by side.
My secretary lives in Whitewood Road and every intersection there has rubber on it - doughnuts on every intersection. She was coming home from walking the dog one day and there were two cars coming straight at her, side by side on the road, one is obviously in the wrong lane, and they were flying along. We have to send a message that this sort of behaviour is no good and if you put that in the context of people who add alcohol while they are hooning, it makes it twice as bad. I put this forward as a serious change to the Traffic Act. I believe we have had plenty of time to see how the existing act works.
We know hooning is dangerous. I remember the case of two vehicles dragging outside BP Palms; one car had its lights off and one car hit the other car and slammed into a tree. One of the drivers was burned to death, and I believe one girl was pulled out. She was seriously injured and sent to Adelaide, and may still be in a very bad way, because she was between life and death for quite a while. Hooning can cause injury. We are sending the wrong message.
It might be slightly off the subject, but I wonder whether the motor vehicle industry has to take some responsibility for the way it advertises. It is like how alcohol is advertised in a way which is not always responsible. Look at the cars that are advertised today - look at the utes. I have a ute which is slightly different to some of the utes, and the member for Goyder has a ute. You cannot tell me that many motor car companies are not pushing the concept of a pretty fast vehicle: the ones with two exhaust pipes, the SS, and all the nice little things that go round the car. Some of those cars are very, very powerful.
I know the member for Fong Lim probably has a couple in his back yard, but he told me he has gone past that stage. They sell cars that are very high powered. Look at that unfortunate fatality on Vanderlin Drive the other day; that car must have been hiking. I am not sure what type of car it was, but there are cars which have enormous power. You see them at the traffic lights, and they leave me for dead.
I put this forward as an opportunity to tighten up on this area; to give people some peace and quiet, as well as some safety in their own communities. Also, believe it or not, to try to save the lives of those young people – and they are not all young people who hoon, by the way - but to try to save their lives and the lives of their passengers.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson and recognise that hooning is probably more of an emerging problem in my electorate of Braitling. We are seeing more cars flying up and down the road doing burn-outs everywhere, getting on the Alice Springs Golf Course at night and tearing up greens, and a lot of unsavoury behaviour.
Keeping in mind the road toll now stands at 60, it is high time that we had some sensible motions put in so that we can bring in legislation to try to curb the devastating road toll. I wish that someone as sensible as the member for Nelson was minister for Transport at this point in time. He might be able to identify ways to reduce the road toll, rather than having the high road toll that we have. I believe a 65% percent increase over the last year is atrocious. We have had to wait for a general business day for someone to put forward a motion to try to identify ways of making our roads safer so people can travel on our roads, pedestrians can walk on our roads and use our roads and feel safe and know that someone is not going to come drag racing in the middle of the night with their headlights turned off.
I pass on my agreement with the motion and acknowledge that hooning is a significant issue. It is continuing to rise in the Northern Territory; in Patterson Crescent, Lyndavale Drive, Head Street, Dixon Road - around the loop - we are seeing it across Alice Springs and throughout the Northern Territory. It reminds me of growing up in Sydney many years ago and seeing the start of hooning and progressing to the point where it is now. The level it is at in the Northern Territory right now is at the same point as 20 years ago in Sydney. It will probably only get worse and strong motions like this to bring on legislation to toughen up ways of dealing with it, is very positive. Clearly the Labor government is soft on anything to make our roads safer. I support this motion and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it forward.
Confiscating vehicles for 48 hours, if an offender has been found guilty of a first prescribed offence, I believe will send a clear message to those people who are hooning, and an application to the lower court for the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months if you are found guilty a second time, also sends a really strong message. If you commit a third offence, you are just an idiot and you should have your vehicle forfeited. I support that and commend the member for Nelson for bringing that on.
I will move an amendment to that motion, which I understand will be distributed now. I move the motion be amended by adding, at the end of paragraph (c):
- or a third drink-driving offence in the last five years where one of those offences has recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.15 or above.
I move that amendment because I believe by being a hoon you are turning a vehicle into a dangerous weapon, the irresponsibility of the driver to turn that vehicle into a dangerous weapon and when someone is over 0.15 in blood alcohol content …
A member: They are drunk.
Mr GILES: Well, they are drunk, but they have actually turned their vehicle into more of a weapon than just hooning. The reason is that they do not actually have control over their brain or their car, and what we see is a number of incidents on our roads where people are not wearing seat belts, and they might be speeding or doing burn-outs. When you combine that with a high range of blood alcohol, it makes the matter even worse. For those reasons, I put that amendment forward. It was only last week we were debating similar legislation when the government went to water, weak at the knees, and went soft on drink-drivers and trying to reduce the road toll.
I will go through a few media releases by the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, which are not in order, and then draw a point about why it is important to forfeit cars for drink-driving offences on a third repeat occasion in five years, where one has been at a high range. This media release is from Monday, 27 October, at 12.10 hours Central time:
- A 46-year-old man will appear in court after he lost control of the car he was driving and crashed into a traffic light.
Police, fire and ambulance crews were called to the single vehicle crash on Telegraph Terrace, Alice Springs, just before 3 pm on Saturday. Police said it appeared the man
was travelling south along Telegraph Terrace when he failed to notice traffic ahead of him stopped at the red light. He then swerved to avoid colliding with the car in front of
him causing his vehicle to mount the kerb and crash into the traffic light. He was found to be driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.221 …
He will be subpoenaed to the Alice Springs Magistrates Court; clearly not getting the message – owing to the soft Labor government and its road toll.
Here is another one, at 1310 hours on Monday, 27 October. This makes for great reading:
- Police have apprehended several drink-drivers after setting up Random Breath Testing Stations throughout the rural area on Friday night …
I commend the police for doing that. I acknowledge that the police work very hard in doing this, although they are under-resourced:
- Of the 267 drivers tested, 10 were taken into Police custody for driving under the influence, nine traffic infringement notices were issued, one person was summonsed to
appear in court …
- Police also conducted several roadside breath tests and apprehended three drivers between 4 pm yesterday and 2.10 am this morning.
I have to say, catching people and breath testing at 2.10 am is a novel idea. They must have copied that from me talking about the need to get breath tests done at an appropriate time …
Ms Lawrie: You flatter yourself.
Mr GILES: … I thank the minister for Transport for copying my ideas and making that happen. I really do appreciate it and getting drink-drivers off the road is important:
- A 34-year-old male driving a Triton utility was stopped yesterday near Dundee Beach Lodge at around 4 pm … witnessed … not wearing his seatbelt. He was
subsequently breath tested and returned a reading of 0.235 percent. He was also charged with driving unregistered, uninsured and unlicensed.
Clearly, an alcohol ignition lock is not going to work on that person, especially given that he is unlicensed. Surely, only forfeiting the vehicle would be appropriate:
- A 20-year-old male was apprehended on Mitchell Street at approximately 11.25 pm and later returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.083 percent.
He was also charged with drink driving at a medium range blood alcohol level.
- At around 2.10 am this morning a 25-year-old male was pulled over at a random breath testing on Tiger Brennan Drive and produced a blood alcohol reading of 0.108 percent.
He drove unlicensed with two passengers in an unregistered and uninsured Mazda ….
These are not people who are drink-driving in normal cars that you or I might drive, such as a registered car with a licensed driver. These are people, who clearly have no respect for the road rules, and they are turning their vehicles into weapons, and they deserve nothing more than having their vehicles forfeited. If they are prepared to get into a car and drive it, what was that one? 0.235%, unlicensed, driving on our streets - no one is safe.
I will read out another one. A 38-year-old male returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.87%. He had just finished a five year disqualification period and this was his fifth driving offence. Fifth drink-driving offence: What sort of a lesson can we teach that person, apart from taking his car from him?
A 37-year-old male returned a reading of 0.97%; an 18-year-old male returned a high reading of 0.117%; a 34-year-old man returned a reading of 0.149%, he was driving unlicensed and carrying two people in the back of a utility. A 31-year-old female driver blew 0.157%, unregistered and uninsured, and then ran into the ‘No Entry’ sign outside Palmerston Police Station - talk about being stupid; drunk and stupid, and then drove straight into the police station - it beggars belief. This is one from 29 October - a male driver was conveyed to the Darwin watch-house and returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.16%, a high range reading, three times the legal limit.
The media releases go on, and I will not read the rest of them, about people who have been caught drink driving; and these are just since I debated last week about how important it is that we have forfeiture laws for repeat drink-drivers at a high level. I find it highly ironic that I am supporting hooning legislation that recommends we support the forfeiture of vehicles for hooning on the third offence. If we are going to support forfeiture of vehicles on a third offence; if the law says that if you are travelling with a can of VB in your car in a prescribed area, your car can be confiscated; and if your car can be confiscated if you have too many barramundi; then in terms of being over the legal alcohol limit, surely we must say that driving a vehicle over 0.150% on a third occasion should result in vehicle forfeiture.
I recommend that the government supports this amendment in line with any legislation that can be duplicated from the hooning legislation. The government can join the Country Liberals and say that we are going to get tough on drink-drivers, and the road toll, and send a message to people that if you drink-drive three times within a five year period, above the high range, you will forfeit your car.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you that we are now speaking to the motion with the amendment.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, in general I support both motions that have been put, because hooning is a problem. It does pose dangers and, at times, it can be seen as hitting on an easy target; but it does cause much distress to many people.
I would like to mention the good work of organisations, such as the Beat The Heat Association Inc, that are tied in with the police department. They are a stand-alone association trying to combat hooning. Racing for road safety is one of its main mottos and as part of that they encourage the hoons to use safe venues like the Hidden Valley Drag Strip, which is a government-owned venue. I note the federal government’s pledge of $3m to upgrade that facility and I hope that everything planned in those works is delivered, because there are great options which can assist and complement this motion.
I urge the government to keep pushing it along to ensure it happens quickly, because if we can get the hoons off the street, we are going to be a lot safer. It may not just be through impounding their vehicles but also through education. Education for offenders can be a key way of breaking that cycle.
It disappointed me last week when we put the idea of seizing the motor vehicle after the third drink-driving offence, one with a reading higher than 0.150, and the government rejected it. I commend the member for Braitling, and the member for Nelson, for bringing forward the amendment to that motion. If you cannot see the correlation between drink-driving and killing people you are foolish. It is vital that you see the correlation between three counts of hooning and seizing someone’s vehicle and the need to seize someone’s vehicle when they have been drink-driving on our streets. There is no greater danger than drink-driving.
I fully support the amendment made to the motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing forward his motion. I will speak about the substantive motion first, because I have an amendment to the motion which I will put as part of the debate.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have moved an amendment. I am not sure whether you can then amend an amendment without amending that amendment for another amendment …
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly we need to deal with your amendment and I would like to defeat the amendment and then go to the substantive motion …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was still talking before the minister went soft on drunk-drivers. Should my amendment now be voted on - what is the process here?
Madam SPEAKER: The usual process is there is a motion before the Chair. You have moved an amendment and the Leader of Government Business is speaking to the original motion and your amendment, and all members from now on are speaking to both those things. When all members have finished speaking we put the amendment, along with any other amendments, and if any amendments are passed then we put the amended motion. Otherwise we then go straight to the motion.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, maybe I heard incorrectly. I thought the Transport minister said she wanted to amend the original motion and not talk to my motion.
Madam SPEAKER: She can indeed put forward a motion to amend the original motion, and she can also speak to your motion. There is nothing stopping the minister from doing those things and in that case there are three things before the Chair. It is complicated. That is why I have come back into the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing forward this motion. The member for Nelson has pursued the issue of anti-hooning legislation in this Chamber through terms of government and he is sincere in trying to ensure this unacceptable hooning behaviour on our streets has the strongest penalties applied to it.
The Northern Territory government has its own anti-hooning legislation which did not go to the extent that the member for Nelson sought. It dealt with traffic infringement notices for the first offence, rather than confiscation of vehicle.
I recognise that it has not had the desired effect and there has been a continuation of hoons on our streets. Hooning involves people illegally racing their vehicles on public streets. We heard a very stark example from the member for Nelson; about people participating in burn-outs and doughnuts and placing themselves, their passengers, their spectators, and other road users at risk of serious injury or fatality.
The new provision in the Traffic Act for anti-hooning legislation was introduced in 2004. It was created specifically for offences of hooning type activities and it provided for an infringement penalty on the first offence. In the case of a second offence it provides for police applying to the court to impound an offender’s vehicle for 48 hours. The third offence is the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months, and the fourth offence is a vehicle may be forfeited. The regime of infringement penalties, demerit points and vehicle impoundment and forfeiture has not been as effective as government sought.
It has been in place long enough to see whether it has been effective; there have been approximately 350 traffic infringement notices issued since it was introduced. The first vehicle was impounded for 48 hours for a hooning offence in May 2007, and since that time only a further two vehicles have been impounded for 48 hours. As the member for Nelson knows, when the anti-hooning legislation came into effect, we said that there would be a review after the first five years, which means the review would be due in 2009.
Since coming to the portfolio, I have asked the Road Safety Coordination Group to conduct a review of our anti-hooning legislation; I have been expecting that advice to come forward. The latest advice is that the Road Safety Coordination Group information will come to me next month. The Road Safety Coordination Group comprises the AANT, TIO, the George Institute of Public Health, NT Police, the Departments of Health, Education, Justice, and Planning and Infrastructure; it really is a group with expertise and I was awaiting their expert advice.
I have no argument with what you have been pursuing, member for Nelson. As Transport minister, I commend you for your pursuit and your passion on this issue. We have seen that all Australian jurisdictions have their own regimes for anti-hooning and over time each of the jurisdictions has moved. As you indicated in the debate tonight, Western Australia has recently moved on this issue. Anti-hooning legislation, whilst it is relatively new in the Northern Territory, is something we introduced, but not without prompting from your good self, member for Nelson. However, it has not been as effective as government would like.
We wanted to receive a clear message through the traffic infringement notices on the first offence. Sadly, we have seen the continuation of hoons, particularly in rural and urban areas - and I have witnessed the fresh black rubber marks on the roads after a Saturday night and you know the hoons have been there the night before - whilst we have been sending the message that you could be fined, arrested, lose your licence, have your vehicle impounded, and your vehicle forfeited on the fourth offence.
I accept that the police are an essential tool in the fight against hoons. The Northern Territory government has reintroduced and resourced the Traffic Branch which was disbanded under the CLP government. It incorporates the existing Major Crash Investigation Unit, the Traffic Camera Unit, and the traffic infringement notice adjudicators. I am advised 12 police officers and five police auxiliaries are in Darwin unit.
I am sure the minister for Police would be able to provide you with further briefings on how they deploy marked cars, unmarked cars, and that level of detail which, as Transport minister, I am not able to provide you. I know there are increasingly strong lines of communication between the department of Transport and Police regarding these road safety tools.
I will be moving to defeat your motion as it stands, however I would prefer to amend your motion to flag the intention and the aim of government coming from the advice of the Road Safety Coordination Group. Hopefully, we will get that advice soon. I am flagging the intent of government in increasing the penalty regimes as they exist.
I will be moving a motion to your substantive motion, not to the motion with the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. The government will be proposing to negate the amendment from the member for Braitling, as we had that debate in the Chamber last week, and even though the opposition did not agree with me – and I know they will never agree with me or this side - I am not going …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask for the microphone to be turned up as I can barely hear. I thought the minister said something about the government being soft on drunks, but I was not quite sure. I find it hard hearing the minister over here.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. But it would …
Ms Carney: When she is not shrill, she is quite difficult to hear, is she not?
Madam SPEAKER: That was quite an offensive interjection. We will see if we can get the minister’s microphone turned up, but if you could be somewhat more respectful in your points of order, thank you.
Ms Carney: Some points of order are offensive, but others are not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, rather than turn the microphone up, I will do my best to speak louder for the member for Braitling.
We did have a debate last week which goes to the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. We went through it in great detail and the government’s policy position is very clear: we were pointing out the difference between drink-drivers and hoons. Hooning does not …
Mr Bohlin: Drink-drivers kill more people every year.
Ms LAWRIE: Hooning does not occur …
A member: There is no difference. There is no argument.
Ms LAWRIE: … nearly as frequently as drink-driving does and, therefore, it does not have …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, their arrogance is astounding. If you talk about something they have proposed and they do not like what you are saying, then they will incessantly interject ...
Ms Carney: Rubbish! People in glasshouses.
Mr Conlan: You are such a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw those comments please.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr Conlan: It does not mean it is not true, though.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you when you are speaking to the Speaker and you are asked to withdraw, you stand to do that.
Mr CONLAN: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I withdraw that comment.
Dr Burns: You do not eat in the Chamber either.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, do you have food in the Chamber?
Mr CONLAN: I just had something in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind all honourable members that food is not allowed in the Chamber.
Mr Conlan: You would have been one of those blokes at school that come up behind …
Ms Carney: Well, she chews gum all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen said that I chew gum all the time. I have never chewed gum in the Chamber. I ask her to withdraw that allegation.
Ms Carney: Oh, it must have been something else.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please continue, minister.
Ms Carney: She is misleading parliament, because I have seen her chewing gum.
Mr Conlan: Yes, I know, so have I.
Ms Carney: Yes, she has a cow’s sort of chew.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen is continuing to allege that I am chewing gum. I heard her say: ‘She has that cow sort of a chew’. Clearly, I do not chew gum in the Chamber. I do not bring gum into the Chamber. I do not chew gum in the Chamber. She was just asked to withdraw, she withdrew, and she made the allegation again immediately.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if the member is so offended by the outrageous allegation that she has been known to chew gum, I withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen, and I remind you of Standing Order 51. Minister, you have the call.
Mr Elferink: You cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the level of juvenile interjections from the other side is …
Ms Carney: Oh, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: The government clearly says that we have a different cohort in dealing with hooning; they are far fewer. Tragically, we have far too many drink-drivers; they are a broader cohort of people, so dealing with the drink-drivers through confiscation of cars would adversely affect a far broader group of innocent family members. We are on the record saying that; we very clearly articulated that last week. They did not like to hear that. However, that is our position and it is unchanged from last week to this week.
The government will not be supporting the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling. Hooning is about the car. People who are hooning often do so in a particular car, hotted up cars, for example, and the confiscation of that vehicle addresses the issue directly. Their hotted up car, their love and joy, the car they spend so much money on, is confiscated – a very different scenario to someone, as I have said in the debate on drink-driving …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure whether I am hearing right, but the minister for Transport suggests that a hotted up car is far more important than someone’s loved one, a human body that is ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order, resume your seat. The minister has the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale does not have a clue about what I was saying; he tried to draw out that analogy. Hooning is about the car; people who are hooning often do so in a particular car. Drink-driving is not about the car. Drink-drivers are idiots who have a problem with alcohol. All the studies show that repeat drink-drivers …
Mr Giles: Should be penalised.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Sadly, repeat drink-drivers commit multiple offences; they are people who have a problem with alcohol. That is a very different set of circumstances to people who are fixated on going fast in their hotted up cars and proving to their mates they can do tricks on the road, the cricket field, or wherever, in their car; they are a very different cohort. We draw the distinction between the two and consider the impact on innocent family members in terms of confiscation of vehicles. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendment as proposed by the member for Braitling.
I have an amendment: that the Northern Territory government bring forward a bill to amend part VA of the Traffic Act. The bill will allow for increased penalties for first time offenders which allow for impounding of a vehicle; increased penalties for …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I request that the member be given sufficient time to conclude her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the minister’s time be extended by 10 minutes.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their indulgence of the 10 minute extension of time and I promise not to take the full 10 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion. I will be proposing that we omit all words after ‘That’ and insert in their stead:
- That the Northern Territory government bring forward a bill to amend Part VA of the Traffic Act. The bill will allow for:
I have spoken to the member for Nelson and indicated to him that the government supports the intent of his motion, but we need to give our various departments and the Road Safety Coordination Group the opportunity to have a look at the actual advice and how to implement the intent; that is why we are not fully adopting his motion as it stands. It is about giving government experts the opportunity to provide advice on the processes for impounding, etcetera. The government’s intent is to support the intent of the motion by the member for Nelson and we are not accepting the motion as it stands for those reasons, but are seeking to amend the motion to reflect that the Northern Territory does bring forward a bill.
The timing of the bill, member for Nelson, will be as soon as possible; it will be done, if possible, for introduction into the November sittings - that would be good. If it cannot be done by then, it will definitely be introduced into the February sittings. That is the timing of what we will be bringing forward and that is the government’s intent. I commend the member for Nelson for his pursuit of strengthening the hooning legislation in the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: As there are two amendments to the same motion, under Standing Order 146 I have to put the first amendment before the House. The question before the House is the one brought forward by the member for Braitling. The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Braitling be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: As we have lost that amendment we now continue with the debate. People who have not spoken in the debate may continue speaking to the original motion and the amendment as put by the Leader of Government Business.
The question before the chair is the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government business and the motion as moved by the member for Nelson.
Are there any further speakers?
Mr WOOD: Do I have an opportunity to sum up as I have already spoken?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Are there any further speakers?
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I assume that this is the government’s motion; it is not headed government motion and it is not in the name of the Leader of Government Business, so it looks hastily prepared. I note that the amendment is to introduce a bill - nothing about when, so presumably at some point over the next four years. Of course, I note that the government committed, after its almost near death experience at the election, that there would be four year terms yet we have not seen a bill brought forward on that.
The member for Nelson and others may be waiting for some time for the bill. It is sloppy, to say the least, that there is no time limit, or even an indication to timing, with the bill the government claims it is going to introduce. That is the first point.
The second point is this motion - the amendments to it - simply claim that a bill we have not seen will allow for increased penalties for first time offenders and increased penalties for repeat offenders. There is no indication as to the nature of those increased penalties. We are being asked to vote on something which has no particulars. It is a bunch of words, cobbled together, clearly in haste, and we are being asked, by government, to trust them because they will do a bill, one day. There will be increased penalties, we do not know how much, but they say there will be increased penalties. It would be irresponsible for the opposition to vote in support of such a shabby amendment. Talk about close your eyes and hope for the best. You cannot possibly expect members of the opposition, and I am sure I speak for my colleagues, to vote for such a vague amendment.
Unfortunately, this is typical of the approach the government has to things. It has been a surprise that, in the first two and a half months of a new term, they are so lazy, lethargic and pathetic in a number of respects; I really am surprised by that. I would have thought, given this is a third term government, that they might have been able to at least draft an amendment better than this. Do not insult my intelligence, or that of my colleagues, by coming in here and saying - on a wing and a prayer – ‘trust us, because one day we are going to introduce something that is going to make you happy’. It is just not good enough but, sadly, is becoming the form of this government.
Earlier today I looked through the second reading speech - I think it was you, member for Casuarina, who was minister at the time when the hooning legislation was introduced - and much was promised. There is an ongoing theme: government stands here and promises the world and never delivers. In fact, I feel certain that we, on this side of the Chamber, will be able to develop a slogan or theme on that as we go into the next election, apparently four years away.
A member: Slip, slop, slap.
Ms CARNEY: Slip, slop, slap is one of them, but there are so many others. It is like the 2030 announcement today. I really am quite surprised that a government two and a half months into its third term has obviously run out of ideas. I am not surprised, having seen the form of this government over the seven years they have been in office, that they have run out of ideas. I am genuinely surprised that an amendment like this, so badly and vaguely written, is proffered to us.
Do not think for a moment that we are fooled by this. If you seriously expect us to vote for this, then you are just delusional. But I suppose that is no surprise, because we know you are. In any event, that is our position with respect to the amendment.
As to the member for Nelson’s motion: thank you, member for Nelson. As you know from the speakers - I think we have only had a couple - that we support it. I am sure you understand, through discussions with the member for Braitling, why it is we brought on our amendment. In any event, I will conclude with those comments. I look forward to seeing how many of the government members leap to their feet with their collective energy to argue passionately in support of such a shabby motion for an amendment. If none of them rise, then their support for our position will be assumed.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was rising before the challenge from the member for Araluen.
First, I commend the member for Nelson. He has been consistent for a number of years on this particular issue. What government is doing today is an acknowledgement of the steadfast position of the member for Nelson. It is also an acknowledgement that these steps need to be taken. In contradiction of what the member for Araluen said, I heard the minister give an undertaking to this parliament, and to the member for Nelson, that amendments along the lines of what he has proposed in his motion would be drafted; specifically, increased penalties for first time offenders that allow for impounding of a vehicle. Nothing could be clearer than that.
Ms Carney: Increase penalties, you goose!
Dr BURNS: The member for Araluen selectively quoted from the amendment moved by the member for Karama, the minister, purposely saying we cannot support it. Well, you do what you want to do. We are supporting the member for Nelson and moving along his long-standing issue of hooning. I commend the member for Nelson: ‘Increase the penalty for repeat offenders and a provision for an application to the local court for forfeiture of the vehicle for a third offence’. It is very clear to me where government is headed with this.
Obviously, the members opposite - not one of them - have ever been in a Cabinet, not even the esteemed member for Fong Lim. I do not know where he was down the pecking order, but he certainly was not in the Cabinet. There are processes around Cabinet which I will explain to members opposite, particularly the new members, so they can understand.
There will be a Cabinet submission drawn up from the relevant agency, which is DPI. The proposed changes will be put in that. There will also be consultation with Parliamentary Counsel to draft up these amendments. There will be submissions from various agencies including police, Justice - a whole range of agencies - and Cabinet will consider that. I heard the member for Karama, the minister, give an undertaking that we will endeavour to get those changes through before the November sittings.
Madam Speaker, as you know because you have been a Cabinet minister also, there is a busy agenda regarding legislation that comes before Cabinet, and what can go forward in the sittings. There has been an undertaking given by the minister and I respect that. I will be voting for the amendment proposed by the minister on the basis of what she said, and support for the member for Nelson, which is more than the support the other side is able to offer. We are offering to bring this into the parliament, pass it and make it into law.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you have already spoken in debate. Is that correct?
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I did not finish. I have not spoken to this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Braitling, I am speaking. This means that you can speak only to the amendment.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I reiterate what the member for Araluen said. We support the original motion, but in the format in which it has come out, we cannot support it because of the inept approach. I saw a draft of this and it looks very familiar to what is written here now. It may have changed slightly.
I have not been in Cabinet, member for Johnston, however I do recognise it is quite simple to write on a piece of paper what you will do with specifics. Generally, that is called policy, an election commitment, or something. You can give direction about what you are going to do – by November we will do X, or Y. This is just rubbish.
I want to make it clear that we support the original motion which was put up. We sought amendments because we know that the government is soft on drink-driving; low level drink-drivers; high range drink-drivers, and this allows us an opportunity to try to reduce the road toll. That is why we piggybacked on it; that is not taking away from the original motion. It is very important for people to know that this government is soft on drink-drivers.
When you can lose your vehicle for having too many barramundi, for doing burn-outs, or for having a can of VB in your car, but you cannot lose your vehicle for being a high range drink-driver three times in five years, it is absolutely ludicrous and will in no way help in reducing the road toll.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I agree wholly with what the member for Araluen had to say. This is a non-amendment; it does not highlight anything, and the comments made by the member for Johnston are a complete cop out. The member for Johnston does not seem to understand that it is the government’s job to govern. It is the government’s job to actually to do some work. If the government runs out of time, and if gag girl would allow people to debate things ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Conlan: Come on, get a sense of humour.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a good sense of humour, but he is deliberately trying to be offensive and, as he knows, it is in breach of standing orders.
Ms Carney: You would know about that, gag girl.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I would ask you to withdraw under Standing Order 62(1), thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. If the mother of smother would allow the debate to occur on a whole range of issues …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is still trying to be offensive. He can wriggle around all he likes. This is the same circus which would not even give an extension of time on an amendment to a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask you to keep your comments to the motion before the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am responding to comments that were made by the member for Johnston. The government has a job to run parliament, to pass legislation and do all those things that governments should do. To suggest that they can put up anything willy-nilly in this parliament, get agreement from everyone, and that is the way things work, is a complete abrogation of the parliament. They should put some meat onto the bones of a motion if they expect any sort of support for it. There is no time line for this. The minister has absolutely no idea when this proposed bill will brought on.
Mr Conlan: Twenty-two years away.
Mr TOLLNER: Twenty-two years away. For the Police minister to jump up on his high horse, carrying on about how there is no one in this place who has been in Cabinet and understands these things, is an absolute cop out.
Madam Speaker, how are people supposed to support this? We are buying a pig in a poke. We have no idea when it is going to be brought on for debate or what they mean when they talk about increased penalties. We have no idea what the provisions for an application are. There is no detail whatsoever in this motion and it should not be supported; it is as simple as that. I defy anyone to say what the government is intending to do. They cannot even put, and it is a government, on the piece of paper …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … which they have cobbled together in about two seconds, more than likely by the Leader of Government Business running in and asking one of the staff to knock this thing up, and throw it in front of the parliament and think we will have something to say about it.
It is not on. It is shabby and pathetic, and it shows that you are a lazy government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I should step outside and have a good laugh and come back in again, because at times we get muddled up with our own complexities and lose sight of where we are heading.
In my position as an Independent, it is fairly rare to get the government to support anything I do, and when they do they always put their name to it. I do not have a problem with that because that is part of the reason I am still in parliament: to put forward certain motions and ideas and hope the government picks them up. They do not do it very often; today they came close.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I understand some of the objections from the opposition and I could sit on my high horse and say: ‘I am going to knock back this particular amendment on some of those issues.’ If I did that I would be saying to the government that I do not want your support for this motion; I only want you to support my motion. I believe that compromise is the best approach. All right, it is not exactly the way I have written it, but the intent is what I was after; we need to change.
People might say: ‘How do you know when the government is going to introduce this?’ You are talking to someone with a lot of experience. I started debating this in 2004 and we are now in 2008, it might take me another four years but I will not let the government off the hook. The government will get asked in Question Time and every GBD. There are sometimes in this parliament, without the party politics, that you have to accept what people say; the minister said she will bring it in as soon as possible and the minister for Justice has said he will try to bring it in before the next sittings. I will be on their trail finding out where it is; I will be ringing up, writing letters and asking questions. The minister has said that is what they will do.
I am not introducing a definitive piece of legislation; I am introducing a motion. I did that because going down the legislative path takes too long; I would have to wait another 12 days before we looked at this. I am putting forward a concept to the government which is based on the legislation. It is picking up that concept in its way and, generally speaking, that concept is the same as mine. If you were looking at being the devil’s advocate, I did not write a date to which you should pass my bit of legislation either.
A member: We trust you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much. Sometimes in this parliament we should trust people more than we do; if we keep looking at people in a bad light we will never trust them. There is a lot of politics in here and sometimes I do not trust people when they start talking about party politics, as there are other agendas - I have to take people on face value.
The minister has said in parliament she will introduce this as quickly as possible and the other minister has said he will try to put it through before then. There is enough background work already done on this and I do not believe it would be that difficult for the government to introduce this by the next sittings, and if not by the next sittings I will be asking where it is for the following sittings. It has taken this long to get changes; I am willing to wait a bit longer. I am not willing to knock back an opportunity to change the law. We might nick people on certain issues about it but it is not easy to convince the government to bring changes.
I will accept the change even if it is not quite what I wanted, because the proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is the legislation the government will bring back at a later stage. We will have a chance to debate it then; it will have a first and second reading, and go out for public consultation as well. I am grateful that it has got to this stage and that we have a promise from the government.
I understand where the opposition is going and I do not think it is the end of the world. I urge the opposition to recognise this opportunity to pass laws or at least get them up and going. Even if you do not believe the government’s promises, at least it is on the books or on the way. It is better than what we had before, which was a yellow ticket. These changes will save lives.
I support the amendment from the member for Braitling. I have spoken on that before in parliament; I believe the confiscation of vehicles by people who are drink-driving is a reasonable approach. I know that it is not going to get passed, but I support that. There is nothing wrong with bringing it forward to parliament to discuss; it is an issue that needs more work and perhaps it is an issue that the government will review. There have been some good arguments about how you can lose your vehicle for having too many fish, but you do not lose it for drink-driving.
I support what the government is putting forward. I am grateful that they realised the existing laws have not been adequate, have not done the job and if it is a matter of bringing in legislation that will save lives of the drivers, the passengers, the community and makes our roads safer, then I certainly support the amendment of the government. I just need to be sure about what happens to my original amendment. Do I have to move that …
Madam SPEAKER: I will explain that now. Have you finished, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Yes I have, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair: the original motion as moved by the member for Nelson and an amendment as moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The order is that we move the motion; I put the question as the amendment as moved by the minister and, if that is carried, then there is a second motion which is an amended motion.
Mr WOOD: Knowing that my motion will be defeated and I have already said that I would support the amendment, is there a manner in which I can ask that the original amendment of mine be ….
Madam SPEAKER: An original amendment? Sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson can accept the amendment rather than have it put to the vote. He can accept the amendment to his motion and we deal with it as a whole. If he agrees to the amendment, then it can be incorporated in the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It is incorporated in the motion. I have two motions before the Chair. The question is that the amendment as moved by the minister be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Registration of Miscarried Births – Reference to Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Registration of Miscarried Births – Reference to Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, members of the Tenth Assembly would be familiar with the Kaden bill and with the circumstances that led to the presentation of the Kaden bill in this Chamber. For those members who are not, this bill deals with families who have suffered the loss of a child born prematurely ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition, would you please move the motion?
Mr MILLS: Certainly. Madam Speaker, I move - That, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee:
- (a) conduct an inquiry into the legislative requirements necessary to provide for the registration of miscarried births prior to 20 weeks
gestation in the Northern Territory;
- (b) investigate the current arrangements in place in other jurisdictions, both domestically and internationally;
- (c) examine any other matters associated with birth registration of miscarried births; and
- (d) reports to the Assembly no later than 30 April 2009 or, if the Assembly be not sitting, to the Speaker and by so doing the report is
deemed to have been tabled in the Assembly and the Speaker be authorised to publish the report.
In preparing and just in the last moments, I have looked at the motion and, although it may be a little irregular, I propose an amendment which is the inclusion of one single word. That amendment - I understand it needs to be written - is in section (a) and is the inclusion of one single word and that is ‘including’. It would, therefore, read:
- (a) conduct an inquiry into the legislative requirements necessary to provide for the registration of miscarried births, including those born
prior to 20 weeks gestation in the Northern Territory;
I want to widen it so we are looking at miscarried births, including those prior to 20 weeks gestation. That broadens it to all miscarried births, including those prior to, and up until the point of birth - that took 20 weeks and 20 weeks and less. Okay?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you have that amendment? Could you just sign it for us? Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. With the indulgence of honourable members, the reason for this slight change is to broaden the frame so that it fits over all miscarried births; all those who have suffered loss - those just short of full term, all the way to those before 20 weeks. That is broadening it. As we look at the issue of those who suffer a miscarriage - the loss of child born prematurely who has not survived - there are issues including those who lose their child in the third trimester, as well as the second. I do not want to go through the exercise in this Chamber where we have a debate and find cause for it to be obstructed on a point or two when, really, there are issues that should be looked at.
To bring members to this issue, it is in response to a case which was brought to my attention in my electorate office over a year ago. It brought to my attention, as a person given the responsibility to represent the issues of concern of those in our community, the matter of those who have lost a child, born prematurely. In so doing, I began to understand some of the extraordinary pressures and difficulties that are faced by those who have this loss. Those who suffer and mourn as a result of a child being born prematurely often find no opportunity to express their grief in easy ways. It is compounded by the fact that that child born prematurely is lost, is not registered or recognised, particularly those born before 20 weeks. There is no recognition whatsoever.
At this point, I acknowledge and recognise the outstanding work of Fiona Peters and Craig Redriff. They brought this matter to my attention, quite courageously. They came into my electorate office and told their story. Many would be familiar with the story. Young Kaden was born prematurely - stillborn at 17 weeks - a much anticipated birth. He was, sadly, lost, but because it was less than 20 weeks, the systems and procedures were not in place to give any adequate recognition to the fact that this was a child in the view of the one who has given birth, the mother.
From the point of view of the hospital, it is hospital waste. It was difficult to find an adequate response, even at the best of times. The procedures that were in place were inadequate. Through the courage of Fiona and Craig, and through the cooperation of the government and the health officials, after a significant amount of effort, better procedures were put in place in the hospital - and that is to be acknowledged and commended.
It drew attention to the other issues that are associated with miscarriage and stillbirth, and there are a number. I have learnt that this is a matter that has national significance. There are many across our country who suffer silently. There are probably those in this Chamber who are familiar with the loss of a stillborn child and the difficulty in grieving. I found that even internationally there is significant lobbying and concern over this particular issue.
For that reason, I have decided it would be better to widen the terms of this reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to include all those who are stillborn - those miscarried births, including those who arrive stillborn prior to 20 weeks.
Many of us may still have our parents with us but, if our parents pass, the history and the memories go with them. The story has been told. However, for a child stillborn, their future possibilities are finished. In my own family there was one born and only lived for a short time and, through Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, passed. We forever think about that one and what could have been. It is the same for those who have given birth. They are anticipating, they have made the preparation and, then, there is the premature birth, the child does not survive, and there is forever the wondering of what could have been.
There are a number of issues associated with this matter. I acknowledge the efforts that were made by bringing the Kaden bill into this Chamber in the Tenth Assembly. There was argument made by government and I acknowledge and recognise the progress that has been made in response to this issue by government. I acknowledge the courageous lobbying of Fiona and Craig. Still, the underlying matter that needed to be attended to was described in the Kaden bill. That was the provision of proper recognition, something more than a commemorative certificate, something that registers the child who has been born before time and has not survived as having been born and died – a death certificate, so there is a formal register and recognition.
Those who go into the hospital system and suffer a stillbirth leave empty handed, which was the case until recently in our own hospital system and, even worse in Fiona and Craig’s case where they, tragically, left with young Kaden in a dish.
Fortunately, that has been improved, but there are still sad cases. This issue, to some degree, has been dealt with. However, the underlying issue is the proper recognition so that a stillbirth can be lodged alongside the living brothers and sisters - to be remembered as a brother, a son, a daughter or sister - properly remembered by the issuing of a proper certificate which recognises the death. That is the request from those who have suffered.
In many cases the offer of a commemorative certificate, though a gesture, is acknowledged only as something that goes close. If we look at other models around the country or internationally, as I note in the response in the last debate, there is no such system in place in the country for those stillborn 20 weeks or earlier, although in a couple of states there is for those 20 weeks and over. By reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee there is the opportunity to assess the systems which are in place and the means to provide that recognition. As I have widened the terms to include those who are almost full term, there may well be better ways of providing that recognition in response to the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters who lose one who has lived for a moment and not survived.
The Attorney-General may not be aware this debate is ongoing in other jurisdictions in other countries. It has been going for some time in the United States and, I think, at last count 25 states have provided a form of recognition which meet the needs of a grieving mother and father. There are a number of issues relating to this and it warrants a deeper investigation. There are many lengths to this, and I suggest the best way of dealing with this, and the most respectful way, would be referring it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I acknowledge that there were problems with the bill which was presented before. However, at that time I asked that if there were problems, let us be constructive and find solutions for those problems. Here is an opportunity now to test the goodwill and present it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee so the problems which were described at that time by government - and I could add a few more, but I thought, in the spirit of the issue and the attempt to find the resolution rather than the identification of the problems, we would find some solutions.
The problems which were identified before were these: no other state has the sort of recognition that was being described or requested in the original Kaden bill. Is it because no other state does it, therefore, we cannot? I thought the issue of leadership was to find your own solution to your own problems. Because no other state does it, does not mean - in fact it is the opposite - that you cannot find the solution. You can find your own way through - that is called leadership. If you are going to say: ‘No one else does it, therefore, I will not’, you will never cut a path anywhere.
The other problem that was presented by government previously was a statistical challenge, because there would be an anomaly in the system. There would be those who would be registered formally for a mother who may request it and it would appear on our statistical record out of kilter with any other state. There is, I am sure, a capacity for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to come up with a solution to that. I can think of a number of those; it is not too hard to have a line drawn to ensure that the data from the states and territories is able to be matched, notwithstanding a difference in one state.
A few years ago in the United States; all states had the same system. Now, 25 of those states have different systems, due to lobbying by those who have suffered the loss. There are ways to accommodate this. I note in response to the Kaden bill, the Attorney-General said at that time: ‘We have a difficult duty as legislators’. Well, we do have a difficult duty as legislators, but it is a duty to go a little deeper then to look at process and say why something cannot happen. We have a duty to go a bit deeper and to find ways where we can cause things to happen, and provide that leadership. There are challenges, and they are to do with maternity leave. Surely, though, if we are responding to the need of mothers and fathers around the Northern Territory, we can find solutions to that and pose recommendations. But to say that it is a problem and that no other state does it, therefore that is the end of the story, is not satisfactory to me.
There are issues to do with the time frame. Some may argue 20 weeks and younger is a serious problem. Well, come up with a recommendation around that. Maybe there is a point of compromise. Maybe there are some matters that cannot be weighed on the floor of this parliament, but a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee could weigh those and pose some serious considerations on the matter, and provide recommendations and leadership. Let us show, once again, the Territory is a place which can come up with creative and innovative responses such as this; we can do such things. I have that confidence, and it would start to bring a spark back into the Territory if we took that approach to matters such as this, and other matters too, and find a new way.
There will be issues to do with insurance. There will be many who are concerned with the issue of abortions, whose worry would be triggered when we consider the registration of a premature, stillborn birth. There will be a line there which will have to be negotiated, but this is in no way competing with the issue of abortion. In fact, the argument that supports abortion is the very argument which should trigger the capacity for a solution here; that being, if a mother makes a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that is supported through this parliament - not by me, I must say, but that is another matter - we have a difficult duty as legislators, but it has been supported.
Why can we not, therefore, support one who has lost a child through no choice of their own? That is all we have here: a mother who has lost a child, seeking recognition. However, that has been denied up until now, apart from a commemorative certificate. Why can that choice not be honoured? This is a matter of choice - the choice of a mother to have recognition; and a mother who choses to terminate will be recognised in their right to do so by parliament.
The two are complementary - similar arguments. To say it is a difficult duty as a legislator to do this, is only difficult if you think: ‘Well, others have made these decisions. I fall in behind’. We should be marching to a different drum beat here. One of the arguments originally proposed by the minister in the Kaden bill was if a mother makes the request for that recognition to be provided; there would be the accompanying certification which would be presented to an Attorney-General who could grant that request. It was deemed to be a decision too difficult for an Attorney-General to make, if I recall the speech correctly. That was the way it was constructed.
I beg to differ. We have senior law officers who make difficult decisions. One of the most difficult decisions is, in fact, the issue of abortion, if we want to bring that issue into it. That sits fair and square in the middle of this. If it is a difficult matter to grant recognition for one who has passed away, how is it any less difficult to, basically, give assent to abortion? I believe it is far more difficult to be in that position, frankly, but that is another story. Therefore, I do not see that it is so difficult, if you are in the position of Attorney-General, to grant that recognition if that request is made. There must be a way.
I may be presenting an argument here that does strike a chord with some. However, if government is unwilling to take the path, unwilling to find a way through, then a number of reasons will be found why it cannot proceed. The reason it cannot proceed is you are unwilling to proceed - that is the issue - and have the courage to find the way to provide some real hope for those out there who are needing some kind of heartfelt response to a deeper issue in our community. It is time that kind of leadership started to kick in, in our parliaments - and this is the parliament where it could start.
It could start simply by a well-intentioned reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are not alone. There are plenty looking to the Territory to see whether we could do this. I believe we can do it. We could find a way through this. I am flexible in this, but I am willing to find a way through. I urge honourable members to provide support for this so we can cut a way through and provide some relief and response to those silent ones out there who have suffered such a loss.
Once again, if government is unwilling, reasons or cause why it cannot proceed will be found - perhaps by way of procedure or the structure of a motion. Perhaps I am prejudging, but I urge honourable members - particularly members opposite - for their support of this so a reference can be given to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so there can be some response to those who suffer.
As we saw today, there are nearly 3000 signatures. If honourable members take the time to look, they are not just signatures; most of those people added their own comments. You do not often get that. There are comments, one after the other, with stories to tell. It lives in families year after year after year as a memory. Let us have it properly registered. Let us have a civilised way of responding to this and upholding the dignity of human life for those who call for it and request it. Let us have a response for it. That can be developed if we put it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a response to that call. I urge honourable members to support this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this motion to the parliament; it is an honourable motion. The member for Blain is an honourable person and comes to this parliament with this particular motion with nothing but goodwill. The point I want to make, I will make very briefly; it will not take long.
I do not believe this is a motion where division should be done on party lines. This is a matter of conscience, similar to many debates we have had in this parliament, the federal parliament, state parliaments right around the country when we debate issues - as the member for Blain raised - about abortion and euthanasia. They are, to some extent, conscience decisions. I, by the way, personally support the member’s motion on this. It is not dictating to anybody, it is not saying that this must happen; all it is doing is giving people a choice. As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, the whole character of the abortion debate is about choice. People have a choice in that terrible circumstance they may find themselves in; to decide to abort a life.
I believe this is a motion of a similar intent, inasmuch as this allows people who want the recognition that they have had a life growing inside them. That life, for them, appears very real.
In similar circumstance, my wife had a miscarriage and I personally understand how deeply it can affect people. Different things affect different people differently. We are human beings, we are made up differently. In our particular case, it affected us greatly. It was something that, at the time, we thought was callously acknowledged in the hospital. It was medical procedure; it was not a personal thing. From our point of view, we would have liked a bit more of a personal, caring attitude, and recognition that this actually, at some stage, was a life. I fully understand people's sentiment in that regard.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I would hate to see the Chamber divide on this particular motion based on party lines. People looking at this motion should look at it as a matter of conscience, and people should make the decision according to their conscience.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, when I first did a little investigating on the Kaden bill, I looked at the response of the minister at the time, minister Burns, as to why the government could not or would not agree to the bill. Minister Burns, in his speech in reply, gave the following response:
- This particular legislation - by changing the births, deaths and marriages scheme as this one does – could, potentially, have unintended but widespread negative consequences for the Territory.
I first thought: what are they? The minister did explain, though, the clearest and most immediate effect of such a change in the boundaries of births and deaths; the classification would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system.
Having spent a few years with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I am somewhat familiar with the way statistics are reported and recorded. I understand the variations and that notes can be made to explain why a certain statistic is the way it is. The minister went on to say:
- Uniform registration processes means that the figures for births, deaths and stillbirths are able to be fed into a national picture for the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
I am familiar with that. He also said it was all about establishing statistical data. I feel that we are putting a statistic in front of human decency. Statistics are important. They are indicators that allow health authorities to target policy development. Well, this is one such policy that needs to change.
The Territory, since I have been here, is a place of compromise. Many times we have led the way in many things, and we have a chance to lead the way again. The minister went on in his reply:
- Such a change will, potentially, give the perception of an inflated perinatal death rate in the Territory which would, in turn, call into question the quality of our antenatal
and delivery care based on a change of numbers rather than changes in the level of care and health status.
Ultimately, if the way in which the statistics are gathered in the Territory differs from that in other jurisdictions we run the risk of being excluded from such figures on a
national basis.
If it is reported correctly and the way it is reported is explained, it is not going to affect statistics in any way. Statistics appear to be put in the front of human decency.
The arguing points I have read here in minister Burns’ speech in response talked about technical and legal difficulties. When I went back and read them I thought what was being asked for was that a parent made a choice, where a child had not survived before 20 weeks, that the child was going to be formally recognised.
Thinking about the way people deal with grief, there may be many who take up this process; there may not be many at all who decide to take it any further. To have that choice, I believe, is important. People suffer grief in different ways. My little son, Jackson, was supposed to be a twin and, around 12 to 14 weeks, we lost what we thought was another life. Today, my wife is pregnant again and we are at about the 12 to 14-week mark. Are we excited as parents? Damn right we are. We are planning for all those things we thought we had finished with years ago - a man of my age is not supposed to be having children, I do not think. We do not have any of the things we had when we had our first three children. Are we excited? Yes we are; we are planning. We are planning future camping trips with all four of our children; planning trips to the Gold Coast, to Movie World and pushing a new little baby around in a pram.
To say that a pregnancy does not start or be recognised before 20 weeks, I believe, is a very hard thing for anyone to make a decision on. The moment I knew that I was going to be a dad again, was the moment I knew I was going to be a dad again. It does not really matter that we are at the 12-week mark. This is something that is going to happen for us. In our minds, it is going to happen. We are already planning our future.
We could get technical here; we could talk about many issues. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we could find 100 ways not to make this happen. We could find one way to make it happen. That is something we should be looking to do. It is such a simple request - a simple process that appears to place a statistic in front of a mum and a dad. To put a statistic before a human is so sad. I call on the government to review their position and seek out a decent resolution in this matter. I call on the government to take this issue to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I commend the Leader of the Opposition for moving this motion. Only a few months ago, we came into this Chamber; I never thought that four weeks into sittings we would be talking on such an emotive issue. I find myself strangely moved by it. I get moved by a few things, but this is, strangely, one that I did not expect would grab me as quickly as it has.
I have a beautiful seven-year-old daughter who will be eight next month. During my ex-partner’s pregnancy, at about midway term, we thought we might lose her. That was a very devastating time. It was emotion again, at that time, I did not expect. I found it hard to comprehend, but it was real. I can tell you now I am so grateful I have not lost my daughter, because she is amazing. I can only imagine how the people who have lost their children or their child feel. I have heard many stories of families literally torn apart by these occurrences in their lives. They are extremely emotive; they are very real. They do happen. They do matter. They are real people who have not made it to this world in the way that we expect them to. It is an emotional period of time and people need to be able to heal. It is an extremely long process for some people.
I urge the government to support this motion. It is not asking you to make a major decision today. It is asking you to take this to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conduct an inquiry into the points raised by the Opposition Leader. It is not hard. Some could say it is a no-brainer. It is not a hard decision to make; at least take this motion on and see where that part leads us. I tell you, it is a lot harder for those who have had their path come to an end.
I would not dare say that any member of the government does not have a heart, because I know they are listening. However, if the government as a whole fails to support this, they, as a government, have no heart. I clarify that. That is not as an individual person, but as a government; if you fail to support this you have no heart. I urge you to support this. This is not a hard motion; it is very simple. We need to have an inquiry and see where we go from there. We can see how many people it affects, the processes, the issues that draw upon it from there. We need to stand and take this action. I urge both sides to support this motion and I commend the Leader of the Opposition for having the decency to put the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the member for Blain for bringing forth this motion. The member for Blain, right from the very beginning, not only put a lot effort into it but a lot of thought. As the member for Drysdale just said, it moved him, and it is probably the first legislation of its kind he has had to face in parliament. It can move you beyond other issues, such as whether we should put houses at Berrimah. This issue the member for Blain is putting forward is far more important than whether we should build houses at the Berrimah Farm.
It touches on issues of life. As I said in the previous debate, my view is that life starts at conception - there is no other way it could start - and life finishes when you are dead. All of that time is sacred, no matter whether you live for one second or 100 years. We should protect that life - always protect it. It is not always easy, I accept that. People in this parliament certainly have different points of view.
I comment on what the member for Fong Lim said, equating it, to some extent, with abortion. Abortion is the ending of a life by artificial means, by a deliberate act. Miscarriage is a natural phenomenon, if you can call it that. In many cases, it can be tragic and very emotional and, in other cases, depending on the stage, it can be something that a person may not even know happened. It is an emotive issue, but it is also an issue that, as parliamentarians, we need to look at and deal with carefully, and ensure what we do is thought out in a manner which would reflect our job as politicians. That job is that we take these matters seriously, bearing in the mind the emotions, the legalities, and our own feelings when we come to making a decision.
The motion the member for Blain has put forward is purely that these matters be put to a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I was also reading part of the debate from 20 February, where the minister, in one of his arguments against changes to the existing system, spoke a lot about statistics. For instance, he said the clearest and most immediate effect of such a change as the member for Blain is putting forward in the boundaries of births and deaths classifications would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system. He talked about uniform registration. Then he talked about how some of these statistics are very important. He went on to say:
- … the instances that are proposed in this bill would be included in figures within the Territory but be excluded in the collection of Commonwealth data.
The practical usefulness of the statistics in the Territory will also be questionable if these changes are accepted as we will be unable to accurately
plan for the prioritisation and funding of various programs or ensure their effectiveness.
What stood out there was we had what you might say were the clinical reasons for not going ahead with the Kaden bill. I should, as a note, say that the member for Blain recognises there may be some issues within the legislation. However, the question I would put to the government is: so what? If it is about statistics and funding, it may be important, but is it the most important thing?
The member for Blain was saying we could lead the way. We are saying, to some extent: ‘Well, because everyone else thinks this way we do not want to upset the uniformity of the statistics. We do not want to upset the uniformity of data because that could upset the uniformity in which we get our finances’. However, we have not gone down that path yet. What we have is some debate held on 20 February 2008, some discussion here today, and we have a motion that, basically, says we would like the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to look at the issues around miscarried births. Surely, we can discuss that in the committee stage without affecting the uniform data, the uniform statistics, the finances of the Territory - because we have not got that far.
Let us go down the path of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It may be - because under section (c) it says: ‘examine any other matters associated with birth registration of miscarried births’ - that the issues the minister brought up previously in relation to uniform data and the effects on finances could be an issue to be discussed by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I put it as a high priority for this parliament to agree with this motion. It does no harm to anyone to discuss these issues. It will make no difference to the government whether it says yes; it will not get bad publicity, it will not lose votes. It is simply saying to the community, once again, this is what parliament is about.
I do not care where, on this side or the other, good ideas come from. If the good ideas come and they are asked to be debated and discussed, why should we not support them? Perhaps not the conscience vote to the extent the member for Fong Lim says, because one of the different issues here is that the person has a choice to do what they want to do. It is not the same as the choice for abortion, which is a matter literally of life and death because, in this case, a life has died naturally.
This is an issue we are dealing with afterwards. That family, the mother, can make a choice which way they want to go after that stage has happened. It is not something that is imposed on someone. It is not imposing, I believe, something that would go against anyone’s conscience, because we are not dealing with a choice that you have when you deal with abortion. A life has finished and is no more, and this is about recognising that life. That is simply what this is about; enabling people to be able to recognise that life in a way they would like.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an excellent opportunity for government to work together. I recommend and ask the minister to support this motion. I know the minister is a good bloke too. I am not being silly when I say that. I do not think he is any different from anyone else in this parliament; he is here to do good things in our community. That is what the member for Blain has put forward today.
I hope the government sees the goodness in what the member for Blain has put, simply for that reason. The Leader of the Opposition is putting forward something which I believe is good, and is worthy of discussion and debate in parliament. I ask the government to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this motion. I will say at the outset, we will accept his amendment. I will try to speak to that amendment also. Basically, as other members have said, the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, has previously sought to introduce legislation into the House, the Kaden bill, for the registration of a miscarriage as a stillbirth in early pregnancy.
As I said in the House at that time, and I reiterate again, it is in response to a difficult and painful experience - and some members have outlined that here this evening - to early pregnancy loss, something that touches many families. I have great sympathy for any family that goes through this loss. Fiona Peters has been an advocate for this, and she is sitting in the House here this evening. The member for Blain has been of great assistance to her in introducing the bill in the first place and, once again, introducing this motion into the House.
At the time, as others have done here this evening, I acknowledged during that bill presentation an example of my own mother’s sadness at a loss of a baby boy who she never forgot. As the member for Blain said, this is a difficult issue; we have a difficult duty as legislators.
The member for Blain talked about the loss many people feel in relation to this matter. He also talked about abortion - as did a number of members - which is a difficult issue that society wrests with. There are heavily polarised views on this particular issue. I have my own personal view but it is a very difficult issue with highly polarised views. Probably many people who sit right in the middle do not really think about it at all. The types of issues the member for Blain and other members have raised are very powerful issues, and are emotional, spiritual, and philosophical. It is a mixture of all those things and, depending on your viewpoint in life, your religious belief, your philosophical belief, and your emotional make-up, people will have different reactions to these issues.
This actually raises very deep issues. The first is: does a birth certificate actually attest to being? That is an issue which has been raised here. Does the certificate of commemoration, which flowed out of the family’s experience with Kaden in the Royal Darwin Hospital, attest any less to being? What is being? These are very deep issues. Who is the arbiter of being? Well, I know who the arbiter of being and essence is. I am just reminded of a scripture, and it is John 3:8 and it says:
- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
We are actually talking of very deep issues here: of being, of spirituality, and who acknowledges being. I know who acknowledges being - it is God himself. That is my personal belief. However, I have a job as a legislator and as Attorney-General, and it is a very difficult job. I have to balance the issues being raised tonight; the issues that are being raised by the family; the issues that I feel in my own heart with my duty as a legislator. You can see, hear and feel from the scripture I quoted here tonight what my viewpoint is: I do not think that any being is ever lost in the sight of God.
Our debate this evening is about legalities; it is about a piece of paper, a birth certificate, and matching that against a certificate of commemoration and where that stands. I am not sure where those two things stand in the sight of God, but I am here to debate the issues in the legislative sense and in my duty as an Attorney-General.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the profound personal effect on his own family of a stillbirth. He also talked about, unfortunately, the impersonal attitude he and his wife encountered at a hospital, which is a common theme of what Fiona and Craig encountered at the Royal Darwin Hospital. That was a shameful episode. However, the changes which have been brought about through that shameful episode, and the support and counselling that is offered to people in that situation, I believe has changed. I hope it has changed. I will be very angry if cases were to come to my attention where people have been treated badly and have not been given that support and counselling, because this is a very emotional subject and this unlocks deep emotions in all of us.
Congratulations, member for Brennan; it is great to hear you and your wife are going to be parents again. You are quite right in what you say; it is the planning, the dreams, the aspirations that parents have for their babies, for their children, which really start when you become aware of the pregnancy. All of us who are parents share those feelings, and I believe that is very important. I believe that really contributes to the depth of this discussion - the deep issues we are discussing tonight. Possibly I misunderstood what the member for Brennan said. He said it was a matter of choice whether someone would get a birth certificate or not, particularly for those stillbirths less than 20 weeks and less than 400 gm. For a start, I just do not think we can go down that arbitrary route.
The member for Drysdale talked about having a heart and how he has been moved greatly. Tonight I have expressed to this House my personal feelings on this particular matter. The member for Nelson also talked about the deep emotive issues of life and attempting to deal with them in this place as legislators. We must deal with them carefully and take them seriously. That is what I believe we are attempting to do, as a government.
In the earlier debate as members have alluded to, I set out in detail why the government was not able to support the proposed bill. Some have been morally critical, I suppose, and said I dwelt on statistics and legalities. But that is my job as Attorney-General, despite what I said earlier in this debate.
I detailed changes to this policy implemented by the hospital in relation to early pregnancy loss, and the creation of the commemorative certificate whereby families going through a grieving process are able to receive a tangible and respectful reminder of their lost son or daughter.
The member for Blain has now moved that there be an inquiry into the legislative requirements necessary to apply for the registration of miscarriage birth prior to 20 weeks gestation, and to investigate current arrangements in place in other jurisdictions. As I understand your amendment, member for Blain, you are talking about those stillbirths above 20 weeks and above 400 gm.
It is the government’s view that an inquiry will not provide any new information which has not been previously prepared and conveyed to the House. As I said in this House when the bill was considered, the practice of the Northern Territory in registering stillbirths of 20 weeks gestation or above, and where body mass is at least 400 gm, is absolutely consistent with legislative requirements across Australia. No jurisdiction in Australia allows for registration of a stillborn child below 20 weeks or 400 gm body mass. Similarly, New Zealand legislation provides for the same definition of a stillborn child and allows for the registration of a stillbirth only. In relation to the registration of the death of a stillborn child, only Western Australia and Queensland allow a death certificate to be issued, and this occurs only when the stillborn child is 20 weeks or above or has a 400 gm or above body mass. The nationally accepted clinical criteria is 20 weeks or 400 gm body mass, which is linked to medical evidence of the viability of the foetus. The Northern Territory act is based on model legislation approved by all states and territories.
As I have previously explained in detail, the Northern Territory would be at fundamental odds with the nationally standard births and deaths registrations system if it were to consider amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable registration of an early pregnancy loss of less then 20 weeks. Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics adopted the legal requirement of registration of a perinatal death as a statistical standard. The uniform registration process means the figures for births, deaths and stillbirths are able to be developed into a national picture by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The use of common criteria Australia-wide for the registration of births and deaths also enables the National Perinatal Statistics Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to form part of the definition of stillbirth established for statistical purposes, and is contained in the National Health Data Dictionary. The consistency of recording statistics is essential. It allows comparison across and within jurisdictions, and the effectiveness of public and primary health care. It also provides consistent indicators for health authorities to target policy development and implement effective health services. Any changes to the definition of stillbirth at the Territory level would compromise the Territory’s ability to be included in the national recording of perinatal deaths, and would impact on the comparability of perinatal statistics between jurisdictions.
For families who have felt the sadness of early pregnancy loss, it is not the statistics that are the concern but, rather, to receive some recognition of closure. It was an acknowledgement of this that the Department of Justice’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Unit created the Commemorative Certificate. The Commemorative Certificate is available at no cost from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to any parents who experience an early pregnancy loss. The certificate was developed following consultation with Cradle NT, a number of health professionals, the Department of Health and Community Services, and the family whose loss led the member for Blain to introduce his legislative amendments. I understand that the families are not satisfied with the extent of that certificate but, nonetheless, that is the background as I have outlined it.
In conclusion, it is on this basis that we believe the proposed inquiry will do no more than address what I have previously reported to the House. Madam Speaker, I will finish with the scripture I began with:
- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a difficult matter. I find it difficult to know what to say. I will start by saying that, for those who had hoped there would be a change in the way we thought about such matters - if I did not present the case well enough, and did not outline it in clear enough terms to persuade adequately, I apologise. Perhaps I did not prepare enough. Perhaps I was not insightful enough in my arguments.
I will not move away from this. I am sorely disappointed. I remain alive to the possibility that there could be a change, and I sincerely believe if we took a different approach we would see something change in the Territiory, because flowing from that changed attitude would be a changed reverence for the way we deal with a whole lot of matters in the Chamber, including law and order, the way we approach health issues, education and so on.
We have all identified the significance of it, the potency of it, the power of it. If we are to give that any credence, in reverence and respect for what we have described, it would have taken us to the threshold of making that decision - to have it referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; not to speak of such grand and profound things and then to head it off at the pass. I find that astonishing, frankly.
I am left with nothing more to say other than to urge honourable members not to divide on this, because this is a matter that cuts far deeper than a division, in terms of standing on one side of the Chamber or the other. I stand in a position I will not move from. I will continue; I will try to find a way of getting this through in a way which ultimately bears a result, and results in a change of heart and attitude. I believe there is a great benefit from not only recognising the power of such issues, but responding to them, and then acting and flowing through on them with some sense of humility. There would be some tremendous benefits that would flow into this Chamber as a result. I believe we have missed an opportunity, frankly. I say again, if I had not prepared enough, if I had not prescribed it enough, I sincerely apologise. I will continue. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and the second is an amendment to the motion, also moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The process is to move the amendment first. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, negatived.
MOTION
Freedom of Information – Removal of Application Fees for Assembly Members
Freedom of Information – Removal of Application Fees for Assembly Members
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that –
- (a) the parliament calls on the Northern Territory government to immediately remove the fees levied against members of this parliament
when making FOI applications;
(b) the parliament fully endorse an effective FOI system as a mechanism for holding government to account, and removing the barrier of
costs levied on FOI requests of members of this place will further improve government accountability, a basic expectation of the
Territory community; and
(c) continuing to levy fees on members of the Assembly for FOI applications effectively restrains them from carrying out their duties as an
elected member.
Madam Speaker, I speak to those points simply because, even back as far as 22 October 2001 - and I will read from a portion of a media release by then Chief Minister, Clare Martin:
- Martin releases freedom of information details.
The draft bill, which consists of four main components, provides for:
A right of access to government and personal information.
A comment made by the then Chief Minister:
- One of the main purposes of the legislation is to help encourage the view within the government that access to information is of positive benefit.
Government should operate within a culture of readily providing access to government information unless there is a good reason not to provide
the information.
Further comment from the then Chief Minister:
- The secretive days of the CLP are now well and truly behind us.
I will re-read that in case someone missed it:
The secretive days of the CLP are now well and truly behind us. Open and accountable are key words for the first Northern Territory Labor government.
Has that changed today? I would think so - dramatically. Under this third Labor Northern Territory government, we are not open and accountable, as far as you would appear to be.
I noticed the change in the middle there. The key point here is the accountability of government. There are fees attached to making applications under the FOI, and for making complaints under the FOI. Some of those fees are truly unbelievable. They do not sound very much when you first start: an application fee of $30; a notional $25 an hour for retrieving; $25 an hour for assessing information; $25 an hour for someone to observe the assessor’s information - and it goes on - 20 per photocopy sheet - and it goes on.
As a member of parliament, our and the government’s business is to see that good governance occurs. The only way we can ensure good governance can occur is to ensure the information is at hand. Currently, in opposition, we need to apply to get information about things that are happening within government or government departments and processes that we believe, perhaps, are not good governance. Perhaps they are misguided hunches and they turn out to prove there is good governance. In the meantime, the government allocation of money to the opposition keeps getting chalked up into another government department so that government department can justify something - and it keeps costing the government money. It just goes around in one washing machine. This is about good governance and accountability.
Our motion is, basically, that for members of parliament there should be no FOI fees. It is about open and accountable governance.
Your former leader in the first Labor government said: ‘The secretive days of the CLP are gone’. Now, we have the secretive days of Labor. They are extremely bad at this at the current time. Whenever something is attempted to be discussed, it gets shut down - we cannot talk about this, we cannot talk about that. It was even pointed out that one of the main purposes of the legislation is to help encourage the view within the government that access to information is of a positive benefit. I can only imagine that if it is a positive benefit, and written in such a way, back then the Chief Minister expected the government was going to do everything in its power, in the best way possible. Now, we have many people disagreeing with that. We are seeing a massive swing.
I have a few things in support of this. There is information we have obtained from the South Australian parliament where members of the South Australian parliament are permitted to access documents under FOI without charge, unless the work generated exceeds the threshold set by the regulation. So, there are precedents in Australia. There is a threshold, and it is $1000. In many cases, that could be quite well accepted here.
I go to the former shadow minister for Health and Community Services, Sue Carter - and this is an extract from TopFM dated Friday, 19 December 2003. Our shadow minister for Health and Community services, Sue Carter, said that she asked to see 513 documents relating to the Territory health system. She sought it under the new freedom of information laws. There were 210 pages of those documents refused point-blank, 219 pages had been censored, and she accessed 84 pages out of those 513. It cost a mere $2240. What an absolute bargain for 84 pieces of paper! That is a brilliant deal. It is the deal of a century.
We are trying to hold the government to account and we are charged money. It is the taxpayers’ money. It is a ludicrous thought that you would be charged to ensure the government of the day is accountable. Some will say: ‘That is sour grapes by the opposition’. But, as the Attorney-General has just kindly pointed out to us, from a portion of his Bible reading to do with winds - the changes and blowing of them - I do not have the luxury of the reading in front of me so, please excuse me for not getting it accurate, but …
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You could look it up if you like, thank you. But there is going to be a change of wind - one day. If not today or tomorrow or four years or whenever, but I guarantee you, there will be a change of wind. That is politics. It happens everywhere; well, in most countries anyway. When the shoe is on the other foot, I am sure they will be grateful for the change that is proposed here because they will be able to see and hold us accountable for anything we may be doing wrong.
I am sure that is what the former Chief Minister intended when she wrote these comments; that there was not going to be anything wrong and nothing to hide. That is exactly the point. If you have nothing to hide, why charge us for it? I have heard of FOI applications clocking up hundreds of hours to assess the material. It could be true. Maybe the search field may have been too broad and the person should have been asked to refine the search. But that is hundreds of hours at $25 an hour. That is a lot of money all of a sudden. I know our Independent counterpart in this parliament does not have such a large budget to be able to afford large costs under the FOI. It impedes his ability, and impeded any former Independent’s ability, to stand their ground for their electorate. That is what we are all elected to do.
I know it is easier if you are in government because you can circumvent the FOI system and say: ‘Hey, member for so and so, can you speak to your so and so and arrange for these documents to be sent to me? I could really do with that information about now’. And it will happen. But, it does not when you are on this side.
It is a very important issue. When you look at it on paper it seems to be a very small issue, very minor. It equates to two sentences of amendment, and problem solved. It makes for a much more accountable government. I heard the Chief Minister talking only yesterday about accountable government. If he is even half close to his words, this is a great step for him to take. It is another element of accountability.
Looking over the annual report 2007-08, something like 300 applications were lodged against government departments. Out of those lodgements, only 228 were finalised; 10 not accepted; nine transferred; 22 withdrawn, and 31 pending at the year’s end. So, out of the 300, most of them got through. This report is a bit all over the place, but you can get through it. It shows that although there is an exemption for a request to have fees waived, about half of those fees were waived - but I bet not against the opposition because that would be allowing too much information out. That would be allowing too much information to get into the public domain in an uncontrolled manner - an act with which you may not always agree.
I note section 156(3), which is in the area where we intend to make the amendment:
- A fee charged under this section is to be reasonable and a processing fee is not to be charged for time spent locating government information that has been misplaced.
The main feature there is that the fees are to be reasonable. I honestly do not think, by the time you start coughing out several thousands of dollars worth of freedom of information bills - $2000, $3000, $4000, $5000 or maybe $8000 - it is reasonable.
This is about seeking information from government departments for members of this Legislative Assembly. Therefore, one can draw the conclusion that this is about freedom for the people, freedom of knowledge.
When this government squeaked over the line in August the Chief Minister promised that, after seven years, he would finally start listening to Territorians. One of those ways would be to ensure that we can hold you to account for your actions by accessing the government information because, one day, under the winds of change, we may be in government and you may be in our seats seeking that knowledge. He should start by providing MLAs with free access to freedom of information which, at the moment, is prohibitively expensive.
That is why I have moved the motion and will introduce a bill later today in the Assembly to try to secure essential reforms to this FOI. I fail to see how the government can claim to be open and accountable when it costs thousands of dollars at a time to access information that, by rights, should be in the public domain.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is about open and accountable governance. It may seem trivial, but it is a step forward to ensuring both sides, both teams, no matter what their makeup is, remain open and accountable. That matters to Territory people.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put by my colleague, the member for Drysdale, regarding levies for members of this House in relation to FOI applications. At the present time, when reading section 156(1) of the Information Act it says:
- A public sector organisation may charge an application fee or a processing fee.
That does not serve to discriminate against anybody; it covers a whole range of people, from MLAs right down to truck drivers and every other occupation you can name; even the unemployed.
At the present time, it would seem that the full weight of section 156 of the Information Act is levied against all members of the Legislative Assembly of the NT. On the face of it, it seems that is a fair and equitable system for all, as it does not espouse that degree of discrimination for any particular class of person. On that basis, if you are observing the letter of the law, all MLAs on both sides of the House should be in a position of having to subject themselves to the fee-paying regime of this act.
However, the reality is quite different to the simple position espoused in the act. By the very nature of their positions within the government, many Labor MLAs are also ministers; hence they can circumvent the FOI provisions by seeking the information they require directly from their departments.
I would like all government members to listen to this carefully. I do not have a problem with that. It is unquestionably necessary to have that play occur between ministers and their departments, either through their CEOs or whatever means they choose. The motion is not about changing that particular status quo - not in the slightest. It does, however, raise an interesting question in my mind. Some of the Labor MLAs are not ministers and I have to question how they get information provided to them about matters from government departments. If they have to pay for their information under the auspices of section 156 of the act or, like us, they have to glean the information from the myriad of media releases put out by the Henderson government, well, that is all good and well. Or, if I could be informed on this on a later time, do they obtain their information from government departments directly without the need to go through FOI, or do they just receive that information from their parliamentary colleagues, that is, the ministers of government?
If either of the latter cases applies, this is a clear circumvention, again, of the FOI laws that apply to all other MLAs who are not in government. I am not going to make an issue of that particular point, because it has probably been happening since time immemorial.
I am assuming that if non-ministerial government MLAs need information of that nature, it would come to them from whatever government source in order for them to carry out their business in this House, or their business as a local MLA. Likewise, opposition and Independent MLAs would be well served in having this information to carry on their business as local members. More importantly, opposition and Independent MLAs need this information to be able to achieve something else. I was going to use a little provocative language here. I was going to say that we need that information in order that we might point out the failings of this government and hold the government accountable. That could be seen to be taking an approach that incites a degree of conflict with members of the government, so I have decided to approach this on a far more basal level, and it is very simple.
Simply, opposition and Independent MLAs need this information so the people of the Northern Territory can be fully informed on what their government is doing. Surely, unless the government has something to hide, they would not generally have a problem with this. We, as MLAs, and those who are the government of the day are, indeed, accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory should not have access to secret information, or information that can damage individuals. However, there are systems in place to prevent this from happening. If anyone in this House has seen the information which comes out of an FOI, you only have to look at how much information has been blacked out to feel quite secure that sensitive, personal information is not made available. I do not believe anyone can argue that people of the Northern Territory need and deserve to know what their government is doing. The government needs to be up-front with Territorians.
In the context of the Territory’s superannuation support funds which were dealt with today in Question Time, I heard the Treasurer talk about scaremongering. Scaremongering cannot occur if there is nothing to be scared of. Arguably, the implication that the shadow Treasurer is scaremongering should be seen as an admission that Territorians have something to be scared of. If she was not so evasive, we may not need to be having this debate. However, one of the ways around this is quite simple: make the system such that you are truly accountable to the people of the Territory by allowing MLAs, the people in this House who represent Territorians, to have simpler access to the information they seek.
I know we can seek answers through questions, both with and without notice, but I have seen - and I debated this issue last night - how scant and obviously evasive answers to those questions can be. Another obvious means by which opposition and Independent members can elicit information from the government is by writing to the minister concerned. I take the point raised yesterday by the member for Araluen, that a letter written to the Attorney-General remains unanswered after – what? - six weeks or so. On top of that, some of the information the shadow Attorney-General has asked for appeared in the newspaper weeks ago.
Responses from ministers, I am led to believe, contain much the same rhetoric that one could expect from a question during Question Time, and that leaves me in the position of having little or no faith in the system other than to obtain information through FOI. With that as the only remotely viable option for obtaining information from the government, why are Territorians limited in the information that can be reasonably supplied to them; the release of that information being hindered and stymied by cost?
I am not suggesting that FOI fees be done away with altogether, and neither is the motion put by the member for Drysdale. However, removing the fee structure for members of this House does remove one of the barriers put in the way of the process of eliciting information from the government for the people of the Northern Territory. The barrier is quite a significant one, as pointed out by the member for Drysdale. FOI applications are charged under two broad headings: an application fee or a processing fee, both found in section 156(1). The application fee is set through the regulations at $30 or nil, in the case of an application for personal information.
However, the killer here seems to be the processing fee. The processing fee can and does measure into thousands of dollars. The break-up of how those fees can be charged are found in the schedule in the regulations. Recently I saw a fee estimate that included, as pointed out by the member for Drysdale, more than 100 hours of work, purportedly in assessing what information should not be given up in the application. I imagine that is a person sitting at a desk with a black permanent marker, being paid $25 an hour to put black lines through text on a page. At $25 an hour, one can easily see how a bill for travelling down this path could lead into the thousands.
For the opposition and the NT government - and the members opposite will also feel the sting of being in this situation in good time – it is a large imposition on the budget. I can only imagine how it might affect the member for Nelson, this parliament’s only Independent member, who does not have the means and budget to chase information that is important to his constituents and to the people of the NT in general.
Actions arising from the motion today which are needed to fix this problem are not mind-bogglingly difficult. The member for Drysdale will propose amendments to the act. However, I urge the government to look at whether this also might be achieved simply by using section 156(6), which makes provision for a public sector organisation or the Information Commissioner to reduce or waive the fee under certain circumstances. It might be as simple as a policy decision from the minister to provide direction to the Commissioner to waive those fees for all MLAs.
I note the media release issued by the Chief Minister yesterday where he says he wants, and I quote: ‘Parliament open and accountable’. I believe waiving fees for MLAs is a positive step forward in the process of parliamentary reform announced by him yesterday. If the government does not support this motion, then the Chief Minister’s media release is nothing more than diatribe and hot air, and he is treating Territorians like fools.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to the government and honourable members and, in doing so, I ask all honourable members to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion the member for Drysdale has put forward. I also thank the member for Katherine for his well-thought-out comments on this issue. I agree that the process makes it very difficult for people like me to acquire important information which helps me debate issues in parliament and, also, to find out whether the government is telling the truth sometimes ...
A member: Heaven forbid!
Mr WOOD: I know. I can give you an example. At the moment, it has not finished. I applied for an FOI for a draft environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. You will be aware that the government has made a number of statements as to why Glyde Point is not suitable as an industrial estate. I have always queried the scientific basis on which it has made that statement. You will find that the government will not mention an EIS as being the reason why it decided not to go ahead with the Glyde Point industrial estate. Instead, it has quoted the Environment Centre Northern Territory, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Amateur Fishing Association of the Northern Territory as the reasons why they decided not to go ahead with Glyde Point.
Occasionally there had been comments made by the previous Chief Minister that people in Darwin felt they would rather see the development of industry in the middle of the harbour than at Glyde Point. I am not sure on what scientific basis that was made, except that it is supposed to have related to some form of review or inquiry the government made in relation to what people thought about development in Darwin Harbour.
It so happened I acquired a copy of the Environment Centre NT’s paper on Glyde Point. That had a letter in the back which mentioned how the acting Chief Minister at the time, Syd Stirling, told them that the government would prepare an environmental impact statement for Glyde Point around the year 2006.
During the Estimates Committee, I asked the Minister for Planning and Lands if a draft environmental impact statement existed. She said, yes. Therefore, I applied to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a copy. I had applied for it before but was told it did not exist. I was told that there was a copy of the web page, which turned out to be a Notice of Intent, which is not the same thing; it is the first stage before an environmental impact statement. After the minister had said a draft environmental impact statement had been completed, I then put in my freedom of information application, paid my $30 and waited.
I received a phone call saying: ‘Yes, we have found something’. The first time they took me back to the Notice of Intent, because anyone can get that off the government’s web page. But I said: ‘That is not what I am after.’ They found a copy of the draft environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. I waited. In between waiting a member of the staff went on holidays and they asked permission to wait until the staff member came back from holidays, instead of having to fit in with the exact legal requirements that have to be carried out once you have paid your fee. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I got a phone call, saying: ‘We have done an estimate on how much this environmental impact statement is going to cost you’. I asked how much? He said: ‘$1000’. I ground my teeth, if that is the past tense of ‘to grind’.
This environmental impact statement is, to some extent, a non-issue; because the government decided it would not go ahead with Glyde Point, so it is not exactly a living document. However, it was an important document if I was to follow up whether the government had really been up-front about its reasons for not developing the Glyde Point industrial area.
I said to the lady on the phone: ‘Basically, I cannot afford $1000. I do not intend to pay for that’. She said: ‘It is about 700 or 800 pages, and I suppose a third of that will be acknowledgements to various scientific groups and people who would have actually had input into the development of the environmental impact statement’. So, I thought the best thing was to ask for the executive summary. She told me the executive summary had about 35 pages and, in most cases, when you are reading those sorts of documents that is the first thing you read anyway. Unless you need to go into the development of that particular document in more detail, most times the executive summary is all you need.
I have not yet received the executive summary. I have been told it is going to cost me something like $95.75, or some figure like that. I have already paid half of it; I had forgotten I had to pay half of it. I have sent off half the money to the department and I hope the environmental impact statement will turn up. I believe it is a bit rich.
The member for Katherine raised some important issues such as: if you are on the government side you can get those documents quite easily. Obviously, the Minister for Planning and Lands has a copy. She must have known about the document because she admitted that such a document existed when we spoke about the issue in the Estimates Committee. Of course, I doubt if she would have had to pay $1000 if she wanted to have a look at the document. It is certainly weighted against people like me who are trying to keep the government accountable, trying to find out the truth about certain government decisions and policies. The only way for me to do that is to delve into some of the government’s documents.
I do not do it very often. I simply do not have the time. However, I am very disappointed in the whole process that brought INPEX into Darwin Harbour. I am very disappointed because I felt the government had not done the planning it should have done for possible alternate sites for heavy industrial subdivisions in the Top End. I needed to see whether the excuses the government made were real. The only way I can do that is to find out whether the people who put together the environmental impact statement did the science to see if it was actually a suitable site. I will probably only find out when I eventually get the executive summary. I am not going to pay that $1000. I will have to go with the executive summary unless I discover there is a particular page within that document which I can order specially. I do not know how I am going to get that document in the first place.
I believe that members of parliament who legitimately require documentation should be entitled to get it, if requested. I know you have to watch that it is not abused. You do have to pay the application fee, and I do not have a problem with that. There may be some limitations on how much you can ask for in a particular period because, obviously, it could be abused and drive departments up the wall if they have a great rush for these FOIs. However, at the same time, you have to balance that with what the member for Drysdale was saying: that our job on this side is to try to ensure the government is accountable for its actions; to investigate matters that are of concern to Territorians.
Many people say we keep the government honest. It is a bit of a corny saying but, in the case of the Glyde Point industrial development, that is exactly what I was trying to do. But, to keep the government honest was going to cost me a $1000 as an elected representative of the parliament of the Northern Territory.
The people who would expect me to be doing this sort of work might be shocked to find out that I cannot always do it because I cannot afford it. I will put a little tin outside my office with a sign ‘Donations for any FOI applications, please help’. I do not think you would get much that way either, but that is another issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe what the member for Drysdale put forward is a reasonable motion. If the government does not support it, I have to ask why and, if it has a reason, I would then ask: is that consistent with its own members? It cannot be one rule for one, and another rule for the other, because then we really have politics interfering with the proper functions of parliament and the people who represent Territorians in this parliament.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his motion, although, in his contribution, he has carefully forgotten some very important history in relation to this matter. The Information Act creates a general right of access to information held by public sector organisations subject to where disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest. The act also provides individuals with the right of access to, and the right to request correction of, their personal information, which is a very important aspect.
As members should be well aware, it was up to this Labor government to introduce strong freedom of information legislation after decades of flat refusal by the previous government. As the Chief Minister pointed out - I think it was yesterday; could have been the day before - we are the ones who actually introduced it, which is not acknowledged in the motion. The member for Drysdale, and the member for Nelson and others, obviously consider Labor’s Information Act a very useful tool for government accountability and transparency. He wants to use it so much that he now seeks the removal of fees levied against members of parliament when making FOI applications ...
Ms Carney: You did not introduce what you promised, you know that.
Dr BURNS: Oh, we have a long way to go yet, member for Araluen. We have a long way to go yet and you are cranky already ...
Ms Carney: Is that a threat?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Is that a threat? No, well, stop fibbing. Seven years for whistleblowers - huh!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Come on, brighten up!
Ms Carney: You cannot just sit here and listen to this diatribe, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting please. You have the call, Attorney-General.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will repeat. The Information Act provides that application fees and processing fees may be charged for requests for information held by public sector organisations. The exception to this is application fees are not charged for requests for personal information. Fees are not charged on an ad hoc basis, rather, they are calculated to address the real cost of services and materials provided in response to an application. Charging minimal fees for access is reasonable, given that each application requires the use of public sector resources to process. An application for information means that an agency undertakes a search for information, retrieves that information, and then considers and makes decisions in relation to the application.
I thought it was a bit rich of the member for Katherine to say that it was more or less an overpayment to pay someone with a texta just to cross out text on a page. There is a bit more judgment associated with it than someone giving someone a texta and saying: ‘Go to work’.
An application for information means that an agency undertakes a search for information, retrieves that information, and considers and makes decisions in relation to the application. Additionally, considering the material for the purpose of making a decision about whether the information should be released requires some skill. This is undertaken by trained officers in an agency. The agency may also need to provide supervision for the examination of the information by an applicant. There may be costs incurred in the use of equipment to enable an applicant to examine the request for information; for example, photocopying, providing copies of materials on disc, film or tape, and for the packaging and postage of materials for delivery to the applicant.
Processing fees, as has been pointed out, in the Northern Territory are prescribed at a rate of $25 per hour. This is within the range of processing fees applied on the freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions. For example, the Commonwealth charges $15 per hour for search and retrieval, and $20 per hour for consideration, preparation and decision-making; Western Australia charges $30 per hour for dealing with the application, and photocopying is charged at 20 per page. Those charges, as the member for Araluen would know, are quite reasonable compared to the charges if one was engaging legal advice from a lawyer; you are likely to be charged a hell of a lot more just for photocopying or even for a telephone call. They are quite reasonable in the context of charges that could be levied and that are levied by some professions.
The application of minimal fees also serves to reduce or remove the incentive for ridiculously wide-ranging, frivolous or vexatious applications which only serve to tie up public sector resources. Depending on the nature of the information sought and how much information is required to be searched, applications can take many personnel hours to administer. The larger the volume of information to be searched and, then considered, and for a decision to be made, the longer an application takes. Agencies regularly experience requests for information dealing with applications which result in very large volumes of government information having to be considered. This is not to denigrate the process, simply to highlight to members the large amount of time and effort skilled public sector employees devote to processing FOI applications - and I thank them. Unlike some of the negative comments that were made opposite, I thank them for their hard work.
The act also enables an agency to waive fees in circumstances of financial hardship. If an applicant is facing financial hardship then it is open to an agency to waive or reduce processing fees. This aims not to disadvantage a person from enjoying an equal right of access to information only because they cannot afford to pay the application and/or processing fees. To waive fees in that circumstance is consistent with the objects of the act, and with freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions.
There was a common thread and an inference by some speakers that, somehow, government members on this side have free and unfettered access to public service documents. I can assure them that is not the case, apart from documents that come by way of the Cabinet process, which are privileged information - and we take an oath with the Administrator when we become ministers. We place our hand on the Bible and take an oath - some of us make an affirmation – not to disclose anything that is in those documents, by way of our becoming aware of them by being either a Cabinet member or a member of the Executive Council of the Northern Territory.
I did spend, probably about a year, as a backbencher in the first government in 2001. I did not have unfettered or any sort of access to confidential government documents or documents within the public service. I relied on briefings from departments through the minister’s office, just the same as members opposite can request briefings. I was afforded those briefings and I found them very valuable. I did not feel that agencies were trying to hide things from me. There were times, I am sure, when members opposite have asked questions and received answers. You make your judgments based on that. I can assure this House there is no inequality here. Government members, whether they are ministers or backbenchers, receive no preferential treatment in accessing information.
The waiving of fees is also consistent with the objects of the acts which are to provide generalised access to information held by public sector organisations, subject to where it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose that information. The act does not otherwise provide for a universal waiver of fees for classes or categories of persons. Some other jurisdictions provide various forms of waivers in certain circumstances and up to certain amounts. The most common clause, as in the Northern Territory, is the provision of a waiver in circumstances of hardship.
This government fully endorses the FOI system as a mechanism for government accountability. The scheme enables anyone to make an application for information held by a public sector organisation.
Here is something very important for members opposite, both opposition and Independents: the Information Act is due for review in 2009, but preliminary consultation within government has already commenced and a working group, chaired by the Department of Justice, is in the process of being established. A discussion paper will be prepared and publicly released for community views on how the scheme is working and where it can be improved. As regular users of FOI, I have no doubt members of parliament will be actively consulted to gauge their views on possible improvements. I have no doubt the opposition will make a submission to that process. I believe this will be the most appropriate forum to put forward the proposals as aired by the member for Drysdale, and they will be considered as part of an overall package of reforms and will be assessed as to whether they meet the act’s overall objectives.
In this context, there will be capacity in the review of the Information Act, not only in this regard, but other regards. The government opposes this motion but encourages the member for Drysdale to feed his ideas into the imminent Information Act review process.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their comments; I appreciate them. It is a relatively simple amendment to an act. Eventually, it becomes known as the amendment to the Information Amendment Bill 2008 (Serial 20). It is about freedom of knowledge; how governments should be accountable, no matter which side of the fence they are sitting. Part of this amendment is simply to do that; to allow an easier form of accountability without handing over various fees which can sometimes be extreme.
There are many different public sector organisations to which this legislation can apply, but if I heard correctly, I believe the Attorney-General said that it did not apply when it was not in the public interest, or similar. There is an exemption from supplying the information where it is deemed not in the public interest. I am not asking for that to be removed. Nowhere in my bill do I suggest that we should start letting out sensitive information. Coming from a police background, I have seen some of the FOIs and the result of some of the FOIs; it is a joke that some even got to our desk in the first place. They were truly not in the public’s interest to be released.
I hope that is a fair point. I am not attempting to change the intent of the legislation; I am simply stating in this amendment that we, as MLAs, should not be charged the fees for applications of FOIs and the various tables of fees that are listed against them. There are good reasons for having those fees, I do not deny that. Sometimes the people who may apply for information - as just mentioned from my experiences in the police force - are not there for good causes, but perhaps for run-amok or some other problematic cause. This is about ensuring the government is accountable. Apparently, we are not seeing that one bit.
It is broken down into two basic elements as previously mentioned: non-personal and personal information. I am not asking that we change the act so that I am handed personal information which I am not entitled to - because I am not entitled to it, even as an MLA, and nor are you. I am not asking for information about this person; that is personal information. It is predominantly about government-based information; the operations of government.
I am strangely confused how the member opposite could have thought we felt that government workers were not doing a good job, because they are doing a good job. I set the record straight from my point of view. Thank you to all the government workers who are out there working hard, trolling through vast quantities - maybe pallet loads - of documentation in relation to FOI requests, because it can be arduous. However, that is what is required to ensure that the government is accountable, and that we do not allow ourselves to fall into a situation where we are portrayed as not being truly accountable in the eyes of the public, be it across the Territory or across Australia. This is just one small part to ensuring that is not the case.
When our Independent colleague here is impeded by the costs of obtaining information that he deems is necessary to put an argument or a point forward, to keep whichever government it may be at the time, accountable, I do not think that is right. I am not asking for the costs to be waived for every person in the Territory. As previously mentioned, this is about government business and operation, at the end of the day - accountability. Some will then say: ‘How do we account for the costs?’ Surely …
A member: Surely, it is government business.
Mr BOHLIN: Well, it could be government business. We do not want to know about that. The cost could quite easily be accounted on either a quarterly or an annual basis to state that we lost X hours to the recovery of FOI documents. Most of that information is already obtained, anyway. The act does not provide for waivers. It provides for considerations of waivers, and they do occasionally occur. However, it is not that common.
I could pretty much guarantee it is not going to be in the government’s interest to waive against us, or whoever is the opposition at the time. It is a pretty simple amendment; it is about being accountable. The Chief Minister has said he is going to ensure that he has an accountable government, but rejecting this amendment would certainly not give credence to those words. I am not going to troll through the act and find a point here or a point there, because that would be wasting a lot of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government claims they are going to be accountable. Join with us, amend the bill. A small amendment will make many things a lot easier, and it may benefit both sides today or in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of a Territory Development Task Force – INPEX Development
Establishment of a Territory Development Task Force – INPEX Development
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move - That –
- The Chief Minister establish a Territory Development Task Force comprised of key representatives from the public and private sectors to coordinate the Territory government’s response to the social, community, economic, and environmental challenges of establishing a $12bn gas processing plant in Darwin Harbour by INPEX and Total.
Madam Deputy Speaker, INPEX has announced that Darwin is the preferred site for their processing of gas, LNG, from their field in Western Australian waters, and they will be delivering it by an 800 km pipeline. It is a major project, not only by Northern Territory standards, but by Australian standards. It will have a dramatic impact on Darwin’s landscape and an impact across the Territory. It will fall into the work of a range of government agencies, ministerial portfolio responsibilities, industry groups, community groups, non-government organisations, and land councils.
It would be appropriate for government to facilitate the development of this project by coordinating its approach, better than it has in the past, through a body which has statutory powers. We know this project is a large Australian project. At this stage we do not know what kind of resources the government will need in coordinating the development and the processing of this project. We have questions on what kind of infrastructure will be required to support the project and to support those businesses associated with the project.
We know that there is already talk of possible associated second and third tier processing facilities near the project, which may involve fertilizer plants, petro-chemical plants, methane, plastic production facilities, and, in the past, there was even talk of aluminium smelting taking place if there were sufficient gas resources to support such a facility. If we were really thinking outside the square, we could include processing of iron-ore into bricks, and that would be good for the Northern Territory’s economy.
We argue that we need this task force, and the key word is task force - a development task force - to manage the process and to get good outcomes; good economic, community, environmental, and social outcomes for the Northern Territory.
I believe that in the past we have had a succession of business coordinating arms, including the Office of Territory Development, and a beast called the Office of Resource Development. This kind of task force would not be dissimilar. However it would have statutory powers. I believe, given the size of the project, that the advisory bodies are likely to be overwhelmed by the magnitude and speed of development, if this Middle Arm development progresses the way the government is suggesting it will. It makes commercial and legislative sense to us that the major infrastructure proponents have a one-stop shop. This kind of project needs that thinking and this one-stop shop would be the Territory Development Task Force. This kind of task force operating from a one-stop shop will enable the project to be developed efficiently and effectively.
A relevant example of this kind of task force, with a wide role of responsibility related to a major development, was the Olympic Coordinating Authority or OCA, which was a statutory authority of the New South Wales government. The OCA was established in 1995 and dissolved in 2002, at the end of the Olympics. It was responsible for the physical preparation and coordination of government-wide activities related to the 2000 Sydney Olympics and Paralympic Games and redeveloping Homebush Bay and many other related sites.
The Sydney Olympic Games had a price tag in the range of $1.3bn. The INPEX development expenditure is 10 times that amount. We are talking about an enormous project coming to Darwin and the Northern Territory. For this expense the OCA managed the design and construction of 17 permanent and three temporary competition venues and the Olympic Village. I believe members agree that the Sydney Olympics was a very successful event and the coordination of the Olympics and all that supported it was very successful.
The OCA’s mandate was to provide for a sustainable and environmentally sensitive approach in the development and construction of the venues and facilities; to ensure processes were in place to minimise any adverse social effects or disadvantages to the community, particularly in the areas of housing, transport, and other social justice issues; and to maximise value to the government and the community through private sector participation in the construction of venues and facilities. It achieved that goal on time and on budget to become the best games ever.
That is something we will have to work towards with this project: that it is on time and is developed in a timely way; it is on budget; and there are no additional expenses which have to be incurred by the Northern Territory community in any shape or form.
There are many aspects which need to be considered regarding this project’s development; not dissimilar to other major projects we have developed in the Darwin area in recent times. For example, when approval went through for the LNG plant at Wickham Point, an exceptional development permit was granted by the then minister for Lands and Planning in November 2002; this permit had 41 conditions attached to it. We are talking about a plant which is much bigger and on a much larger scale.
Some of these permits, which went across all the agencies of not only the Northern Territory government but the Commonwealth government, included items such as greenhouse gas strategy, emergency management plans, site emergency plan, corporate relations management plan, oil spill contingency plan, LNG accident response plan, mangrove monitoring plan, weed management plan, feral animal management plan, acid sulphate soil management plan, biting insects management plan, erosion and sediment control plan, LNG plant environmental management plan, noise abatement plan, safety report, operational waste management plan, and cyclone management plan - and these are just some on the list for that project. We are talking about a project which is vastly bigger and more complex than the current LNG plant.
We will have a change in our landscape regarding security issues and new challenges for shipping and the pipeline. No doubt, there will be other plans, studies and security measures put in place which will cross many agencies, not only in the Northern Territory but the Commonwealth, which will need to be coordinated in a way that is not only to the satisfaction of government and community, but also to the proponents. We do not want to be seen as amateurs. Whilst I have no issue with the government agencies and how they go about their work - I believe they do a terrific job given the pressures they are under, including under-resourcing and lack of appreciation - I believe we need to have a Territory development task force which has representatives from both the public and private sectors. I would argue for emphasis on the private sector, so it is focused on outcomes rather than getting bogged down in processes.
I was around when this government, with a previous Chief Minister, embarked on a campaign called Team NT, which sprang up overnight like a mushroom and disappeared pretty quickly as the hot sun came and wilted it. It came out of the blue; it was not a very successful campaign because the Sunrise gas still did not come onshore; it was not going to come onshore then because it was not commercially viable. It may be developed in the near future so it benefits not only the Northern Territory and Australia but also Timor-Leste.
However, it did not happen the way the government thought it would because it was not planned properly and there was no proper consultation. We were all summoned to a meeting with the government. The promotional banners and the pull-ups had been organised. The government of the day tried to bring pressure to bear on Woodside, telling everyone it was in the national interest, and took out full page advertisements in the Financial Review and drew up big cheques and had everyone sign them. It was only when Woodside took the government to task, that the government became less personal in attacking company personnel and backed right down. I believe the Chief Minister was the Business minister of the day and did not seem to understand the project was not going to come onshore because it was not commercially viable. That may change in the future.
It is all very well to have these steering committees, which have been set up with the Chief Minister’s theme of ‘Fresh ideas, real results’, and reading through this document there are three committees. I am unclear about subcommittees versus steering committees versus ‘sub Cabinet’ committees; I do not believe they know what they are doing either.
What we need to have is the Territory development task force which brings together all the key components of such a major project. It will change the landscape of Darwin and the Northern Territory. It will be terrific for the Territory economy, it will bring many jobs; and will be a boost to the town, but on the other side, it is going to change the social fabric of our community. There are many questions which still need to be answered. What kind of resources will they need? How much water is this project going to use? Where will this water be sourced? Is it linked to the current dam situation? Will they be putting down bores to support their project in the development stages? How will it relate to the other aspects of the harbour? How is it going to relate to pipelines? Will they be putting in an emergency pipeline in case our power and water fails, which it has done quite spectacularly in the last few weeks?
I ask the government to look seriously at this motion before the House. It is about trying to get the project online in a timely manner, addressing the many social issues; and engaging the community.
I recently went to a very well-run forum at the Darwin Harbour coordinated by the Environment Centre - which I know is a little unusual, given my background with the Minerals Council - and it was disappointing that no one from the government attended. The views expressed at that forum were reasonable views from people who, I would say, are pretty average people in our community. They have some serious concerns; perhaps they are not all legitimate concerns, however they were expressing them. That is why we have in our motion that we need to engage the community, not just through the environmental assessment process, which we know is a reasonable thing to do, but through other ways which are meaningful not only to the proponents, but also to community members themselves.
I ask the Chief Minister to seriously consider this. Perhaps at a later date - whether today or in the next sittings – I will be addressing this statement, which lacks substance, however it is linked to what we are trying to put through today to ensure this project and everything that falls out from this project, including downstream processing, is addressed in a timely manner, brings benefit to the Northern Territory, and has no serious detriment.
I intend to stay in the Northern Territory. I am not convinced that people on the other side of the House will be in the Northern Territory for the long haul. I want to ensure that this project is done well. It can only be done well if we have a decent, well-resourced, and well-focused task force, chaired by an industry person - not too heavy with government officials, although they have their place on such a task force – that is responsive, talks with the proponents and other companies involved to ensure commitment to the Northern Territory across all spectrums, not just saying they are going to employ many people and buy goods and services. We need more than that; we need to have a real community partner.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to support this motion by the member for Goyder; she has done a fantastic job of crafting and speaking to the motion and outlining her concerns.
It is quite obvious to everyone concerned that this INPEX venture, whilst greatly welcomed - I put on the record the other night my congratulations to the Chief Minister, and well done – provides very significant challenges for the Northern Territory. Those challenges are only escalated by the serious lack of planning that the current Northern Territory government has done over past years.
We all know that there is a power crisis at the moment. We are told that it is going to take almost $1bn to fix that problem ...
Mr Vatskalis: No, got it wrong again.
Ms Purick: There is $1bn in this statement - $1bn for Power and Water.
Mr Henderson: $1bn to expand Power and Water for the growth that is happening in the Territory - not to fix the problem.
Mr TOLLNER: There is $1bn that is required to go to the Territory for growth, the Chief Minister said. That is fine. We know that they are going to spend $1bn somewhere in the next five years on Power and Water ...
Mr Vatskalis: Which you never spent before, ever.
Mr TOLLNER: The biggest spend ever, the Business minister tells us - biggest spend ever. Whoopee do! Good stuff, great stuff. It is finally good to see the government is putting some money into our power, water, and sewerage infrastructure - greatly welcomed. I have absolutely no problems with that. It is a bit late for 15 000 houses out there in the northern suburbs, of course, and all those residents who have been told to run out and buy a generator. The fact is this government says that they have committed to spending $1bn on Power and Water.
We know there is also a health crisis - the nurse staffing crisis - which means significant money to be spent there. We know, in relation to health, that there is an oncology unit which, at some time, is due for construction to start. We know that, maybe in the next year or the next two years, somewhere along that time line, there will be, we would hope, after 10 years of Labor government - in their first election winning campaign they promised the oncology unit - we would expect that it will be built.
Mr Vatskalis: Is that the way you were supposed to find the money for it? I cannot see any money coming that way.
Mr TOLLNER: You do not see any money, minister?
Mr Vatskalis: No, because I never listen to you.
Mr TOLLNER: I distinctly recall that in the 2001 election campaign there was a promise that it would be done. I recall, in the mini-budget which was done shortly after that, this government allocated $14m to build an oncology unit; that was back in 2001-02. Lo and behold, here we are at the end of 2008 - no oncology unit. All of a sudden someone else has to find the money, the minister for Business tells us. But, it was a promise back then. We will believe it when we see it, but this is a plan; that we will have an oncology unit.
We have also been told we are going to have a super clinic built at Palmerston. Super clinic - the federal government promised $10m for this super clinic. Evidently, the Northern Territory government is going to chip in somewhere along the line. They told us they are going to build some sort of a new health facility at Palmerston. They have also told us they have new schools - primary schools, middle schools, high schools - in the pipeline, meant to be built in the next few years. Additionally, there is the $300m prison that has to go somewhere. We have debated that tonight.
All these things are happening at the same time that INPEX wants to build the biggest infrastructure development, or one of the biggest infrastructure developments, in Australia’s history. You have to think that this will pose some challenges bearing in mind we have all these crises and commitments by the government in a whole range of areas around the Territory.
One has to ask: where are we going to find the workers? What sort of capital expenditure are businesses going to be required to commit to? What are their materiel requirements going to be?
The other thing I did not hear mentioned is housing. We know that there is a housing crisis going on. I do not see the Chief Minister jumping up and down. Rents are through the roof; there is a serious lack of housing right across the Territory, and this government is committing quite a bit of capital trying to free up land. We were also told there are hundreds of millions of dollars being provided by the federal government to build houses in remote Aboriginal communities.
At the same time all this is going on, we have this massive gas development about to occur, and at no stage, it seems to me, is the government consulting with industry. For that reason alone, the member for Goyder’s motion needs to be supported. We definitely need a Territory development task force.
Too little has happened in the last seven years. The government has been sitting on its hands idly watching GST dollars rolling in, employing large numbers of consultants, and putting out a whole range of glossy brochures, but fundamentally doing nothing. We find ourselves in the situation where we have inadequate water and sewerage infrastructure; a caving in of the whole electricity system; the Health and Education departments are in crisis; announcements of moving the prison; a housing crisis - the list just goes on and on. It is endless.
At the same time we have this wonderful opportunity of a large multi-billion dollar gas facility coming to Darwin and, quite rightly, it is being heralded by the Chief Minister as a great development. It is supported by everyone in this Chamber, irrespective of what the other side will tell you. However, at the same time we are all left scratching our heads wondering how the Territory is going to cope with this massive demand for skills, right at a time when there are skill shortages right around the world.
I encourage the government to get on board with this. The Chief Minister knows the problems, but he is loath to admit them. He is not silly; he knows what is going on out there.
Chief Minister, when you are down, it is not such a bad thing to ask for a little help …
Mr Henderson: There are many people I would ask for help before I would ask you, Dave, but thanks for the offer.
Mr TOLLNER: … when times are tough it is not a bad thing to extend the hand and say, give me a hand, help us out …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: What the member for Goyder is saying is: Chief Minister, extend that hand to industry, ask for help and support, acknowledge some of the short-comings of previous Chief Ministers and past administrations; you could put all that behind - it is a new term. An opportunity to make a fresh start and get out there …
Mr Wood: … a fresh start you know, like, can-do.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson makes a good point; the Territory is full of can-do people. People with get up and go; people who have done things, built things, done fantastic projects - real pioneers. The Territory is a frontier in many respects and we have that pioneering attitude, that can-do attitude is alive and well, and there is a perfect opportunity for the Chief Minister to get out and embrace some of those people. Ask them for their help and support. Acknowledge some of the frailties that the government has, and get on with the job. I am quite serious about that. Here is a perfect opportunity. The member for Goyder has put it perfectly - there is nothing in this that is offensive. I encourage the government to support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Saint Dave for his guidance. I am sure I saw either wings or a halo or something emerging from his shoulders. I am sorry to hear that the government is frail …
Mr Henderson: In the member for Fong Lim’s opinion.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. I partly support the member for Goyder’s motion tonight and I have explained why. Some of the issues she has put as part of the task force, I believe should belong to another group altogether. In this case the environmental issues. Would we have a so-called independent Environment Protection Authority? The government has claimed this is an independent body which can deal with some of the developments which are occurring in the Northern Territory. As far as I know it is yet to do that. In fact, its job at the present time is reviewing the Environment Assessment Act and setting sustainable principles for the Northern Territory. That is all very nice, but it is not really nuts and bolts or concrete type stuff.
We have INPEX coming to town. As the minister knows, I have concerns about certain ministers making decisions about INPEX and also the members of the government - I see that as a conflict of interest. Yet, we have set up an Environment Protection Authority; and after much debate and different versions of it, we eventually got an Environment Protection Authority. It says that there is a process for referring matters to the Environment Protection Authority and this is on the webpage for the EPA:
- The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was established as an independent body to give advice to the Territory, businesses and the community on matters of
ecological sustainable development. Under the Environment Protection Authority Act the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage can refer a
matter to the EPA for investigation and advice.
The Environment Protection Authority Act also provides the EPA with the ability to inquire and report on matters on its own volition as well as receive third party
referrals. It is not confined to referrals received only from government.
Criteria have been developed by the EPA, and agreed to by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, for the purposes of assessing and
making a decision on whether an issue warrants consideration/investigation by the EPA. These criteria will be used when assessing third party referrals.
My understanding is that there are three people who can ask the government to request the Environment Protection Authority to investigate some issue: the minister, the EPA, or a third party, like me. I will be interested to know, when the minister responds: does the government intend to ask the Environment Protection Authority to look at the environmental issues relating to the $20bn gas processing plant in Darwin Harbour?
I know there will be an environmental impact statement, but I thought that would be part of the EPA process. Whilst I consider there are benefits in what the member for Goyder has put forward - that we have a Territory Development Task Force - in matters referring to the environment, I would like to see the government show its credentials: prove that the EPA has some teeth and can take on these particular matters. I doubt the government will do this, however it said that was not the case when we had this debate before.
I ask the minister to put these forward as a priority matter for the Environment Protection Authority to handle. They should call for an Environmental Impact Statement. They should be doing the investigations and making the decisions as to whether this project is environmentally sound. I see benefits in what the member for Goyder has put forward, however I would prefer that side of it not to be part of this task force. The task force could play other important roles. We know there will be social impacts; when the Defence Force and ConocoPhillips first came to Darwin, there was impact on the Darwin community and these can be anything from social to economic impacts.
We have already had some discussions in this House about where we are going to accommodate all the workers. I put forward an idea, and I am not sure whether the government thinks it has merit, the concept of building a suburb in Weddell, which is not far from Blaydin Point, for the workers. To build it with the notion that eventually it would be handed back to the government, which could then sell it to first homeowners or low income families so they get a chance to buy a house and a piece of the Territory. There will be many other issues.
One of the other issues is that if the company does not build enough housing for its workers there will be more pressure on existing housing and rental stocks. Even though the government has brought forward the $14 000 Buildstart, I am not sure this is going to solve the problem. I am receiving a briefing tomorrow on Buildstart and I hope my concerns about it do not come true, but there are some issues relating to Buildstart that certainly need adjusting. If it can increase the number of houses and the number of rental units available, then that will be good.
The member for Goyder has brought forward the core of something which should be supported. I was on an integration committee when the Army first came, as a representative of the Litchfield Shire, which also included the Mayor of Palmerston and the Lord Mayor of Darwin, together with various groups from childcare to family groups, Centrelink and other government agencies which need to be involved when large numbers of people come to Darwin for this type of project. They would all need to be brought together. A development task force, such as the member for Goyder is promoting, would be important.
In general, I support the concept the member has put forward, but I also say to government: if you really believe the EPA is worth supporting, let us see the EPA handle all the environmental issues in relation to the INPEX facility coming to Darwin.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing on this motion. Essentially and fundamentally, without going into the details of this, the government, as well as members who have spoken in debate tonight, are on the same page in ensuring that we deal with the impacts of what is a very exciting development for the Northern Territory.
The development is going to underpin our economy, in terms of investor confidence, for decades to come. We are certainly on the same page; it is just a different way of dealing with the issues and achieving the same results. I agree with the member for Fong Lim in his contribution; in no way is this motion offensive to the government. It is just that we have a different approach to dealing with the issues that have been identified.
The member for Goyder talked about the dramatic impact this project will have on the economic and social fabric of the Northern Territory. I do not think that ‘dramatic’ is a word that I would use, but there is no doubt that it will have a significant impact. The word ‘dramatic’ has some alarmist connotations, and I do not think that the people of the Northern Territory should be alarmed in regard to this project. I also urge and caution honourable members: we are probably 95% to 98% certain that we are going to get this project, but we are still some 10 to 12 months away from a final investment decision from the companies involved.
The member for Goyder said there are, potentially, second and third tier impacts with this project. I am not sure whether the opposition is deliberately trying to be alarmist and raise concerns amongst the Territory population, but she said this project would lead to chemical processing, plastics processing, and aluminium-type smelters on Middle Arm.
I dealt with that the other day in relation to the Glyde Point development and the whole commercial landscape concerning the price companies can get for gas, for LNG, as opposed to using it as a base load fuel for power generation. The prospects of significant investment in those types of downstream industries in the Northern Territory have rapidly diminished in consequence and in parallel with the escalating prices that companies can achieve for LNG. The thoughts of alumina smelters in the Northern Territory that were contemplated six or seven years ago, as a result of the price companies could achieve for LNG versus domestic gas back then, are just not there. It is that alarmist sort of language the opposition continues to use, in absence of reality of the current economic and commercial circumstances.
The member talked about a one-stop shop and companies needing a one-stop shop in government to deal with that. We already have that. We have the gas task force in government, which is a one-stop shop for companies looking to invest in the Northern Territory. It is a very large part of why we are in this position today, by working with INPEX and Total over the last 12 months; the Territory government provides a one-stop shop as opposed to the departmental run around that companies get in other states.
The member also talked about an analogy between the Olympic Coordinating Authority and the INPEX project. She pointed to $1.7bn-worth of investment for infrastructure in Sydney, versus a $12bn project in Darwin. It is an interesting analogy but one that really does not reflect any degree of comparability at all. The Sydney Olympics was a vastly disparate project, with 17 venues across the largest city in Australia to accommodate hundreds of thousands of visitors who came to Sydney, thousands of competitors in the games, and thousands of journalists from around the world monitoring the games. There really is no analogy and no comparability between a consolidated development on Middle Arm and the Sydney Olympics.
The member for Goyder talked about the importance of bringing the project in on time and on budget. The Sydney Olympics infrastructure was very much a government project with private sector involvement. This project is a private sector investment in our economy. There really are no similarities.
The member also talked about Team NT, and was quite condescending in regard to the government’s approach at the time. I was there at the time with the former Chief Minister …
Ms Purick: So was I, and that is why I know it was not very good.
Mr HENDERSON: … and you did not speak against it at the time. I did not notice the member for Goyder, who was the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council at the time, speak against Team NT. It was very much a collaborative effort, and as my colleague, the current Business minister knows, we were fighting a national interest argument in regard to the companies developing Sunrise as a floating LNG project, and we were looking at bringing that gas onshore for LNG developments in Darwin, and also to connect to the national gas grid to provide gas-on-gas competition in the energy markets in south-eastern Australia.
Independent economic analysts were contracted by government to run those arguments, and the economic analysis at the time did indicate that it was not in Australia’s national economic interest to allow the companies to develop an Australian resource as floating LNG. I am very proud of the work Team NT did at the time, and hats off to my predecessor, Clare Martin, in pulling that together. The current member for Goyder certainly did not speak out against that initiative at the time.
The member also talked, and seemed to have one foot either side of the barbed wire fence, as Joh Bjelke-Peterson found himself on a couple of occasions, about this project changing the social fabric of Darwin and that government needed to be concerned about addressing the social issues, and said: ‘I am going to be here for the long haul and I hope this project does not stuff up the Territory …
Ms Purick: You will not be here, you will be gone.
Mr HENDERSON: I will respond to the interjection. I am not going anywhere.
Ms Carney: That is what Clare said.
Mr HENDERSON: This is my home. I married a local girl, I have three kids who were born in Darwin and I give the member for Goyder every assurance that this is my home and I am going nowhere.
I was astounded to read an article and a letter to the editor and the Chief Minister in the Territory Regional Weekly, previously the Territory Times, dated Friday 3 October, from the mother of the member for Goyder - a former member of this House. I was so astounded with this letter which was penned to me in a public way, and so offended by the language that was used that I did not deem it worthy of a response.
However, with the member for Goyder talking about this project changing the social fabric and insinuating, in tone if not in the actual words used, that this project would be bad for Darwin, she now has an opportunity, in closing debate on this motion, to refute and speak against the assertions made by her mother in this letter. I will mention some specific comments.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There has been a convention in this place that what members of people’s families do should not be brought into the Chamber. It is poor form, indeed. It is not for the member for Goyder to defend or otherwise the actions or comments of a family member. I ask you to direct the Chief Minister accordingly; he should know better. We have plummeted to certain depths this week, but if the Chief Minister is going to start bringing people’s families into it, that is a very slippery slope indeed.
Mr Henderson: You spent two days doing it with the member for Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause while I confer with the Deputy Clerk on this. There is no point of order. However, Chief Minister, I refer you to Sessional Orders regarding freedom of speech and when we are talking about …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, just to make it easier for you and maybe to take some heat out of this, I retract and withdraw all reference to the member for Goyder’s mother, a previous member of this House.
However, I refer, without attribution, to a letter to the editor and to the Chief Minister, so that it is on the public record. I am not saying anything in this House that is not firmly on the public record in the Northern Territory and without speaking in attribution to who has written this open letter to me and to the editor of the Territory Regional Weekly. I seek comment from the member for Goyder on whether she supports the assertions that have been made in this open letter to me. The person who wrote this open letter said, and I quote:
- Can the CM tell me if there will be any social problems with the expected thousands of workers at the gas plant patronising nightclubs and perhaps getting to know the
ladies who do most of their work at night?
That is the first question. An assertion that somehow there is going to be an explosion of prostitution activity in the Northern Territory as a result of this project and that it is a terrible thing for the Northern Territory. The letter goes on to make an assertion that:
- It follows with thousands of men coming to Darwin the traffic on our roads will increase with consequent problems. Will police members be increasing consequentially,
also to deal with the increase in public drunkenness?
Not only are these workers going to somehow stimulate an explosion of prostitutes in Darwin, turning it into the Sodom and Gomorrah capital of the western world, but there is also going to be a massive outbreak of public drunkenness which will confront the good citizens of the Northern Territory.
This open letter to the Chief Minister, which I have asked the member for Goyder to refute, given her comments about this project changing the social fabric of the Northern Territory, also goes on to state at item No 14 - a very long letter:
- Call me a xenophobe if you like, I know it all happened in the 1940s, I’ve read somewhere I must turn the other cheek and I know what a country can’t get by conflict,
it can often get by commerce but with the enormous amount of Jap money in the proposed INPEX plant and the Chief Minister would like us all to bow down to their
almighty dollar, where does this leave us on future February nineteenths? Are we to forget all those brave people who were killed, so that we can live here now?
This is the sort of offensive, xenophobic, alarmist commentary which has been put into the public arena regarding a project that is going to employ thousands of Territorians and underpin the economy of the Northern Territory, providing investor confidence, giving Territorians the opportunities for training, and for jobs. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talks about kids in the Barkly having opportunities to work as apprentices next to the best boilermakers in Australia and the world, and you have this tirade of xenophobic abuse and absolute tripe being publicised in a paper.
I am absolutely bereft. I never thought I would actually read something like this from someone who was formerly a public figure in the Northern Territory, without attributing to it. I was offended when I read this and thought it does not even deserve a response. However, given the member for Goyder has come into this House tonight and talked about this project changing the social fabric of Darwin forever, and we need to be very guarded against this - I am not putting words into her mouth - but she certainly did talk a lot about this project changing the so-called fabric. Then there is a letter in the paper a couple of weeks ago with some offensive xenophobic language, which I thought we had lost in the Territory. I was not around in the 1950s, but it probably belongs in the 1950s, just after World War II.
I thought the Territory had moved on. Territorians have moved on and we embrace people from around the world, wherever they come from, in our place in a globalised economy. In regard to the offensive comments about World War II, one of the great benefits of a globalised economy is the intermeshing of our economies around the world, the people-to-people links that are established, the financial links and associations which are established that will help guard against hostilities between countries given the inter-reliance that we all have in a globalised economy. I found these comments and this letter to the editor absolutely offensive and repugnant. I urge the member for Goyder, in her summing up in this debate, to refute categorically those sentiments which were made in that particular article. If she does that, I will be first person to go over and shake her hand and say congratulations, because that type of commentary has no place here in the Northern Territory.
We certainly do have intergovernmental collaboration in dealing with this project. My department, through Major Projects and Asian Relations and Trade, is the lead agency for a whole-of-government involvement, including liaison and consultation with INPEX to work through this project. I announced today our Territory 2030 project and a steering committee which comprises eminent Territorians and Bill Moss, a former executive board member of Macquarie Bank, to look at and work with government and Territorians about planning for the future of the Northern Territory. Further industrial development in the Northern Territory will be a part of their work. We do not believe we need a specific Territory development task force because one already exists. It has been augmented by the Territory 2030 and the steering committee that I announced today.
Regarding the spirit of this motion, I agree that we need to plan for the challenges ahead. I assert that the Territory government is doing this. However, the government has its own structures in place. With regard to the direct content of the motion, we will oppose it. I urge the member for Goyder to deal with the comments I have made and the newspaper article that was printed in the Territory Regional Weekly on Friday, 3 October.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I could have sworn that the motion before the House was:
- The Chief Minister establish a Territory Development Task Force comprised of key representatives from the public and private sectors to coordinate the Territory government’s response to the social, community, economic and environmental challenges of establishing a $12bn gas processing plant in Darwin Harbour by INPEX and Total.
My goodness, Madam Speaker, I have no idea what the Chief Minister’s has been smoking or eating or drinking. It was entertaining ...
Mr Henderson: Madam Speaker, I do not smoke.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Goyder is insinuating something about the Chief Minister, and I ask her to withdraw it in regard to smoking.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I ask you to withdraw the comments under Standing Order 62(1).
Ms PURICK: Okay, the Chief Minister does not smoke, I withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I ask you to withdraw the full comments, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Okay, I withdraw the full comment.
Madam Speaker, that was the motion before the House. In his comments, the Chief Minister - and I thank members who spoke to the motion - talked about a gas task force. I have not seen much from this gas task force in a while. I recall it was established. I actually think …
Mr Henderson: It just landed a $12bn project.
Ms PURICK: Well, no. The previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, actually secured this project. I would say the gas task force has run out of gas. The government talks about a one-stop-shop which they already have, which is the gas task force. It is a pity they did not apply that one-stop-shop across their other government agencies, rather than cutting up the Mines department and putting safety in the office of WorkSafe, which has not done a very good job.
They took Mineral Royalty across to Treasury, and we saw what happened; not only did we lose our exploration expenditure certificates we also saw this government putting a tax on the transfer of mineral exploration licences. This government can take no credit for exploration expenditure increase. That is all to do with the commodity boom and it is nothing to do with the Chief Minister or his Mines minister, or the previous Mines minister, who is no longer in this House. For the record I would like to …
Mr Henderson: Tell us again how much you love the EPA.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention, as members on the other side have, to Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Honourable members on both sides of the House, I ask you to cease interjecting, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I place on the record the following figures. These are not my figures. These are the figures that have been given to me by companies. The Sunrise gas field comprises about 7.5 trillion cubic feet of gas - that equates to 300 petajoules. The power and water consumption for the whole Northern Territory is currently about 19 petajoules. If Alcan had taken gas via Sunrise out to their project, it would have consumed 40 petajoules with their expansion program. If McArthur River had refined on-site, it would have used 38 petajoules. If the magnesium project at Batchelor had gone ahead, it would have consumed about three petajoules. If we had secured the methanol plant from Methanex Australia, it would have used about 120 petajoules. That would have been a foundation customer, which is what we needed. The Methanex plant and the Batchelor magnesium plant did not happen.
If we add those figures, the total comes to about 240 petajoules. Sunrise gas needed to sell 300 petajoules per year to make it commercially viable. No one denied it was in the national interest that the gas should come onshore – not industry, not government, not the proponents - but it was not commercially viable.
Team NT had the Chief Minister, minister Paul Henderson, Bob Collins from the NT government, the member for Nelson, members from the opposition, the media, the land council, industry groups, and I was also on the committee. Along with Dave Malone, and where is he now? Heading up a planning group. Steve Margetic, from the Chamber of Commerce. Carole Frost, where is she now? Working in minister Vatskalis’ office. There were company representatives and government officials. There were also Chief Minister’s staff; Dennis Bree and media people.
A member: He was not on it.
Ms PURICK: He was there. Whilst Team NT might have had good intentions - we had discussions and meetings - it never amounted to anything because it was never going to be commercially viable. The proponents did a lot work; they talked to their southern customers and they tried to make it viable. These are the facts. It was in the national interest, no one disagreed with that.
The minister referred in his summary and the statement for 2030 - Fresh Ideas, Real Results, which talks about some of our exports. More than 35% of what this small population produces is now exported in some form. We have Darwin LNG, Alcan G3, and the Darwin City Waterfront. What the hell are they exporting? There is the Bonaparte pipeline, what do they export? And there are Compass, Arafura, Minemakers - they are not exporting at the moment. There is Windarra, it is not exporting. Sunrise is listed again, it has definitely not exported. Then, of course, let us not forget the hard rock miners, well, do not worry about them, because that is all dirty miners.
I really want to draw the Chamber’s attention to this comment. This is the government which wants to secure this project. I went to school, primary and high school, and I am not sure if I can really understand this paragraph. Perhaps the Chief Minister can explain it to me at a later time: over coming months, the government will be publicising the ideas and strategies developed by various different projects we have under way. At that time, we will be engaging the community more closely on those issues.
What does that mean? If that is indicative of this government, I think they need to go back to school.
Mr Henderson: Come on, talk about the Territory Times on Friday, 3 October.
Ms PURICK: It says this will be a flagship document. 2030 will be a flagship document. I believe our flagship document is really the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. That is what the Territory is all about. You are going to set targets for the things we wish to achieve across the full range of our community. How are you going to measure that? How are you going to report on it? ‘Territory 2030 will be modelled on the South Australian State Plan’ - so they are not even original - they have just gone to South Australia, picked up their plan, copied it and then called it their own - 2030. You are going to address prosperity for Territorians; the wellbeing of Territorians; how we care for our land, sea, and water; how we are going to build sustainable communities; how to expand the opportunities available to all Territorians. All good stuff, a little motherhood to me, and it is the sort of the stuff that comes out of cows’ bottoms, I believe, Chief Minister and Madam Speaker. That is what this statement is all about. I encourage members to go through it and you will see that it is poorly drafted and it is not visionary.
‘Phase three will be a period for our dialogue with Territorians, and by that I mean, all Territorians, across the breadth of the Territory’. Chief Minister, I hope that means you will go into the bush, to cattle stations, hold meetings at mine sites and communities; not just going to remote communities and the townships, go right across the length and breadth of this Territory, document it and report back on it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do believe the shadow minister is quoting from a statement which was distributed tonight for debate in the Chamber tomorrow. It is convention that the debate does not occur until the statement has been introduced and read.
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister did refer to this document in his comments regarding my motion; he actually referenced this document.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not.
Ms PURICK: Yes, you did.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think so, member for Goyder. I ask you not to refer to it, please.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister referred to this document, he quoted it in his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, did you refer to this statement?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I did not explicitly refer to the statement. I generically spoke about the Territory 2030 Plan that I announced today, but I did not specifically …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, I ask you not to quote from the document.
Ms PURICK: I will not refer to this document, I will leave that for another time, which means I get a second chance of saying what a very poorly structured document is it.
Back to the motion that was put before the House. I thank the members for Nelson and Fong Lim for their comments, and I thank the Chief Minister for some of his comments.
I ask that you look at it seriously, because we are going to need some serious planning and coordination; it is a large project and it will cross many government agencies, business, industry, community and environmental groups. Your track record so far is not flash in regards to major projects, and you cannot really take credit for anything that is happening in the Territory regarding the resources industry, because it would have happened anyway.
If you have been tracking the exploration industry of recent times, Chief Minister, you would know that there is more land becoming available and companies are starting to drop land because of the financial situation with the international market. I have a list here. It is a public document. Sixty-eight floats went through the stock exchange this year. Many of them were mineral exploration companies. There was an average return of the combined 68 companies of minus 54%. Only three of these companies are actually in a positive situation, yet the Chief Minister and the minister for Mines tell me the exploration industry is booming. Yes, it was doing very well, but the tide has started to turn and you better make sure you keep an eye on it.
Motion put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Boarding Schools in Regional Centres
Boarding Schools in Regional Centres
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Territory government move to immediately establish a network of boarding schools in regional centres for students from remote areas as a response to the disastrous National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy test results recorded by Territory students in remote regions; and, where these boarding schools are attended by people from remote areas, there be provision to transport these children back home on weekends.
Madam Speaker, we hear in conversations or in the media that there is the impression that different sides of politics are much the same. I can understand how people could see this to be true, however untrue it may be - especially in this House. We know there are vast differences in our policy approaches to law and order for the Country Liberals. Voters know that the Country Liberals have a different approach to health; the Country Liberals would not have let the power go out, and we would have handled the teachers’ dispute in a different manner.
I am sure the voters would like to know exactly what the Country Liberals would do to fix the horrendous National Assessment Program in Numeracy and Literacy, or NAPLAN, results. This is not a confrontational motion; this is something which will move towards improving education outcomes in the Northern Territory, especially in numeracy and literacy results. However, it is important for me to reflect on some of these results for members of this House.
I have some statistics from the NAPLAN results released earlier this year: 63% of Year 3 students meet the national minimum reading standard, which is a decrease of nearly 10% gauged against the multilevel assessment program results of 2007; 65.5% of Year 5 students meet the national minimum writing standard; and 66.8% of Year 7 students in the Northern Territory meet the national minimum numeracy and literacy standards.
We have spoken in this parliament before about these results, and asked questions of the government in Question Time. I quote a response given by the Chief Minister to the opposition leader in the first sittings of the Eleventh Assembly:
- We all know the tragedy of the appalling results that we are achieving in our remote parts of the Northern Territory and they drag the results down.
The Chief Minister is well aware that the results of the Northern Territory are bad and he is reflecting that the remote parts of the Territory are dragging our figures down.
The figures are much worse than I have just presented in those two examples. In the 2007-08 Education annual report we see that the performance figures are detailed from the Multilevel Assessment Program results. On pages 49 and 50, Figure 27 identifies the results in Year 5 reading – in 2006, 57.5% of students in very remote areas Australia-wide reached the national benchmark; in the very remote areas of the Northern Territory in 2006, 38.7% reached the national benchmark; and for very remote areas in 2007, 36.8% reached the national benchmark.
If we look at Year 7 reading, we will see for very remote areas across Australia - areas which are similar to very remote in the Northern Territory - 54.3% of students are reaching the national benchmark; clearly, nowhere near the 87.8% in the provincial areas, or the 90% in the metropolitan areas. In the very remote areas of the Northern Territory, only 33.6% of Year 7 students reach the national reading benchmark.
The figures get worse. If we go to numeracy, we see that 30.9% of students in the very remote areas of the Northern Territory reach the national benchmark - 30.9% is horrendous. I will finish with Year 7 writing - 27% of students in very remote areas of the Northern Territory reached the national benchmark. Clearly, those figures are from 2006. The results that I gave out earlier are a few examples from the NAPLAN report which was released in May this year and, I believe, indicate how bad things are at the moment.
We know the benefits of a good education. There are many reports that highlight better health outcomes: less propensity to conduct criminal or antisocial behaviour; the opportunity to get jobs, and so forth. The secondary education, or post education, problem is the creation of jobs. Many people do not go to school because they see no hope or future as a result of getting a good education in the bush. That is why I talk about the need for job creation and regional economic development in the bush so there is the possibility for those students later in life. Without the prospect of a job, why would people want to go to school?
We heard yesterday, through the shabby tabling of the Indigenous Expenditure Review for the 2006-07 financial year - I will quote from page 3 - 52.4% of the Territory’s expenditure in 2006-07 was Indigenous-related, as against 44.4% of the Territory’s revenue in 2006-07. That measures against the 2004-05 financial year, where 49.7% of the Territory’s expenditure was Indigenous-related, and 43.2% of the revenue was Indigenous-related. We have had an increase in revenue and an increase on percentage terms of expenditure for Indigenous-related measures up to 52.4%.
The government should be commended on the level of expenditure it puts toward Indigenous issues. If you base it on expenditure levels, the government does have a commitment; although going through the review, it is very hard to identify exactly where all that money goes. I cannot get to the point where it talks about Correctional Services and how much money goes into Correctional Services for the benefit of Indigenous people, but I will delve deeper into that over the next day or so.
I believe many Territorians in my electorate, and other electorates on this side of parliament, would be disgusted to see 52.4% of the Territory budget going to Indigenous-related areas and not achieving the outcomes it is supposed to. To put all that money in and be getting results which are worse now than in 2006 in some areas, for example Year 7 writing – down 5.7% in terms of reaching the national benchmark. The indicators are going down, and there are a number of indicators; I will not go through them all. People across the Territory are unhappy to see the outcomes for those areas but not unhappy to see the money going into Indigenous areas.
While the level of expenditure sounds good, we are still not getting bang for our buck. This motion is about education, it is about secondary schools. However, building schools does not solve the problems. There is a matrix of complementary solutions which need to be undertaken to ensure we get better outcomes in education, not just the jobs at the end of that education. It would pay us to have a look at the attendance rates of children at school, but we also need to take into account the number of children who are in the Northern Territory. The 2006 census results identified that there were 12 639 youth between five and 14 years of age. Of those 12 639 youth, only 8857 were going to school, as they classify age of person attending an educational institution. So there are approximately 3782 students who are not going to school.
It is interesting when you look at the 2001 census of the Indigenous profile, you will see the number of children aged between five and 14 who are attending an educational institution was 9382. We have gone backwards by 500 or 600 students who are going to school. This government, and I am not being critical, is apparently doing much to improve Indigenous outcomes and educational outcomes, but when the figures have gone backwards in the first five years of this Territory government, one has to ask what it is actually doing. To stand up and give ministerial statements, ministerial reports and pompous media releases and interviews about how good they are doing and how much they are spending, but to be seeing the results going backwards, to go back 500 youth in five years is quite shocking.
I have some statistics which show that in 2007 there were 2846 Indigenous students enrolled in school. In 2008 there were 2972 students enrolled. Then we have a look at the attendance figures. In very remote areas those figures have gone down from 63% to 61%, showing a slight decline in the attendance of children at school.
It is also possible to look at individual schools; I will highlight Yuendumu. In 2007 there were 139 students enrolled. In 2008 there were 121 - a reduction of 18. There could have been a population change, and that is fine. However, of those 121 students who were enrolled at school, only 63 were attending - 63 students out of 121 attending. That is a very significant issue. I have a number of figures which reflect the same sort of thing about school attendance decreasing. I am not going to go through them all, but it is an issue for the government and it is something that needs to be fixed. The Deputy Chief Minister, the minister for Education, speaks at length about the need to change that – and it is something that does need to change. The only way we can improve our education results is if kids actually go to school.
Ms Anderson: I will not argue against that.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Ms Anderson: No one will argue with you against that.
Mr GILES: I am not being critical; I am trying to be supportive. Strong policy is required. That is why the Country Liberals’ policy supports school attendance across the Territory - for all children in the Territory - being tied to welfare payments, with truancy officers being reinstated to support school attendance. Our policy goes further. We support children receiving an education in English for the full school day, assisted by a bilingual teacher - not just four hours a day.
This policy should not reflect a negative approach to Indigenous language, nor law, language and culture for that matter - on the contrary. I am a person who quite passionately supports language, law and culture; both their preservation and renewal. I understand the movement to full English-based education will test some people. However, to complement the policy position, the Country Liberals would introduce what might loosely be called culture classes, like they do in other areas of Australia, where you go to school for the day and are taught in English and you learn in English. That is the only way we are going to improve things - in English. After school there is an opportunity for culture, language, law, and culture to be taught by elders, traditional owners, or senior people within that community, who may seek the preservation of culture, to build on culture, and to teach law and language. If we do not seek to invest in our language, law, and culture, we will slowly lose it in certain areas.
The Country Liberals support the approach of language, law, and culture being taught in schools, outside of school hours. The classes will be proper classes, administered through the schooling system and providing jobs for local people who teach language, law, and culture. The pool of funds available for the culture teachers would be flexible, so that the teachers could rotate between different language groups, and men and women, and take into account the cultural sensitivities that we have. Children could not attend these classes unless they had attended normal school hours. The classes could involve excursions for lessons.
This is an approach based on many ethnic groups in Australia which recognise the importance of English as a first language for education, but do not want to lose their cultural knowledge and understanding, so have their children go to class after school hours to maintain that language, law and culture. The Country Liberals support English as the first language taught in school. We support children receiving an education in English for the school day, assisted by a bilingual teacher. If the curriculum can sustain bilingual education, then that is fine, but it is not a compromise for being taught fluent English.
Funding of schools should be based on enrolments, not attendance, but with a bonus system for attendance. That way, we will see schools being funded for the number of children who are supposed to be going to school, rather than just the number of kids who go to school.
They are going to have trials in Wadeye and Tiwi. If all those kids turn up to school, the facilities and infrastructure will not be there for them. The concept of providing funding based on enrolments is to make sure the facilities are there; so when our 100% school attendance tied to welfare comes on board, facilities will be there for those children to go to school.
The purpose of this motion is about secondary education, however, there are other things that complement secondary education. I speak in this House about regional development. We currently have a myriad of schools across the Territory, some of them big schools, which are already performing secondary functions. There are other very small schools, with small numbers, which do not have any infrastructure. I am aware that the minister for Education has spoken about investing in infrastructure for our schooling system. If we are going to provide schools for students in regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory which provide opportunities for kids to learn music, physical education, science, and mathematics, there is only one way that can be done: that is to make sure we have a school big enough to accommodate those services, so that kids have a choice.
To provide a school like that would require a number of things. We cannot continue having small schools in small locations which provide a tiny portion of the curriculum and a small amount of English, and are not achieving the education outcomes or attendance. What we need is a secondary school which provides students with a choice of education, combined with vocational education; the same as any other part of the country. We know school attendance is difficult and that is the reason I raised it before. Many of us will be aware of the issues for some, or many, children in the Northern Territory who go away to boarding schools for the term and find it very difficult to be away from their family for that length of time.
We are seeing the benefits of places like the college on the Tiwi Islands. They have children or youth staying at the college in boarding accommodation throughout the week and going home on weekends. I am proposing that in the secondary colleges in regional locations, in order to support regional development, we need to have boarding facilities so the students can stay there during the week to go to school, and go back to their community on weekends. They still have the opportunity to be with family - together with the responsibilities that go with that - on the weekends, but during the week they will go to school. They know they will have a bed, they will be fed, go to class, and understand the discipline of schooling.
This will be a significant change to the way things are currently done. Building a school which provides choice for students – primary or secondary - that provides boarding facilities, that ensures kids have a good night’s sleep and a feed, and ensures that there is choice about the education they want to receive - whether it is music, PE or the like – is an approach which will take our current poor results to another level. Clearly, what is occurring now is not working. The opportunity of a secondary school which ensures that the facilities, accommodation, and other things that teachers in the bush are screaming for, could be provided at these secondary institutions.
I return to school attendance and see that 27% of youth are attending school in some locations, and it goes even lower than that - it is all over the place. However, the minister for Education would have access to all the figures about where the students are going to school and where they are not. If we look at the attendance rates, it is clear the first thing we have to do is bring the attendance up. The next component is to make sure we have the facilities there for the youth. The next part is to make sure they have boarding facilities, so they will stay there. Then we need to make sure they have choice of education. There are a myriad of things to take into account.
This is a motion about secondary colleges as a major part of the solution, and it is an opportunity to ensure that education is the hub of the region; it is administered by a board, similar to how the Katherine West Health Board operates, and where the people are in charge.
There are places where we could have a big school. I consider the area between New Store and Ampilatwatja, for people who know where that is, I believe it is in Macdonnell. There is a large catchment of students or potential students in that area who would be supported by their families to go to school, if the school was in their area. They would be supported - and this is my belief - if they were only away for a week, rather than going away for a whole term at a time. They are still local; they can go home on weekends. If the family needs to see them, they are only down the road, so to speak, in terms of the bush.
There is an opportunity to combine Vocational Education and Training in the schooling system as a component in secondary area. If we had a larger approach in the regions, combined with the cultural education model which I spoke about, it would create jobs and it would be the centre of excellence in the community and the way they look upon education for the future. Jobs are a second component.
If we make education more attractive, if it is owned by the people in the regions, allows for choices, and provides boarding facilities during the week, that supports regional development - schools would be the hub.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an approach which would achieve economies of scale, and would most definitely achieve better educational service delivery in the bush.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I will be as succinct as I can. I thank the member for Braitling for covering such a wonderful plan so comprehensively.
This is about boarding schools. It is about the tragic national assessment program numeracy results. It is about a dream that many of us have that the same opportunities could be provided for rural and remote children as they are in larger centres like Darwin and Palmerston.
I worry that we have a government which appears to wait for things to break before they fix them; a government that waits until schools are overflowing before they finally make a decision to do something about them; and a government that waits until essential services completely break down before they do anything. I worry that if this is the process government uses we may be waiting a long time to get a concept like this up and running.
I will read from an Occasional Paper by Reverend Steve Etherington:
- It’s about jobs: not overcrowding. It’s about jobs: not about culture or ethnicity or missions, or history. It’s about jobs: it is not about grog and drug
abuse. It’s about jobs: it’s not even about child abuse. All these are merely symptoms of long-term unemployment. It’s about jobs.
Mr CHANDLER: Reverend Steve Etherington went on to say:
- I want Aboriginal children now living in the remote communities to grow up with equal access to the full range of jobs done by other Australians.
- The federal government’s intervention responded to the issue of child abuse. My argument is that child abuse is simply the most distressing of the
symptoms produced in any human group by very long-term unemployment of a whole group. This is not about race, or ethnicity, and it is especially
not about culture. It is about what happens to people - any people - without any hope of work. What we see now in remote Aboriginal Australia is
what we see in third-generation unemployed and unemployable families anywhere.
Reverend Etherington went on to say:
- The best way to end child abuse is to provide real jobs to adults, to create a working lifestyle. This would also begin to rectify the other self-destructive
impacts of underemployment and unemployment such as substance abuse, uncontrolled gambling and domestic violence.
There are obstacles, as outlined by Reverend Etherington:
the absence of an existing visible and exemplar workforce motivating and supporting school learning;
the dysfunction of home lives and collapse of traditional disciplines; and
the small scale of social groups which makes provision of mainstream educational access impossible.
- The inevitable conclusion is that people will need to move to where education and employment can be created and provided.
It is about education, jobs, and so much more. If we need to, we should enforce school attendance - no matter what. As the member for Braitling pointed out, perhaps this is the key. In an organised and well funded way, regardless of objections from successful white people who attended school because they were made to, we need to train and employ specialist police as truancy officers.
I again quote Reverend Etherington:
- Governments must summon the courage and the very serious financial commitment to take some practical steps. If taken, they will begin the process of setting
free subsequent generations of Aboriginal children from lives of fear and self-destructive behaviours. Any other form of intervention is simply going to fail by
applying a cheap solution to what has now become our most expensive national problem.
I will finish with Reverend Steve Etherington saying:
- I want Aboriginal children to grow up with equal access to the full range of jobs done by other Australians. They will be hurt much less by the massive and disruptive
process of achieving this, than by leaving them in the economic and spiritual poverty of their present lives.
I would seriously like to see this government take on a concept like this. At least, give it some thought. To do any less, as a parliament, is really doing a disservice to our traditional people of the Northern Territory of Australia.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his motion. I genuinely believe what he has said and the attempts he is making, and this parliament agrees with him that there are some major issues out there. We have never denied that. When I became Education minister nearly a year ago and was confronted with the statistics we have in our very remote and remote communities - this is a blight on the Territory. We have to get better and do better, and this government, since 2001, has been doing that.
The investment by this government - not just in dollar terms, but also in policy - by implementing Learning Lessons, is probably the most comprehensive report commissioned. It was commissioned by the CLP government in 1998-99; it could see the pressure it was getting, both nationally and on a state level, and that the statistics confronting them in Indigenous literacy and numeracy were not good enough. The new members on that side might be better informed if they look at Learning Lessons, because that was over 10 years ago. If you look at that report and you look at the scenario today, it creates much frustration, because since 2001 there has been a significant input of funding and resources, and yet we are seeing some of those statistics going backwards.
Member for Braitling, I want you to know part of the history of Learning Lessons. You may not remember, as a new person - I do not know how long you have been in the Territory - the CLP government closed Dhupuma College in 1980, which was probably the best Aboriginal college in Arnhem Land. If you look at those leaders in Arnhem Land such as Mandawuy Yunupingu, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Reggie Wurridjal, who is the leader and senior traditional owner in my community, and Harry Nelson, all have reached high educational attainment - all came out of Dhupuma College. For whatever reason, the CLP of the day did not like it, and decided to close it. There was devastation within those communities and education went backwards. Dhupuma was producing the leaders we see today.
The leaders are getting older and we all recognise that there is a 20 to 30 year gap between those leaders and the younger generation. Residential colleges were part of the landscape in the Northern Territory. The member for Nhulunbuy can tell you that her constituents still talk about Dhupuma. It should have been supported and kept in that region. All of those leaders are very well educated. Mandawuy, Galarrwuy, Reggie, Harry Nelson, and others, are very articulate and well educated leaders.
We have boarding schools in the Territory to cater for secondary students from Years 7 to 12. They are one of a range of options for secondary students living in the remote areas and are supported by the Australian government through Abstudy and the Isolated Student Education Allowance. When parents want their children to continue their education beyond primary school through a boarding school, the following options are available.
There 1111 boarding places available in the Northern Territory with 929 students enrolled and 182 vacancies; 93.9% of these students are Indigenous. Seven schools in the Northern Territory provide onsite boarding facilities for students – St John’s College, which was my old school; and Kormilda College in Darwin; St Philip’s College and Yirara College in Alice Springs; Nyangatjatjarra College; Woolaning Christian School in Litchfield National Park; and Pickertaramoor College, on the Tiwi Islands, a new college. These are just some of those colleges in the remote areas of the Northern Territory.
I note Pickertaramoor College came about because the Tiwi leaders came to a crossroads and there was much anguish among the leaders, such as Walter and Robert Tipungwuti and others, who realised that the 20-year gap between their education and some of our Tiwi kids was too great. Their vision was that the money received from economic development and also the work with the federal government through the 99-year leases, would secure the money to build the facility at Pickertaramoor. It is still early and they are having some problems. The kids go there during the week and then go home on weekends. I know from talking to Peter McNamara there are many teething problems. I take my hat off to Peter McNamara; the Tiwi college is very lucky to have someone like him leading as the principal. He is doing a fantastic job facing and confronting many of the issues.
Marrara Christian School in Darwin operates a group home model for remote students who attend the school. St Mary’s also provides this service for students attending schools in Alice Springs. In Katherine, the department operates a boarding hostel, Callistemon House, for students who attend Katherine High School. Aboriginal Hostels Limited operates Fordimail in Katherine. In Tennant Creek, the Wangkana Kari Hostel accommodates students attending the Tennant Creek High School.
I have no philosophical or ideological opposition to residential colleges - I believe placing them strategically in the regions is a good idea. It is something we commenced over a year ago in negotiations with the federal government. There will be four residential colleges in the Northern Territory.
We will be doing trials in the East Arnhem area, through Transforming Indigenous Education, to set up the same models as the Katherine West Health Board. I was very fortunate to be the founding director of Katherine West Health Board and involved in the establishment and development of that organisation. It is a regional service and it shows that, with community control, you can change the outcomes on the ground. The member for Nhulunbuy will take a big part in driving that process for the communities in her electorate
The second part will be in the Warlpiri Triangle, where a residential college facility will be located for those Warlpiri communities.
I made a statement in this House in April: Transforming Indigenous Education. There were five key principles under that strategy. The first principle was: Taking Control of our Future by setting up the Community Partnership Education Boards, like the Katherine West Health Board model. The second principle was: Sturdy Foundations - early learning development family centres. This recognises that we need residential colleges for secondary education. However, if we are going to make any difference to the NAPLAN results, we have to target early childhood - early childhood and primary education is the area we have to change. I am not saying that we ignore secondary or the middle schools, but we have to do early childhood as well. The third principle was: Staying on Country – a part of that is community-based residential hostels. The fourth principle was: Fit for Learning - health and wellbeing support services. The fifth principle was: Growing our Own – a strategy to build our local Indigenous workforce.
All Aboriginal teachers in our schools are now employed by the department of Education; they are full-time employees. We have transferred the employment contracts of all those Aboriginal teachers and they are now on full-time employment contracts with the department of Education - they are full-time Northern Territory government employees.
The Henderson government, with Transforming Indigenous Education, was looking at an holistic approach to examine and address the outcomes that we wanted and the changes that we need to make to turn around the NAPLAN results, which the member for Braitling talked about. They are not good enough.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the member for Greatorex, who, I believe, said on radio and also in this parliament today - probably one of the bravest statements I have ever heard come out of the mouth of a CLP member – that: ‘Successive CLP governments have failed, successive Labor governments have failed. Governments have failed Aboriginal people’. I am not trying to politicise it or wedge it here; I thought what the member for Greatorex said was quite genuine. It was good to get an honest comment - finally the penny drops with people over there. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex for saying that - he has more guts than some on the other side in this regard.
Member for Braitling, you are absolutely right: attendance is an issue. We now have 30 attendance officers on the ground in those communities, particularly targeting the communities with systemic attendance problems. In my own electorate at Maningrida, where the enrolments are around 600, there are fewer than 100 kids going to school - not good enough - we agree. Tie school attendance to welfare quarantining: that was something we put up years ago to the Prime Minister, John Howard and Mal Brough. We are not against that. I agree with you; we should look at that system. Jenny Macklin made the announcement last year that there are six trial sites in the Northern Territory: Katherine; Tiwi Islands; Maningrida - I can get you the list of the six communities - where we will start trialling tying welfare payments to school attendance in 2009. That is happening, member for Braitling.
The member for Brennan talked about Reverend Steve Etherington. I have had a lot of discussions with Pastor Steve. He was a pastor for a long time at Oenpelli, in Gunbalanya. We had discussions where we agreed and others where we disagreed. One thing that we disagreed on was my view - I sound like a broken record sometimes – that we are not going to fix the plight of children on the ground, in communities, until we deal with substance abuse. Until we are brave enough to get rid of the grog, the ganja, the gambling - all those issues - we are not going to improve the lot of our kids.
I do not just stand in this parliament and say that; I go out there and say that to communities. It is a debate that we take on, as local members in our electorates, every day we are out there, saying that we have to fix up substance abuse. You can give people jobs and we have to create an economy out there; we have to get things happening. However, whilst you have substance abuse in those communities, you are never going to fix the lot of those kids.
I am not saying total prohibition - that is my view. I know that prohibition does not work and that people are entitled to drink. In the debate on substance abuse, people often say it is their right to drink, however, no one ever looks at the rights of the child and whether that child has the right to say: ‘Mum and dad, I do not want you to be drunk tonight, I do not want you to be playing cards, and I actually want to be fed’. Often, people forget the rights of those children.
I agree that education is the way forward. We do have to fix up the system and ensure we have a robust system so we can get the literacy and numeracy outcomes we all want to see. It is the right of those Aboriginal children to have access to the best education system like any child in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs. That is their right. As government, we should be making sure our schools have the resources and are equipped. However, it is not just about the school. You have to fix up the whole environment within the community to make it happen.
I thank you for bringing on this motion, particularly in relation to Indigenous education. I have said this to the member for Araluen regarding issues of child protection - there are certain areas that require bipartisan support. We should be working together to get the best outcomes we can for Indigenous kids in those communities, rather than politicising, nitpicking, and saying our policy is better than your policy - agreeing that this is what is best. We do have to get better.
Member for Braitling, I acknowledge and agree with much of what you said. They are things that we are doing; we are getting on with the job. I have had a number of discussions with Julia Gillard, the federal Education minister, about how we might move forward.
However, I am curious, because the Leader of the Opposition has made statements and I have heard him saying we should be extending the bilingual program, and then I hear you tonight saying that you want to scrap it; that it is a CLP policy. I am confused about who the leader is or who the education spokesperson is, because he says one thing and you say another.
I do not agree with you that we should scrap language and culture; it has an important role to play. However, encouraging those communities to take on English for the first four hours, and making sure that English and maths …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I actually never said scrap language or culture at all. I actually said we should invest in it more.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member be given an extension of time so she can complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you Madam Speaker. Member for Braitling, if you think I have wrongly quoted you, you could do a personal explanation. However, if you read Hansard tomorrow, you will see the CLP policy is that they do not agree with bilingual.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I was just curious. That is all. I am not going to make a big deal of it. However, the Leader of the Opposition says one thing and the member for Braitling says another thing. That is fine. If they cannot get that right, how the hell are they going to get education right? If they cannot decide what they are going to do, if they cannot get that right, how are they going to move forward to fix education in the Northern Territory?
Member for Braitling, we have been publishing the MAP results, the Multi-Assessment Program figures on our website. I posted them from last year. We have been publishing those results since we came to government. They were never published under your mob; there was never any data collected or published by the CLP.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Those MAP results were never published under the CLP.
A member: Shame.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The National Assessment Program, the NAPLAN, results are put onto the website because that is all part of our transparency and accountability. It will ensure Territorians have a clear and transparent understanding of these figures. They will become a permanent feature of the disclosure in the future because it is that kind of disclosure we all require if we are to measure our progress.
We also launched the Accountability and Performance Improvement Framework, which identifies literacy and numeracy targets that have been developed by schools - something they did not do. All schools will use NAPLAN to inform their teaching and learning programs. We also have the schools’ online NAPLAN reporting and analysis tool which will be implemented in all Northern Territory schools from Term 4 of 2008. That tool provides information about student responses to NAPLAN questions and helps identify the literacy and numeracy learning needs of individual students. Our government is committed to quality education for all students. We have a huge challenge in the bush, one that I know we may not get right. However, we have to start somewhere.
We are on the road and moving forward. I know every member, bush members and other members of our government, with support from the Chief Minister, the Treasurer, all my colleagues on this side, are supportive in the challenge ahead. I know that it is a long road, however, it is a challenge we are looking forward to.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Brennan and Arafura for their contributions. It is an important matter and that is why I have not sought to politicise it. However, I did notice that you got a couple of cracks in there at the end - I thought that was really nice.
To clarify my comments on bilingual education,
I said:
- Our policy goes further. We support children receiving an education in English for the full school day, assisted by a bilingual teacher. I am a person who
quite passionately supports language, law, and culture, both their preservation and renewal.
I went on to ad lib, however, my notes say:
- I understand the movement to full English-based education will test some people. However, to complement the government policy position, the Country
Liberals will introduce what might loosely be called ‘cultural classes’, as they do in other areas around Australia, for other ethnic groups. These will be
proper classes administered by the school system, providing jobs for local Aboriginal people to be employed to teach language, law, language and
culture as they see fit after school.
Therefore, to say that I will be moving away from culture is completely wrong. It is a shame that you have actually said it, because I was listening quite intently.
I will be interested to see whether you support the motion, because it is pretty simple: secondary schools with boarding facilities. You said we copied your current policy. I know there are already institutions out there which provide this service. I believe there needs to be an extension to other areas for more facilities. When you see the 2001 and 2006 census results, which show that fewer than 4000 students are going to school - I do not know what the current figure is – it is clear that something needs to change in policy and program areas, and infrastructure, and how it will be done.
One thing I believe was very strong with the intervention last year - no matter which elements you support or do not support - was the height that Indigenous issues - for want of a better word – reached, where people saw them in a national light. It had a face and it had a person who was fully accountable about those issues - Mal Brough. Whether you agree with what he said or did not say, he was at the forefront providing guidance and leadership on certain issues, and that continued while he was there. He was a person who would make a decision and make sure that the money was there. We hear a lot from the member for Daly about the SIHIP program, which is federal government money, and what came from that - the money that has come to the Territory as a result of Mal Brough being able to take it on the chin, make decisions and get the money - was very important.
The problem we have now in the Northern Territory, that we are all well aware of, is the issues are slowly fading away due to the lack of a face leading the debate. I know the government is still doing things in these areas, however, the lack of someone on the front foot to lead the debate is a serious issue.
Ms Lawrie: Minister Macklin was here this week.
Mr GILES: I do not think that the federal government is a … Sorry, I did not hear that.
Ms Lawrie: I said that minister Macklin was here this week.
Mr GILES: My argument is that the federal government is not providing the leadership which was delivered last year, or what is required to maintain the level of urgency in order to deliver the outcomes we need. The issue of 100% of child welfare payments tied to school attendance is an important issue. I do not believe it should be trialled in six areas; I believe it should be rolled out. If there is bipartisan support we, as a parliament, should be fighting the federal government to roll it out.
Ms Scrymgour: It is not about fighting with them, it is about working with them …
Mr GILES: Well, choose your words however you wish …
Ms Scrymgour: … and we are doing that.
Mr GILES: Things need to happen and they need to happen with a level of urgency. As every day goes - and I know this will take a long time to fix - there is another day on the back end, and maybe that day will multiply or quadruple. We need to continue to move.
We are all well aware of the housing shortages in the bush. The quotes are in the billions of dollars; people throw figures around, but it is around $3bn or $2bn in shortage. If we are spending $547m over the next five years in the SIHIP program, that is not going to be enough. The question is: what policy decisions are taken so we have the money there so we can build those houses? It does not all have to come from government, but something needs to happen. That is why the policy needs to be strengthened.
Madam Speaker, I apologise for not getting up immediately at the end of the minister for Education’s speech. However, I was surprised that on an issue like education, which I believe is quite important, no one else spoke. Everyone is keen to read a scripted speech about a ministerial statement when they know the words, but do not have the ability to talk about something that is important. I have a couple of quotes here from two maiden speeches; I will not name who gave the speeches, I will just read a couple of paragraphs. This is from a maiden speech by a member from the other side:
- I am confident in saying that we all share a common obligation and commitment to country, community and family regardless of where we were born or our background.
Whilst we Indigenous members may have this common obligation, I believe all of us in this parliament have an obligation to development and invest in our greatest
asset: the people of the Northern Territory.
I quote another sentence:
We need to build this trust by investing in the infrastructure of these communities to a standard that will help build a better life.
I quote another one, and will not say whose it is:
Looking after the bush helps all Territorians. Better health and education outcomes in the bush helps all of the Territory. Better infrastructure in the bush helps all
Territorians. I will stand up for my electorate and for Indigenous people in the Territory, but I want to do so in a way that brings the rest of society with us.
Those are three important points people made in their maiden speeches, and I respect that. Despite it being 11 pm, or whatever it is- despite it being late, I would have thought people from the other side would have had a chat about that ...
A member interjecting.
Mr GILES: This is not government propaganda; this is about trying to have a bipartisan approach to solve some issues. To stand up here and try to move something forward and people will not even get up and talk about it, but are happy to talk some nonsense all day long in ministerial statements scripted by one of the 500 or 50 people, or whatever you have working up on level five, is a bit embarrassing. I take my job seriously. I am working here late at night like everyone else. Just because it is late, and it is not a motion put forward by the government, does not mean that members from the other side cannot get up and talk about education and try to work in a bipartisan way. There are ways we can work together on these issues.
Mr Knight: How many spoke on that side? One.
Ms Carney: You do not want too many to speak because you think you will be here too late.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I am going to sit down now. I recognise that the …
Dr Burns: No more sit-down money.
Mr GILES: You support welfare, do you? You support welfare. That is what made you a great ambassador for the Territory. Listen to the man. This is the man …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, you will direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, this is the member for sit-down money. All he cares about is putting welfare out there for people on the ground. We spoke here about how important it is to tie welfare …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member for Braitling likes to get really animated because it is all part of his act. He should just direct his comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: He criticises my colleagues and, yet …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, there is no point of order.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the education shadow spokesperson, the Leader of the Opposition …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, there is no point of order. Deputy Chief Minister, resume your seat.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … did not value this and could not even speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, resume your seat! Member for Braitling, direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr Conlan: That is like the Chief Minister not speaking on the Alice MPI the other night.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting.
Mr GILES: I am quite sure I am facing this way when I am addressing you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the member for Johnston wants to interject about sit-down money. Apparently he wants more welfare ...
A member: Member for sit-down.
Mr GILES: The member for sit-down over here is very keen to see more welfare go out, but he is not keen on jobs …
Dr Burns: Do not verbal me.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: No, they stand there and talk about economic direction of the Third Reich and all that sort of stuff, and about regions but, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty about some real policy approaches, all we get is nonsense comments by the member for sit-down money about: ‘Let us have more sit-down’. Fair dinkum, mate, this is about education. I stood up here and tried to have a proper policy debate, Madam Speaker, and to have nonsense at the end is a joke, and that is how …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Order!
Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The question has already been put.
The question is that the motion be now agreed to.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016