2011-03-30
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly and member for Giles, the Honourable Lynette Breuer MP, and the Government Whip and member for Torrens, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Araluen Christian School students together with Mr Rupert Croutz and Mrs Annette Uldrich. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 262 petitioners praying that the basketball stadium in the grounds of the Centralian Middle School in Alice Springs be removed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
we object to not being advised of the intention to build the stadium;
we object to the height of the building which blocks many residents views of the beautiful MacDonnell Ranges;
we object to the noise and antisocial behaviour of people using the facility at all hours of the day and night.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move –
Madam Speaker, we are in the sittings of the Alice Springs parliament and this is a very important motion we will be debating today. As well as the issues of crime and antisocial behaviour being real talking points and a genuine concern in this town, the potential of having a uranium mine 20 km away - on this town’s doorstep - is a significant issue for the people of Alice Springs.
Every time I attend parliament in Alice Springs people want to talk about this issue. A minority of people support this mine; however, the vast majority of people I have spoken to over 11 years of coming to Alice Springs as a member of parliament are genuinely and sincerely concerned about and opposed to it.
It is an important time today for everyone in this parliament, particularly the members who represent seats in Alice Springs, to put their position firmly on the record. What we have seen in recent times has been absolutely astounding. The hypocrisy of the opposition’s position on this, and individual members who hold seats in Alice Springs, has been breathtaking in relation to the positions and contrary positions people have held. I am interested to see everyone on their feet today, particularly those who represent electors in Alice Springs.
My government - everyone standing or sitting beside me - has a united position. We oppose a potential uranium mine 20 km from the doorstep of Alice Springs residents. The reason is not because we oppose uranium mining - we do not. We will support uranium mines which can be developed in the Northern Territory and meet all the legal requirements of environmental suitability, and all the occupational health and safety issues that surround uranium mines - all those checks and balances provided for in the approvals process.
As a government we also have a responsibility to take into consideration community attitudes and concerns. Mining companies need a social right and community acceptance to operate as well as meeting all the technical requirements. Over the years it has become clearer to me - as the Chief Minister and previously as a member of parliament and a minister for various portfolio areas - it is not just the green radical fringe that opposes a potential uranium mine 20 km from Alice Springs. It is genuine concern of people in the heartland suburbs.
People who are normally in the middle ground or the conservative side of politics are genuinely concerned for a number of reasons. First, the reputation of the town: people say Alice Springs is not a mining town. The whole culture of the town would change. People would not have chosen to live in Alice Springs if they were coming to a mining town. That is pretty subjective; however, it is clearly held by a number of people. People also have significant concerns about the environmental and potential health issues. I reached the point where, regardless of what the sign said, many people would have said it is not acceptable to have a uranium mine over an aquifer that provides water for the people of Alice Springs. Genuine and good people were concerned about that to the point of: there is uranium elsewhere in the Northern Territory; why do we need a mine that potentially compromises the health of the community? I understand the argument about let the science process that; however, I reached the point where regardless of that people thought 20 km away from their front door was a bridge too far and one they did not want to cross.
The third area that really concerned me, as Chief Minister, was the genuine concerns of people in the tourism industry. People in the tourism industry operating a small business, medium-sized business, also international touring companies that do business in Alice Springs had very real, almost hysterical, concerns that if a uranium mine was approved it would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs. All the reasons people come from around the world to visit Alice Springs would be destroyed by what would occur. The reality - and the opposition members as politicians should understand this - of what would occur if the company moves for approval to a mining lease over that area – is there would be the mother of all campaigns against it.
There would be an international campaign focused by The Greens; that would be the mother of all campaigns against that mine. All sorts of allegations and hysteria would be raised around it which would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs as a tourism destination. The businesses that have developed and evolved over time are virtually unanimous in saying they do not believe they could recover from the intensity of a campaign run against an approval process for this mine. It would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs; it would destroy their businesses. Anyone who understands the economy of Alice Springs understands the critical and central part tourism plays to that economy. Everyone understands the number of businesses that are entirely, or in part, sustained by the tourist dollar being spent in Alice Springs.
From the tourism industry’s point of view, not only the fact Alice Springs could be portrayed as a mining town, it was also terrified of what it knew would occur - the mother of all campaigns. If we thought the campaigns in Kakadu were significant, as a politician I know what would happen with a uranium mine application in Alice Springs.
As Chief Minister, I reached a point - and the Cabinet and the parliamentary team - that it was a really tough decision to make. Everyone knows I am pro-development, pro-industry, and have been all my life. I am a tradesman. I have worked in the mining industry; I have got my hands dirty in the mining industry. I have worked underground; I have worked above ground. I have worked on ships and on the tools. I believe in development, I believe in jobs, I am a supporter of the mining industry and a supporter of industry in general.
It is not that the Chief Minister is a radical hostage to The Greens. It was a very big bridge I had to get across, but a bridge built out of responsibility and a sense of this community genuinely and passionately saying this is a bridge too far for Alice Springs. The turmoil, the debate, the hostility that would be let out of the bottle here, we do not need. Our economy can continue to grow. We do not need this mine to cement the future economy of Alice Springs. We have other arrows in our quiver we can fire to develop the economy. People are not anti-mining in Alice Springs; however, this bridge was a bridge too far for the majority of people to cross.
It was a tough decision. It was an agonising decision to say to the company even though we have granted an exploration lease, even though the Northern Territory government does not have any approvals required in processing an application for a mine because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 leaves those decisions to the Commonwealth government, if it applied for an application to mine, our public position would be that this mine should not go ahead and we would put that position to the Australian government.
That is the position the government has taken. We have said to the company we issued an exploration licence which in no way should be read as a guaranteed automatic approval for a mine will follow. Any legal due diligence a company would run over an application for an exploration licence would clearly show it is a very small step along the way to full-blown acceptance and provision of a mining lease, and any issuing of an exploration lease should not be seen as an indication of a future approval process for a mine.
We took that principled decision, a decision based on many years of hearing what the people of Alice Springs had to say.
I have had doctors and health profession workers saying: ‘I have come to Alice Springs to practice medicine because I have a passionate commitment to Indigenous health and using my skills to improve the lives of Indigenous people. I brought my family here. However, I would have not done that if I was coming to a mining town, particularly a town that mines uranium’. I take all those issues into consideration.
The government made a decision and made the announcement. We met with the company; of course it is not happy - I accept that. It was a pretty tough meeting. At the end of the day, when you are elected as a government and are given a position to lead, you have to lead. The government also advised the company any further work it did on the site is done in the knowledge the current government would oppose any application for a mine. We are putting our cards on the table, giving the company that information to deal with as it wishes. That is the background to the decision made, and there is unanimous support within my government for that decision.
Let us move to the position of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is laughing and rolling up his sleeves. It will be interesting to see his position – he has been very quiet on this issue. Government has taken the principled position. The opposition has taken a political position which has not only been misleading the people of Alice Springs, it lies to the people of Alice Springs. There are several prospective uranium mines in the Territory at various stages of approval that have the government’s in-principle support subject to the strict environmental and other conditions that need to be met. That is now on the record.
Let us look at the CLP position. It is so hopelessly divided - a total lack of leadership. He has been missing in action on this issue and no one would know the position of the Leader of the Opposition. We know his deputy, the member for Goyder, is an absolute rock-solid supporter of uranium mining, and of mining the Angela Pamela deposit. I acknowledge the position of the member for Goyder because for many years she was the CE of the Northern Territory Minerals Council whilst I was minister for Mines. I appreciate the member for Goyder has had a consistent, public position of being a supporter of the uranium industry and of this particular project. I appreciate that position, and acknowledge the passion the member for Goyder has for the mining industry and, to a large part, I share that passion.
The member for Fong Lim has been consistent in his position to support a potential uranium mine at Angela Pamela, and whatever anyone thinks about the member for Fong Lim, he plays the ball very hard. He made his position very clear; he has nailed his colours to the mast and, in a number of leaked e-mails, the member for Fong Lim has implored the party internally to turn its position around from one of opposing a potential mine at Angela Pamela to supporting it. We have two people in the opposition with principled positions who have stuck to their positions, and I acknowledge that.
Let us look at some of the other members of the opposition, particularly those who hold seats in Alice Springs. The member for Greatorex - well, well, well, I thought I had nearly seen it all in politics. I have not only been involved in the rough and tumble for over 20 years in the Northern Territory. When you are in this business you read widely about politics, locally, nationally and internationally; you follow the debate and you follow the ups and downs of people in political life. I thought I had nearly seen it all, but when we had another leak - so dysfunctional and divisive are the relationships in the opposition at the moment - when we received a copy of a leaked e-mail from the member for Greatorex to a person in Cameco about his position which was unknown to the public but certainly known to Cameco, what he was saying publicly - my goodness!
I thought I had seen every political trick in the book; however, he has written a new one with the level of deceit, deception - I will not say lie because this is not a censure debate; in any other forum I would use that word - to his constituents about his position. He has been caught red-handed, hook, line and sinker in being deceptive and misleading to a treacherous capacity to the people who voted for him. There has been treachery in his position. I believe we tabled this in the last sittings; however, I will table it again. Let me read from his e-mail:
He is saying to Cameco he will get around at night and put information into the letterboxes of the ‘no uranium mine’ people in his electorate. The person from Cameco said: ‘We are putting together a new strategy for 2010 and we will give consideration to your idea. We will let you know as soon as we have more clarity’.
Quite appropriately, Cameco was trying to engage the community and work with a local politician. Here comes the mother of all statements and goes to the great deception from the member for Greatorex. I do not know how he sleeps at night given he has held four different positions so far. I will go to these comments:
He is suggesting a media strategy to the company to get a positive uranium message out to convince the mums and dads. He went on to say:
He is being quite disparaging of some genuine community groups and talks about a mining company using its financial resources to out-muscle a community concern. He is saying: use your muscle; flex your muscles; throw some money at this. He went on:
He continued:
We have a politician in Alice Springs who had previously been, and still is, on the public record as opposing any potential uranium mine 20 km away from his constituents in Alice Springs, colluding with the company and suggesting ways it can out-muscle the campaign, the media strategy it should run, and encouraging it to put out a positive message. This is in total contradiction to his commitment to constituents in his electorate. In my time I have never seen anything as deceptive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: ... as this. He deliberately misled the people of Alice Springs. Can you trust the member for Greatorex on this or any other issue again? Could you trust the member for Greatorex when he is telling his constituents he supports this mine and, on the other hand, he is complicit with the company regarding a media strategy to convince and out-muscle people? It will be interesting to hear the member for Greatorex today say whether he stands by his support and commitment to a potential mine with Cameco, or sticks with his stated public position to his constituents of opposing the mine. His constituents deserve to know that.
Let us go to the member for Araluen’s position and her statements on this issue in the recent Araluen by-election. She used her opposition of a potential mine as a key plank in her election campaign. It was, front and centre, part of her election campaign. On the Tuesday before the by-election she ran an advertisement in the Centralian Advocate titled - and I table the advertisement - ‘Where Do The Parties Stand?’ ‘Take a Good Hard Look’. No 1 on the commitments list was to oppose the Angela Pamela uranium mine. It was the Country Liberals first tick - before crime, an action plan for Araluen, a real boot camp, bringing the CCTV monitoring and police back to Alice Springs, reopening the Alice Springs communications centre so calls are answered locally, and an extra 20 police on the beat. The front and centre message delivered to constituents was her total opposition to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. This ad was placed on the Tuesday before the by-election – No 1 commitment: ‘If you elect me, the Country Liberals will oppose this mine’; not No 4 or No 5, but No 1.
She then wrote to every person in the electorate - and I table a copy of a letter issued in the by-election campaign. Along with several other things, very clearly: ‘I am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. I, Robyn Lambley, seeking your vote on Saturday, am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine’. That would have gone as a direct mail-out to 2500 households in Araluen saying: ‘Vote for me on Saturday, I am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine’. I table that also.
We also had during the campaign a CLP flyer saying: ‘A vote for Labor is still a vote for the mine’. Not only were they saying, only four months ago, they did not support this mine and never would in government, they were also totally deceptive of our position. They campaigned really strongly on this issue. They not only campaigned on a positive for the member for Araluen, they campaigned against our position on it. This was front and centre as part of their campaign.
Now, four months later, where are we? It is very unclear at the moment whether it is the parliamentary wing of the opposition or the faceless shadows in the backrooms of the party who have instructed the hapless Leader of the Opposition to change his position on this. The Leader of the Opposition has been silent since, as we understand it through media commentary, the good old boys and girls of the Central Council, the faceless people in the backrooms of the party not elected by the people of the Northern Territory, instructed this weak and desperate Opposition Leader to overturn his position and support the position of the members for Fong Lim and Goyder.
That is what has happened. They have been instructed by the unelected backroom boys and girls to overturn the Leader of the Opposition’s position on this and totally override the commitments made by the members for Greatorex and Araluen, and front and centre of the absolutely helpless and weak position the Leader of the Opposition has is his deputy.
The Deputy Leader is supposed to be loyal to the leader. You have to be absolutely confident your deputy is rock-solid behind you on every public position you take. It is a pity I do not have those e-mails from the member for Fong Lim; I will get them for another part of the day. We know the Leader of the Opposition is totally at odds with his deputy, not only on this issue, but many others. They decided internally to oppose the position of the leader but, of course, would not say that until after the polls had closed in Araluen.
Earlier this year, it was suggested in the Northern Territory News that the Leader of the Opposition was in the member for Fong Lim’s camp as a potential future leader of the Country Liberal Party. We know the member for Fong Lim probably has four or five votes. He certainly has more than one. We think he has about four or five, and have every reason to believe the member for Goyder is in the member for Fong Lim’s camp, and the Leader of the Opposition is so weak he is unable to do anything about it. He is unable to cast the member for Goyder adrift, send her to the backbench and get someone who is loyal to him. I thank you, Deputy Leader, for providing me with more evidence of this.
The leaks coming from the opposition to us - there is a leak a day at the moment trying to undermine the Leader of the Opposition. This e-mail from the member for Fong Lim, Tuesday, 25 January, to the deputy - this is an e-mail …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: This is an e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition copied to the rest of the parliamentary wing. This is how tight the member for Goyder is with the member for Fong Lim. This comes on the back of an e-mail sent from the Leader of the Opposition to his parliamentary team - his colleagues - at the start of the year saying this is going to be a good year for the Country Liberal Party in the Territory. However, he did not send his best wishes for the New Year to the member for Fong Lim. Who forwarded the e-mail to the member for Fong Lim? The loyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition: ‘Dave, you were missed out; Terry forgot to copy you in’. Forgot to copy him in! The loyal Deputy Leader went to the person she wants to see leading the Country Liberal Party, saying: ‘Dave, you better see this’. Dave replied saying: ‘Kezia, thanks for thinking of me. No one else thinks of me. The Leader of the Opposition does not think of me. I thank you, Deputy Leader, for thinking of me’.
He went on to say - it is a fantastic e-mail, I do not have time to read it all:
It certainly is not.
He then went on to talk about the main reason the opposition has vacated the stage, apart from the Leo Abbott shenanigans, has been the issue of Angela Pamela. It is not highlighted here, but I will find it. He says …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister is quoting from that document; I ask that he table it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, I am happy to table leaked e-mails. Did you not …
Mr ELFERINK: The whole thing, Madam Deputy Speaker. Everything he is quoting from - nothing edited out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Chief Minister, are you prepared to table that document?
Mr HENDERSON: I am prepared to …
Members interjecting.
Madam Deputy SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: I am prepared to table the leaked e-mail, particularly the recent chapter about Terry cowering in a restaurant for six hours. I am trying to find the bit about Angela Pamela, it is in here. I will have someone find it for me.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: We have absolute division; we have absolute deception; we have absolute disloyalty from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in regard to the proposed Angela Pamela uranium mine. This shows the people of the Northern Territory …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The same standing order I referred to earlier: the documents have not been tabled. He said he would table them. He should table those documents, not send them off to be vetted by the Deputy Chief Minister while she removes anything that might embarrass the government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said I will table, when I have concluded my remarks, the copy of the leaked e-mails between the Leader of the Opposition, his parliamentary wing and his disloyal Deputy Leader. We know the member for Fong Lim has challenged once and is marshalling the numbers to challenge again - we have that information; it all comes to us. We will put it all on the public record …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, can we confirm what you are tabling?
Mr HENDERSON: … and trawl through it again. If the member for Port Darwin wants me to keep talking about the internal disloyalty and treachery in the CLP, I am happy to do so.
This goes to the member for Fong Lim’s position. He said: ‘We are a party that believes in the structures put in place to scrutinise development proposals. This was the basis of our criticism of Labor on Arafura Harbour. Why would we then take an exact opposite path in relation to Angela Pamela?’ He said donations from the business community have completely dried up since the weak and helpless Opposition Leader took that position on Angela Pamela, and support in the business community is the tide running out because no one knows what the Country Liberal Party stands for any more under the Leader of the Opposition.
We have members in Alice Springs saying to their constituents the Country Liberals do not, will not, and will never support a uranium mine at Angela Pamela being overridden by the faceless men and women in Central Council who have directed the party to overturn its position, a position supported by the main challenger for the leadership, the member for Fong Lim, supported by the treacherous Deputy Leader of the Opposition, overriding the position taken by the CLP in a by-election campaign four months ago. It shows what a divided, deceptive party the Country Liberal Party is; one that could never be taken seriously on any issue until it cleans this up. It has been a very deceptive state of affairs.
If the member for Araluen is going to say in this debate ‘Despite the letters I sent you and the advertisements I took saying I would not support a uranium mine, I have now been instructed by people who do not live in Alice Springs to have another position’, she should at least stand up and apologise for the deceptive and misleading position she put. I challenge the member for Araluen to write to her constituents and apologise for the deceit and lies proffered during the campaign.
The member for Greatorex needs to do the same. He needs to state his position. He has had four different positions so far, and he needs to explain what he was doing colluding with a company that would seek to mine this, offering advice for a media strategy and suggesting they need to spend big to out-muscle opposition in Alice Springs.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to say whether she is loyal to the leader. Obviously, she is not. She was working with the member for Fong Lim in Central Council to overturn the public position of the Leader of the Opposition and, since all this has unfolded, the Leader of the Opposition has not said: ‘During the by-election campaign I said a Country Liberal Party under my leadership would not support an application to mine Angela Pamela’. Four months later he is so weak he has let Central Council and his parliamentary wing overturn that position and now says: ‘What I said four months ago I do not support now’.
The Leader of the Opposition and members opposite are all over the place on this. The only people with a consistent public position - and I admire them for it - are the members for Goyder and Fong Lim. We know where they stand; they have been consistent. The members from Alice Springs, and the Leader of the Opposition, need to state their position in this debate today. I support the motion.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod, and Deputy President of the Litchfield Council, Ms Plaxy Purich.
I also draw your attention to students from Year 4/5D at Bradshaw Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Ms Densley, Ms Pearson and Mrs Tudor.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The documents which were promised to be tabled are currently being pulled apart by the Deputy Chief Minister. I ask that all those documents be tabled so we can see everything the Chief Minister was quoting from. This vetting process, despite the promise of the Chief Minister to put this document on the - pages are being removed from this document.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please.
Mr Elferink: What are they doing? What do they have to hide?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister?
Mr HENDERSON: Come in, member for Port Darwin.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I am speaking. You had your go, sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: We finally have the rest.
Mr HENDERSON: I am happy to keep quoting from these e-mails, member for Port Darwin. Here we have Inspector Clouseau of the CLP - every time he comes out with a great political strategy. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, are you tabling these documents? Table the documents, please.
Mr Elferink: He has made his point. Tell him to put them on the table and get him to sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the documents. I am advising the House which documents I am tabling.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister, please table the documents.
Mr HENDERSON: I table them.
Mr Elferink: All he has to say is: I table the documents. That is the normal process.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: You are allowing him to abuse the processes of this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Chief Minister, I ask you to table the documents, please.
Mr HENDERSON: I table the documents. I am telling you what I am tabling.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He knows how to table a document. He is being cute, and you have given him an instruction.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Chief Minister, are you tabling these documents?
Mr HENDERSON: I am. I am advising the House what I am tabling. What is the point of tabling them without advising what they are?
Mr Elferink: You have given him an instruction. He either obeys that instruction or you throw him out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please.
Mr HENDERSON: I am tabling the documents as requested by the member for Fong Lim, and I am advising the House, and the people in the gallery, which documents I am tabling.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please pause while I seek advice from the Deputy Clerk. Thank you. Order!
The advice I have received is the Chief Minister is in a position to explain the documents he is tabling. Order, please, member for Port Darwin! Thank you. Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Goyder. I also table the leaked e-mail from the President of the Country Liberal Party to the parliamentary wing. It is very interesting reading. I table another leaked and anonymous e-mail from a member of the parliamentary wing to the member for Port Darwin requesting him to cease his political strategy because it is destroying the party. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Port Darwin to the member for Fong Lim, basically telling him to pull his head in and try a position as an Independent at the next election. I table a leaked e-mail from the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the next Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fong Lim. Happy reading! They are absolute gold and part of the political demise of the Leader of the Opposition ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Happy to table them.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just table them, Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The issue is there was a request for the documents to be tabled, which was consented to. However, they were passed to another member and, in full view of the opposition, were being pulled apart. That was in defiance of the instruction accepted by the Chief Minister. That is the issue: there was a tampering with the documents that were asked to be tabled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! As you would be aware, Leader of the Opposition, I was not in the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, I removed a bulldog clip. I am happy to provide the bulldog clip to the Table Office.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Yes, Leader of Government Business?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! For goodness sake, order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, I well remember in this House the former member for Greatorex tabling a document and, in the process of doing so, ripped the bottom off it, saying they were personal notes and other matters he did not want tabled. That is different from a bulldog clip.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, that is enough, thank you!
Dr BURNS: That matter was dealt with and, basically …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, order! Resume your seat, thank you.
Dr Burns: There is nothing out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: It was only a bulldog clip.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Deputy Chief Minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please resume your seats, honourable members.
Unfortunately, I was not here at the time. However, the standard procedure is a minister, depending on the type of documents, does not actually have to table the documents. The Chief Minister indicated he would table the documents, and has tabled them. I do not know whether other documents were taken out, but it is irrelevant because the Chief Minister was happy to table the documents.
Chief Minister, are you still on the call? You have finished speaking. That is probably a good thing.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Order!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have a motion for consideration by the parliament. We have an explanation by the government in bringing it forward; it has gone through its position and explained why it came to the position of opposing the application process and curtailed it with Angela Pamela. It cited issues around tourism, raised concerns within the Territory community - the Centralian community, in particular - and used that as the grounds for bringing this motion forward and justifying the position it made clear during the by-election.
We know exactly what this is about. No one would be under any illusion this is about cheap politics on behalf of a desperate government. That is what this is about. It is a shameful thing when people have spent much time in an effort to ensure issues of genuine concern to the people of Central Australia are being reflected upon that we have this misuse of parliament to score cheap political points.
By using such words as a ‘principled position’ - well crafted, but not a principled position; it is a cheap political position. You can make all the fun you want with the opportunities provided; you have had insights into conversations that occurred in the opposition. Well, that is regretful; nonetheless, we will push on and attend to the things that really matter.
One is hypocrisy. We have a Chief Minister with his smiling face on a media release issued in 2008 - and I am happy to table that – and one line from the release on 20 February 2008 starts with Chief Minister Paul Henderson and the Minister for Mines, Chris Natt - remember him and McArthur River, honourable members on the other side in defiance of Cabinet’s decision? - congratulating the successful application of the joint venture Cameco and Paladin to explore proven uranium deposits in Central Australia. Further down it said there was a record 37 applications received for the Pamela and Angela prospects, and a rigorous selection assessment overseen by independent probity experts, Stantons International was undertaken.
The media release said Cameco Paladin’s licence application would progress through the usual administrative procedures under the Mining Act, which includes an advertising period. That is the point: the fact there was concern in this community about this exploration licence progressing is a fact and well understood. I have spent time in Central Australia. I have listened to local members and residents and there are legitimate concerns. However, the only way to assess and properly respond to legitimate concerns is to allow a process to be concluded.
At the time of the by-election we were reflecting upon the concerns in this community which were legitimate, but those concerns could only be addressed by the completion of a process under the Mining Act as described and endorsed by the Chief Minister. That is the issue - 37 applications. Cutting a process in midstream has wide and far-reaching implications. We have a community with concerns, some ideologically driven, some genuine, because they are uncertain of the facts. Those facts need to be presented so a mature decision on behalf of a fully informed community can be made.
I find it appalling we could have leadership that would cut a process off at the knees to satisfy a short-term opportunity to score a political point. You are short-selling your community. You are not providing the necessary leadership; that is the issue.
There are two things perhaps a little difficult for the Chief Minister to understand; when you have concerns you have an obligation to respond to them and allow the confidence in a process to respond to them. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex has played his part in ensuring that process was going to provide the necessary facts. If the Chief Minister was fair dinkum he would have read that for what it was.
The last line is to ensure all facts are available so at the end of that process a decision can be made. Whether or not you agree with uranium mining you have to have, in proper governance, a process you can have confidence in otherwise you trash the joint. No one will be confident to deal with the Northern Territory. The community is going to be left short-changed and diminished as a result, and will not have the confidence to tackle difficult issues and progress on them.
That is the real issue. The major theme running here is obvious. There would be a temptation, if I were in government, to seize this sort of political opportunity; however, the community would expect you to ensure you attend to the real business and acknowledge a proper process needs to be followed. I support uranium mining. I support a process to ensure the matters of concern around that issue are properly resolved. I would be fully prepared, as I have in the past, to front an angry crowd with an alternative view to my own. If there was a group that wanted to meet, and wanted to protest because the party I represent principally supports uranium mining and it wanted to put their case, I would front it - no problem at all. I would want to take on board its concerns and ensure I understood what it had to say, and I would reassure everyone that there is a process which must be concluded in order for a decision to be made. What that decision will be can only be determined by those who have confidence in that process.
Now, we look at the Chief Minister. The fact is the Chief Minister knows full well what is at play here. The federal government makes this decision. The Chief Minister has cut a process off before it has concluded. This is the same Chief Minister who, when an idea is put on the board in the Top End over the development of Arafura Harbour - a proposal, a proposition, and idea - moved to the position because the members for Fannie Bay and Nightcliff, feeling some heat in their communities, said: ‘Knock it off, cut it off at the knees, do not talk about this any more’. He pulled the idea from consideration before it had been assessed.
Is not the response of a leader to allow an idea to progress and develop? Or is this a man lacking courage who wants only to play to the popular and short-term for political advantage right here right now, and to heck with the leadership required in difficult situations? Clearly, that is the situation. When it comes to Arafura Harbour, for example, allowing an idea with merit to be tested is the necessary and responsible next step. That is what should occur, and would occur under a Country Liberal government. Under a Labor administration, you do not even allow a controversial issue to be considered because it may threaten the political future of the member for Fannie Bay.
When it comes to a development in the Chief Minister’s own electorate of Wanguri, in the midst of a housing crisis when young families are crying out for more space in the market to get a toehold in the marketplace, there comes a proposition around a transport hub to have increased accommodation made available and the wider community supports such an initiative. Some people in the Chief Minister’s electorate voice their concerns. This Chief Minister weighed into the debate, as Chief Minister and as local member, and cut the process off at the knees – no more, we can it – and does not allow the process to be concluded. Is that evidence of a man with courage, conviction or principle? Absolutely not; it is quite the opposite.
Yesterday, we had a group of citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who wanted to make their voices heard. Though it may be uncomfortable, did the Chief Minister at least listen to what they had to say – no! Is that the action of a man of principle, a man of courage, and man who gives honour to the notion of leadership? Absolutely not. Where leadership is required the Chief Minister is absent. When there is an opportunity for politics to be played and distraction from the real issues, the Chief Minister is there front and centre; he seems to enjoy the game of politics.
This is not about politics. This is about how a community navigates through difficult decisions. For this reason, and seeing this motion for what it is, I believe, as my party believes, as fair thinking Territorians would believe, you have to have a process to allow a community to properly weigh the issues before a decision is made.
Consider the consequences of cutting something off at the knees. We have a lack of confidence in this government’s capacity to show courage where required; lack of ability in this government to provide leadership and steer the Territory through difficult times. This is where you end up with the lowest common denominator: make no decision, take no risk, and ensure we make decisions which are popular in the short term. Try raising a family like that; try running a community group making short-term decisions - you will not get very far. That is the leadership required; that is the point.
You can make all the fun you like of the other matters raised; however, most members will see this motion for what it is. The Chief Minister said it was a bridge too far. In order to cross a bridge there has to be a bridge. The Chief Minister has demolished the bridge and that is the issue of certainty; that we have certainty over a process which will allow a consideration of the merits or otherwise.
None of us are saying this is a project without contention. It has, and I have heard that. How we progress with that is the issue. A tremendous problem emerges with the response of the Chief Minister. In fact, it is a deceptive decision because the reality is the position adopted by the Chief Minister, and stated as Chief Minister, is a position that will not change anything. It plays to the short term; it gets him a little pat on the back in the short term. However, it completely trashes an adequate process that would allow a mature decision to be made.
The federal government will be making this decision, not the Chief Minister. To have a process that has not been allowed to conclude is just that, and the Chief Minister has admitted that.
It is important to acknowledge the proponent, Cameco Paladin, had not done an adequate job in responding to the concerns of this community. They could have done much better. That should have been the response. There are those who have an ideological position of opposition to anything to do with uranium. I accept that for what it is. That probably will not change. However, there is another group which needs a proper response to the concerns being generated so we can navigate.
Cameco did an inadequate job and needs to pick up its game. If I were Chief Minister I would say: ‘Pick your game up’ and I would have some skin in the game to ensure we conclude that process. A number in the debate would say: ‘We go through that process, yes. We are so cynical we do not believe there is a genuine process and believe at the end, no matter what happens, the mine will get the tick because, ultimately, we are opposed to uranium mining and the only thing that will satisfy us is no concession or compromise’ - a complete denial of the capacity of this to progress in any form whatsoever.
There will always be that line of debate; however, you cannot be captive to a line of debate ideologically driven - we have to weigh that up. That sector also has the requirement to buy into the argument and recognise they are members of the broader community. Not everyone is going to get their way; we need voices in the debate from both sides of the spectrum. That is the hard part of leadership and is what has not been provided here. I call on Cameco to do a better job than in the past. That is required so there can be a mature process which results in a better decision.
We have a feeding of cynicism and reduction in the capacity of a government to properly respond and provide governance. We have a Chief Minister who has weighed into this debate and rolled over to anything issued from Canberra. We do not hear clear statements of the effect of the carbon tax on the Northern Territory and Central Australia ...
Dr Burns: Where are you on that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: On the mining tax? My positions have been clear. There is selective hearing on the part of government members; however, my positions are clear. A clear position needs to be presented so people understand we should not go down that path without fully understanding the cost to the Northern Territory. Why should the nation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: We will have that debate another time. The Chief Minister has not provided any leadership on those matters; not explained to the community what effect this will have, or taken the opportunity to ensure we amplify the political benefits that may flow from such a debate. We do not have that kind of buy-in; we do not have that kind of leadership from this Chief Minister.
Madam Speaker, we will not support this motion for the reasons outlined. There are concerns, as we acknowledge, for a range of reasons. The only way to adequately respond to those is by having a genuine process and proper engagement, and to provide, in difficult times as the Chief Minister has failed to do, real leadership. Also, to allow the confidence in the mechanisms afforded this community, and any proponent to bring in economic benefits, to minimise environmental risks and social impact, to be properly assessed, weighed and considered by a mature and sensible leader. We do not have that in the Chief Minister. This will not be supported.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear the opposition will not be supporting this motion. That confirms for me the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of the opposition.
This is an important issue for Alice Springs which opposition members from the Top End do not understand, as well as the other issues debated this week.
However, it is total hypocrisy because during the Araluen by-election - and it is here in black and white in the Centralian Advocate of Tuesday, 5 October, prior to polling day, the first box ticked by the Country Liberals was: ‘Oppose the Angela Pamela Uranium Mine’ - before extra police they say they would commit to and before reopening the Alice Springs communication centre. The Leader of the Opposition talked about process. He is clearly trying to muddy the waters, trying to convince the Alice Springs community the opposition does not support it; it does. What we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is total hypocrisy.
I am disappointed, as the Alice Springs community would be, to hear the opposition will not support this motion. As someone who lives here - I have grown up here, lived here all my life, my kids have grown up here - I talk to people on the streets - friends, neighbours, and the average person on the street opposes Angela Pamela 20 km south of Alice Springs. These are not the ordinary people you might think would oppose a mine. These are business people, the average mums and dads, and school kids. Alice Springs’ mums and dads and kids held a ‘pram jam’ in my electorate office one day objecting to the proposed Angela Pamela mine. They told me they had real concerns about a uranium mine going ahead so close to their homes.
The message was reinforced when doorknocking during the Araluen by-election. My colleagues did much doorknocking and got the message loud and clear from the people of Araluen regarding their opposition to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. I am unsure how many opposition members doorknocked and received the same message.
We have heard how the member for Greatorex, the member who is not here at the moment, contributed to this motion …
A member: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you, member for Stuart.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: You are well aware you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, we have heard how the member for Greatorex, the invisible man in Alice Springs, was playing a double game when he pretended to oppose the Angela Pamela mine to gain political ground. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition saying this is all about politics; it is not an important issue for Alice Springs. Shame on the member for Greatorex because he has used it for every political kick he can get. His true colours, yellowcake, have been made very clear since the exposure of his e-mails, showing his secret support for the uranium miners and his offers of assistance in getting their pro-mine messages across to the community.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre said, when the member for Greatorex’s double dealing was exposed, he was going against the views and wishes of the community. How true. The member for Greatorex is going against the views and wishes of the community and his constituency.
In February this year, the Country Liberals said they supported uranium mining - all uranium mining. Where do the Alice Springs representatives stand on this important issue?
Who knows what the member for Braitling thinks. He is laughing about it; yes, it is a joke. He has been remarkably silent, so I am looking forward to his contribution on this motion; I cannot wait ...
Mr Giles interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: Has anything changed for the member for Araluen in the six months since she was elected when it comes to Angela Pamela? Let us remember what the member for Araluen said during her election campaign six short months ago. On 29 September last year, she said: We agree that this mine should not be supported. It should not be supported and that is the Country Liberals’ line. It is too close to town. People are fearful. This message is fairly consistent that people are afraid and very concerned about the implications for their future’.
The views of the Alice Springs community on Angela Pamela have changed. I would be surprised if people in Alice Springs had done a silent backflip on their views about the uranium mine on the outskirts of their town.
Has the member for Araluen done a backflip on her views on Angela Pamela? Again, I cannot wait to hear that. I know she is not here at the moment; I would love to hear it when she comes in …
A member: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, does she think …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I have asked you not to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the comment, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: I withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, does she now think the Angela Pamela mine is okay? That the community does not have a problem with the mine any longer?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the minister might be able to table the documents he is reading from?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, minister. Is it a document you wish to table or are they personal notes?
Mr HAMPTON: Personal notes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Personal notes, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not think the people who oppose the Angela Pamela mine and groups like ALEC, the Families for A Nuclear Free Future, the Alice Springs Angela Pamela collective, local tourism businesses like Wayoutback, or the Public Health Association Australia Northern Territory Branch welcome it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The Public Health Association Australia NT Branch, the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) NT Branch, and all the Alice Springs citizens who have expressed their opposition to Angela Pamela over the years have not changed their minds. In October 2008, more than 300 people in Alice Springs protested against the mine; more than twice the number who protested here yesterday on another important issue.
Over the years I have received hundreds of e-mails, faxes and phone calls from people opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine 20 km south of Alice Springs. I recall the 2009 Alice Springs Show, where a contestant called Angela Pamela placed entries into many of the competition categories. She crocheted a yellow tea cosy in an anti-nuclear pattern, baked a plate of biscuits in a similar design, and made a cake with luminous icing. This shows the passion of the people of Alice Springs who oppose the Angela Pamela mine 20 km south of Alice Springs. It shows the effort locals will make to get the message across. We do not want a uranium mine in our township; that is the clear message from the locals in Alice Springs. The people of Alice Springs deserve to know where their local representatives stand on such an important issue …
Madam SPEAKER: I ask whoever’s mobile phone is ringing to turn it off, please. There are no mobile phones allowed in the Chamber, whether it is members or guests. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: I cannot wait for contributions from the Alice Springs members regarding their support or otherwise of the uranium mine going ahead. Madam Speaker, I do not support it.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College Year 9 students with their teachers, Ms Bonney and Mr Boyce. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers? Member for Greatorex.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Here we go. Did you really believe I would shy away from a fight with a bunch of undergraduates like you guys? I mean, dead set. It really gives …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: … a whole new meaning to a word ‘dilettante’ within the Australian Labor Party today. I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it. It is worth putting a few facts on the table. Dirty tricks know no bounds with the Australian Labor Party, and that is exemplified in the Northern Territory Labor Party.
This motion today on Angela Pamela is a sideshow to distract from the real issues facing the Northern Territory - the top of mind issues of the people of Alice Springs and, indeed, the Northern Territory. Everyone in this Chamber knows the real issues facing the people of the Northern Territory. Two hundred people were here yesterday voicing their concerns and old ‘no show’ does just that. He …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw comment.
Mr CONLAN: The Chief Minister, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: … aka ‘no show’ who failed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. The point has been made.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Nevertheless, that is what they are calling him and what he will be forever known as.
This motion is really to deflect from the real issues facing the Northern Territory; to create a sideshow, to take the heat off government and put some heat, focus or pressure back on the opposition. This motion has no impact whatsoever on whether the Angela Pamela exploration will progress into a mine. What this parliament resolves makes not one iota of difference. I know, member for Karama, nothing is going to swing on whether this parliament supports such a motion or opposes it - absolutely nothing. If it did, this could be a whole different debate; however, it does not. The reason it does not make one iota of difference is the final decision will rest with the federal government. The Chief Minister has no understanding of the process …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: … he thinks it is up to him and this parliament. Well, he is wrong. For the benefit of those in the gallery, we can run through some of the legalities. Section 34(3) of the Northern Territory Mining Management Act says:
If you look at the Commonwealth’s Atomic Energy Act - it is quite long and I will not go through it now; however, section 35 refers to the title of the Crown to prescribed substances in territories of the Commonwealth. It is very clear it makes not one iota of difference whether the Northern Territory supports, passes, dispenses with, or brings in some political argy-bargy motion such as this …
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, put that down!
Mr CONLAN: Obviously, the Chief Minister does not understand the process. All we have to do is look at the desperate attempt by the government to paint me, and other members of the Country Liberals, into a corner to create a sideshow about uranium and who stands for what.
There is no hiding from the e-mail I wrote to Cameco. I wrote it, there is no doubt about it. I went on the record; I made myself available for media interviews all day Friday several weeks ago to explain the situation. I wrote it, and I engaged with Cameco only in the capacity of a local member to provide dialogue between the community and a major multinational mining company. Simple as that! In fact, I would be abrogating my duty as local member if I did not.
What has been overlooked when I talk about Cameco fast facts - we are talking about facts! A fact is a fact - the truth …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, put that down.
Mr CONLAN: How about we have some truths. You are essentially saying to the mining company: ‘You guys are really behind in the argument. You are not winning the community; you are not taking the community with you. You really need to lift your game. If you do not you are going to lose this battle. You are not going to get the community support for this mining project’.
Some in the community will not support this regardless. They will not be convinced; they do not believe in it. That is fine and that is their position. However, there are some who do not know; some who are not aware of the pros and cons of uranium or this particular mine, whatever they may be. Those people deserve to have the facts. Those who are vehemently opposed to it ideologically will arm themselves with enough information and are happy to make a decision and sit with that. There are plenty who do not have this information at hand, and it is up to the mining company that would impose a mine on the people of Alice Springs to win the argument.
The mining company has to win the argument - not the community. The onus rests on the mining company and I told them – I had a number of conversations with Cameco, I make no bones about it - we support mining in the Northern Territory and always have, we support uranium mining in the Northern Territory, we support all sorts of economic development in the Northern Territory. However, in this project, there was a psychological battle with the broader community of Alice Springs and the mining company itself. The company had an enormous amount of work to do to win the argument.
It is worth pointing out this e-mail was written 10 months before the Araluen by-election, so I do not see what the problem is. If it was written after the Araluen by-election this would be a completely different argument. It would be seen as yes, one decision made then secretly colluding, or whatever the language was from the Chief Minister. There was no collusion, no secret squirrel stuff, or skulduggery taking place. It was simply engaging with a multinational mining company to encourage it to embark on serious dialogue with the community of Alice Springs. I do not see anything wrong with that and believe the general community does not see anything wrong with that. I would be abrogating my duty as a local member if I did not do so.
Any backflip has been as a result of the Northern Territory government. We talk about backflips - this is the point for those in the gallery or listening to this broadcast: the government is running this show. The government made this decision. Nothing is going to swing on where the Country Liberals stand in relation to this decision at this point in time …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … this is the Northern Territory government …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: It is okay, I can take it. We have your measure. Nevertheless, this government made the decision.
The member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, made the point about the government’s media release - this is so incredible. The lengths the government will go to are staggering - the hypocrisy - to score political points. For people who are opposed to uranium mining and do not want the mine to go ahead, it is worth hearing this:
That is the Chief Minister’s own media release. Today he said it would detract from the economy of Alice Springs if the mine went ahead, and with the impact it would have on tourism, we could see millions and millions of dollars not coming into Alice Springs through growth. That flies in the face of what the Chief Minister said in his own media release. He said:
Did the Chief Minister not say in the political argy-bargy previously that it is going to detract from the economy of Alice Springs, and it is going to take away millions of dollars that will not flow into this community? He said it! It is staggering; the hypocrisy is beyond belief! He said it was the most amazing thing he has heard in 10 or 15 years of parliament. He must clean the wax out of his ears, because many more amazing things have taken place in this Chamber than this e-mail.
This is a case in point. You have just said: ‘It is really going to affect the economy of Alice Springs. This is why, hand on heart, I did some soul-searching and had to walk away from the project. It is an arbitrary ad hoc process, just like a third world country’. No wonder the government cannot get a project up; he is like a windsock blowing in the wind! Whichever way the wind takes him he will go. He will not stick to any Cabinet solidarity or due process. He says: ‘Oh, it does not feel all that good ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr CONLAN: … I do not like this. A few people have said they do not support it so I am going to walk away from it because it is going to destroy the economy of Alice Springs’. However, he also said:
There is great concern in the electorate of Greatorex about the Angela Pamela mine - extreme concern about the potential of a uranium mine. I support my constituents 100%. However, I am not going to deprive the Territory of the economic growth it deserves and needs by feeding into some political argy-bargy wedge trying to paint division amongst the Country Liberals to take the heat off the government - create a sideshow - from the real issues facing the Northern Territory.
There are real issues out there, member for Johnston, minister for everything once upon a time, now relegated to the incompetent Leader of Government Business - health failures under your watch. Under Labor’s watch there has been an enormous blowout in elective surgery waiting times - we have some of the worst elective surgery waiting times in the country …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, if you want to go to the lectern.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister, in his address to this motion, spoke upon a raft of issues, none of which had anything to do with the motion before the House. I ask the same courtesy be extended to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you can stay as close as possible to the topic. If you diverge slightly that is not a problem. We are only talking about a short period of irrelevance, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: My point is there are far more pressing issues on the minds of people in Central Australia. Those who have come into the Chamber today thinking this was a substantial debate and would see something on the uranium industry in the Territory, I apologise for wasting your time. This is a complete waste of taxpayers’ time and money and a political wedge, and those with some idea of politics will see it for what it is. For those who do not follow politics and have faith that, as politicians, we try always to do the right thing by you, I apologise, because this is not doing the right thing by you as taxpayers. In fact, this is treating you with contempt. It is an insult to the intelligence of taxpayers of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, there are pressing issues facing Territorians and whether or not this parliament supports an Angela Pamela uranium mine has nothing to do with the big issues - not one iota. People who know the process of the Angela Pamela uranium mine know nothing will swing on whether this parliament supports or opposes this motion.
Let us talk about Labor’s health failures. The member for Johnston presided over one of the worst health departments in the history of the Northern Territory, so much so he was sacked as Health minister. Another one for your bow, member for Johnston. When you retire at the end of this term you can say you held nearly every portfolio in the history of the Westminster system, not because you were good - you were completely hopeless. You were the Bungles everyone claimed you were.
Also, Labor’s failures in child protection. The member for Braitling has been helping people at Blatherskite Park - the Yuendumu situation. There are children at the moment with nowhere to go. Yet, we see the member for Casuarina, who has presided over a deplorable child protection system - you cannot have one guy take over a deplorable child protection system without someone setting it up, and the member for Karama has done that.
Look at Labor’s attack on the Territory lifestyle. Housing is completely out of the range of low- to middle-income earners. Labor’s governance failures …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance, in every sense.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point fairly quickly. It does seem to be pretty irrelevant; come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: I find it extraordinary the Labor government is not interested, and this is my point. It is as if we are encouraging you, willing you, daring you to make a point of order so the people of Central Australia, and all those listening to this broadcast, can see for themselves you are completely bereft of wanting to talk about the real issue. You want to avoid it. Every time we talk about a sensitive issue - real issues such as health, law and order, education - you want to shut parliament down. You want to gag the person speaking. You would rather some argy-bargy ...
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Dr Burns: You are not going to give him an extension!
Mr Conlan: I thought you wanted to hear the rest of it, Bungles!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members if I am speaking no one else should speak. Also, there is to be no reference to members except by their electorate title, ministerial title or other parliamentary title.
Member for Greatorex, before I call you again, there has been a motion for an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw the reference to the minister as ‘Bungles’. Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: To hear you say it, Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to withdraw.
We see members being gagged and shut down, points of order being made - we see it all the time – around the real issues facing the Northern Territory. They are far and wide. This is not a major issue facing the Northern Territory and is not worthy of the $7000 an hour of taxpayers’ money it costs to run parliament - more so when you take it on the road - to debate some frivolous motion to say: ‘We support it; let us see how those guys go’.
Everyone knows the situation; I have made my position perfectly clear. If the residents of Alice Springs, the residents of Greatorex, so vehemently oppose the Angela Pamela uranium mine I will side with them. I have made that very clear without a shadow of a doubt. I will put their case to my parliamentary colleagues in the strongest possible terms. I am not going to deal myself out of the game. I am not going to disappear when it comes to a vote. I am not, all of a sudden, going to be absent when it comes to voting because I cannot make a decision. If we are voting on this, I will be here to vote. I will not be dealing myself out of the game for the sake of some political argy-bargy; there is too much at stake. However, I will not be supporting anything which will cause health and safety concerns to my children, your children, or anyone’s children.
This is personal; I live here. I live within 20 km of this proposed uranium mine. Make no mistake: if it does not meet the most stringent, strictest environmental concerns I will not be supporting it. I suspect no one in this parliament would support it if it proved to be an environmental hazard. That is what the Country Liberals stand for: due process. I am an individual member and, at the same time, a member of shadow cabinet. I have every right to stand up for my constituents and express their views. They are very concerned. However, unlike the Labor Party, I take the concerns of Alice Springs residents very seriously. I am not going to play party political argy-bargy for the sake of economic development. While on one hand I am very concerned about a proposed mine which may not prove to be environmentally safe, on the other, if this mine proves to be environmentally safe and satisfies the community and the constituents of Greatorex, we should have it. Who are we to deprive the Northern Territory of the economic growth it so desperately needs?
That is the position. My shadow colleagues would expect nothing less from me as not only a shadow cabinet colleague, also a local member in the Country Liberals. Unlike the ad hoc, arbitrary approach displayed by the Northern Territory government - the windsock - when something is blowing it is a bit too hard; we better go the way the wind is blowing - the Country Liberals believe in not only solidarity but also due process. This party follows due process, whether it is McArthur River Mine, whether it is …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 67 which allows the member latitude to digress, in relation the remark he just made, I would like to hear his definition of the Country Liberal Party specific …
Mr CONLAN: Sit down. Madam Speaker, tell him to sit down. What an idiot.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it is not a point of order. Minister …
Mr McCarthy: I would like to hear his definition.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, resume your seat.
Mr CONLAN: Good on you. Sit down, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You are not directing business here, member for Greatorex, and I am on my feet.
Mr CONLAN: The member for Barkly has not said much about the law and order issues facing his community of Tennant Creek. Again, he was searching for some relevance in the landscape of the moribund of undergraduates on the other side of the House. That is okay, minister, we expect nothing less.
Individually elected members can have a view on a range of issues, and we have a duty to uphold that to our constituents and I will continue to uphold that to the bitter end. I make no apologies whatsoever for my views on the Angela Pamela uranium mine, because they express the broader views of my constituency. My shadow cabinet colleagues would expect nothing less of me. We are allowed to have different views, and I had an opposing view in the party room. I make no apology for that, and my colleagues have no problem with that. It is a democratic process. The shadow process and the parliamentary wing of the Country Liberals is a democratic process. I will continue to take the views of my constituents to the shadow cabinet and the parliamentary wing. If there are concerns such as these I will put those to my shadow cabinet colleagues, and my parliamentary colleagues, in the strongest possible terms. I make no apologies for that.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I would like those in the gallery to know where their taxpayers’ money is going. Some who live in Greatorex, probably those East Side areas, may have had this flyer placed in their letterbox. That is a flyer from the fifth floor of Parliament House put out by the Australian Labor Party and the Office of the Chief Minister. That is where your taxpayers’ money is going. If anyone has a problem with what I say, or have said in the past, please discuss it with me or, if you really dislike what I said or what I stand for, you can make your decision on polling day next year. I will always be accountable to those people on polling day, 25 August 2012.
We do not need this placed into letterboxes. It is dirty tricks and an attempt to create a sideshow away from the real issue facing Northern Territorians - law and order. Law and order is dominating the landscape of the Northern Territory. I will read through some of the statistics again: in the last five years - since the previous protest here in 2007 - there has been a 47% increase in crime - since the last forums. It was a series of forums which became a summit. It was a gabfest, a talkfest, a summit and a forum - let us hold hands and talk about it some more.
Since then we have had a 47% increase in crime; an 87% increase in crime overall in the last 10 years. There are real issues facing the people of the Northern Territory, not this time-wasting, taxpayer money-wasting matter.
I apologise again to people who have come here today thinking there will be a meaningful debate about uranium, where we are going with uranium, perhaps in the wake of what is happening in Japan. There is much we could talk about in a meaningful way. For those who may not follow the political process too closely, it is an attempt to wedge the opposition. This government is obsessed with the opposition. I have never seen anyone so obsessed with the opposition. All the government does is talk about the opposition. It would be great if you put as much energy into dealing with the real issues as you do talking about the opposition!
The Chief Minister: ‘The opposition does this, the Country Liberals do this. The so and so’s. The Country Liberals did this, said this, say this all the time’. You are obsessed. You have an unhealthy obsession with the Country Liberals which is a worry for the people of the Northern Territory because instead of dealing with the real issues facing the Northern Territory you are obsessed with the Country Liberals. There are hundreds of issues facing people in the Northern Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN: … and you need to deal with them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Larapinta School Year 5/6 class, with teachers Mrs Kerry Adams and Mrs Adi Smith, and also Gillen School class 5/6C, with teacher, Mr Michael Cole and ISA, Mr Steve Thomas. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I oppose this motion put by the Chief Minister; clearly, it is a furphy. It is as described by my colleague the member for Greatorex: all smoke and mirrors and like a windsock.
I pick up, initially, on comments made by the Chief Minister in regard to water concerns which could arise in regard to this project. I quote from the answer by the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources when speaking about the granting of the exploration licence for the Angela Pamela deposit area. He spoke as the minister responsible for mines:
For the Chief Minister to now say there are concerns regarding the water supply of Alice Springs is completely at odds with what his mines minister said regarding the granting of this exploration licence.
The Chief Minister also raised issues regarding tourism - no tourist would go to Alice Springs or Central Australia. If that is the case, they would not come to Central Australia because they are more concerned about law and order on the streets than any would-be project. I quote the mines minister when speaking with a newspaper called Green Left Weekly - this is a quote so I am not being disrespectful:
For the Chief Minister to say the tourism industry will detrimentally affected by a potential project is not true. The mines minister would also know the number of tourists visiting the Ranger mine in the Jabiru region amounts to thousands and thousands of paying visitors each year. In fact, it is a draw card for some tourists to the area. They go specifically, and this is in addition to the many government people, industry people, teachers and school children who visit that project.
Madam Speaker, what the Chief Minister said in regard to my history and support of this project, and the other project in the Northern Territory, is quite correct. I have always supported this project, its merits and its potential, and that due processes should be followed regardless of where a project is located. That is what this argument is about: the following of due process and allowing the company to have a level playing field when it comes to operating in the Territory; going from an exploration phase through to a mining phase. I will be the first person to state companies can always do better in their operations, regardless of where they are located or what commodity they are looking to mine. Doing better could be by striving for best practice in safety, the environment, socially or communication, and if the companies involved in this project need to do better I have no issue with that. I encourage that and support them in aspiring to achieve best practice.
This government does not have a good track record in following due process. Look at what it did to the proposed Arafura Harbour development. There was no assessment process before it was canned by this government. We also have the proposed new gaol located towards the back of my family’s property, my property and various others, where the government allowed clearing of survey lines and parts of the area before a decision was made by the Development Consent Authority, or the minister’s office, regarding rezoning of the land. Then, of course, we have this situation leading up to the Araluen by-election, where the government again intervened and did not allow due process to be followed.
Regarding minister Hampton’s comments, I strongly encourage the minister receive a full briefing from the mines minister because he states he does not support a mine. Minister, there is no suggestion of a mine. The companies involved in this exploration, as the mines minister is clearly aware, are in their third year of a six-year exploration licence, with the opportunity to have a renewal for two more years, and a renewal for two more years after that - 10 years in total under an exploration licence. Generally, across the Northern Territory with exploration licences, companies take the full 10 years before they move to the next phase or drop the area altogether. I strongly suggest, minister, you receive a briefing. It is not a mine, and if it is a mine there are many approval processes, both at Northern Territory and Commonwealth level, that have to be undertaken before any mining is considered. The project will only then proceed if it is commercially viable, and the company can get through the approval processes, which include social engagement with the communities, which the companies have undertaken.
For members in the gallery and people listening, I want to go back a little in history regarding this project. It is important to highlight the Northern Territory government, including the current mines minister and the previous mines minister, the Chief Minister, have always supported this project and these companies. It was around 2008, from memory, the government lifted a series of reservation from occupation across the Northern Territory. Basically, it was tidying up areas that had been under reservation from occupation, of which the Angela Pamela was one.
The deposit was identified some time before that by a company called Uranertz, and, for members’ benefit, the founding geologist was John Borschoff, Managing Director of Paladin. If anyone knows about the geological potential of this project and the geology of Central Australia, he does. The process following the government’s decision to lift the reservation from occupation, including this - it knew would be attractive to many companies, not only in Australia, also overseas, given the change in uranium prices around the world, and also the fact Labor had finally dumped its nonsensical policy about three mines, two mines, no mines, and allowed the industry to progress on an even playing field.
I compliment the government for its effort to put the land up for tender. It was emphatic it must be a clear, transparent and fair process. The area was advertised and time was given for companies to get their applications in. Some 37 companies applied for the right to explore on this ground. Some in their own right, some with joint ventures; there was Chinese interest in joint ventures in the area. They were assessed very carefully and thoroughly within the Mines department, and short-listed. More information was sought from the companies regarding their commitment to develop the project - not only their ability to take it from the exploration phase through to a mining phase, also their ability to work with stakeholders in and around the Central Australian community.
Following that long process, which was arduous and carefully undertaken - I compliment the minister and the department because what they did was exemplary – the joint venture of Cameco Australia and Paladin had the exploration licence granted to them. However, before they received their exploration licence, and before they could start work on the ground, they were required, under the Mining Act and the Mining Management Act, to put up security bonds, put up environmental bonds, and also put forward their mine management plan which, in itself, is a very rigorous document where the department works with companies to ensure best practice is implemented across the operation regarding an exploration project.
I am aware one of the reasons Cameco Paladin was selected, from my discussions with the industry and, of course, within government in my previous role, was the government believed the company, particularly Cameco, had stayed in the Northern Territory when no other company wanted to. They had been here for 12 years looking for uranium, mostly in Arnhem Land, had committed to the Northern Territory, and knew they could undertake this kind of project. That was one of the reasons, apart from the other reasons mentioned, they were signed off as a company that could get an exploration licence.
I find it incredibly disappointing for the government to say it cannot now support the project. I am sure the mines minister is also disappointed because he has been a strong supporter of the industry, and a strong supporter of these companies and this project. Lack of support from his colleagues, I guess, disappoints him, and it disappoints me with my track record and family background in the mining industry.
We have seen the problems with the McArthur River project and how members of the government did not support it when undertaking its expansion program. We have also seen the Browns project near Batchelor – the government has clearly not wanted that project to go ahead, despite the mines minister and Northern Territory government courting the Chinese to become part of it. That project has stalled and I am unsure of its future.
We have seen in the last six months Arafura Resources take their proposed processing operations to South Australia. It was very disappointing that the Northern Territory government did not do more to find a location for that company in the Territory. The project capital cost is in the vicinity of $750m. The project is going ahead in South Australia; it has major project status from the South Australia government. That project would have employed between 250 and 300 direct employees, and possibly another 200 to 300 indirect employees. My discussions with the company, both recently and previously, were it was and is a major project - up there in its economic contribution, similar to INPEX in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing this government did not do more to keep that company in the Northern Territory. Yes, we will have the mining project but it is the processing, the downstream operations, that we have lost to South Australia. That sent a message to the industry that this government does not work hard enough to secure industrial areas where we can have these development take place.
The other point I raise is how the government has handled this, and how it does not really understand the industry. It does not understand what the decisions have done to our reputation. It created sovereign risk.
Other members may reference this and I will as well. We have taken a battering in the Fraser Institute report. The Fraser Institute is a Canadian economic think-tank and the government relies on their annual report of each year to promote the Northern Territory minerals industry. First, as a country, due to the proposed mining tax. I have no doubt when the next report comes out the Northern Territory jurisdiction will take a battering because of the government’s decision not to support a would-be project, the Angela Pamela deposit. I stress ‘would be’, because it is exploration at this stage. A commitment to an operating project would be some years away.
Also, we have had a previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, not really supportive of the mining industry, particularly the uranium industry. Prior to the 2008 election, she stated there would be no new uranium mines in the Northern Territory if a Labor government was elected. Clearly, she did not know what she was talking about because, as has been articulated by the member for Greatorex, this government does not control the final approval process of the uranium industry or new uranium mines …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Goyder, do you have much more to contribute?
Ms PURICK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you mind if we continued after Question Time?
Ms PURICK: Not at all.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion listed on Notice Paper No 88 under Assembly Business relating to the Darwin Waterfront by-laws be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move –
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
the member for Casuarina, Mr Vatskalis, in relation to misleading statements made by him in this House in the February sittings of 2011 in which the minister asserted during Question Time that the Ombudsman ‘supported’ the government’s proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act and;
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The media release the member has issued foreshadows a decision of parliament where he claims the minister has already been referred to Privileges. He would know that is a serious breach of privilege, and I would like to discuss this matter further with you at another time.
Madam SPEAKER: At the end of Question Time, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I presume he is referring to the operation of Standing Order 83. I table a letter from you to me saying you would not allow this matter to proceed through that process of referral, so I am bringing it forward as a motion. This is normal practice …
Dr Burns: You lied in your media release. You lied.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, I ask you to withdraw that, thank you.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that Notice No 5 in my name under General Business on today’s Notice Paper in relation to the government’s position on uranium mining be withdrawn as the government is already debating this.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Assembly censure the Chief Minister for his failure to provide leadership and to act with integrity and honesty on a raft of issues including the law and order problems of Alice Springs, misleading the House about his minister abusing office by pressuring Imparja to remove anti-government ads, using his office to attack the Darwin Lord Mayor, and allowing the Minister for Health to mislead the House.
Madam Speaker, this government has not responded to the concerns of the people of the Northern Territory. We have seen deceit become the hallmark. I entered parliament at the same time as Mr Henderson, the now Chief Minister, and I expect more from the office we all seek. I spent time yesterday listening to the people, but there is much more to it than that. Those people have some very real concerns, and they are complex in nature, exceptionally real and deeply disturbing. To have a government and a Chief Minister more preoccupied with deceit and deception to manage and maintain a position and a hold on power is appalling. I cannot allow it to go on.
Some of the things I have seen - as honourable members on either side of this Chamber, members of this community, and people of the Northern Territory have seen and are trying to comprehend - is a government that spins, lies, and deceives. It is happy to turn these things into a glossy promotion to draw attention to itself with its desperate and shallow attempt to hold on to power - which is appalling. I cannot allow them to continue.
Issues need to be responded to properly. The eyes of the nation are focused upon this parliament, upon this community. The Territory government, with its activities over the last 10 years, sees matters like this as needing a response by a public relations campaign. That cannot be allowed to continue. We need honesty and truth when it comes to recognising the challenges we face. That is why Tony Abbott, when responding to this - I find it astonishing the Chief Minister would see a response by a man who has spent time in the Centre, who cares about these matters, calling for a tough love response, a genuine response to a human need, would see this as being a political exercise. It is the response any civilised person would make to another citizen.
There are grave problems in our community …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry to do this. I have been given a copy of a censure motion which has been distributed to members. It seems to be a little different to what you are talking about. I am not trying to embarrass you; could you read the full censure motion so it is on the record.
Mr MILLS: That is fine, Madam Speaker; however, with the Leader of Government Business coming in I was not permitted to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: I am very sorry, but if you would not mind reading it. It is my fault; however, I know everyone has not heard it.
Mr MILLS: I move –
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from censuring the Chief Minister for his failure to provide leadership and to act with integrity and honesty on a raft of issues including the law and order problems in Alice Springs, misleading the House about his minister abusing office by pressuring Imparja to remove anti-government ads, using his office to attack the Darwin Lord Mayor, and allowing the Minister for Health to mislead the House.
These are indicative of the problem we have. It was not so long ago that honourable members would recall this government was placed under immense pressure. It had members who were elected to this parliament and elected to serve the interests of the Labor government abandon ship. They abandoned ship; they lost faith in the party; they lost faith in its purpose and direction. One of those, the member for Arnhem, left and sat on the cross benches. When found that position would expose her beloved Labor Party to great pressure and perhaps lose government, the greater love for the party would be to jump back in bed with the Labor government …
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A correction on the name.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it should be the member for Arafura, not the member for Arnhem. Thank you.
Mr MILLS: Member for Arafura.
Madam Speaker, there are many members who have joined this vocation, this call; to be involved in this House to provide leadership and respond to the concerns of our community. This government ran an election campaign in 2008 and found - shock, horror! - the community expected better. To the surprise of the spin doctors and all the money spent, it came very close to losing government. Not so long after that, members of the Labor organisation started to lose faith in the organisation and the member for Arafura found herself sitting on the cross benches.
However, the most significant event of that time, and the reason that keeps me in this game, are the words from the member for Macdonnell. At the time there was a crisis which resulted in a Chief Minister being Chief Minister in title only – who had no authority - and a Deputy Chief Minister who had the ambition but no capacity or authority to challenge because it would bring the whole enterprise down. Two were running the ship and the others were in orbit covered and smothered by a coterie of spin doctors looking after the image of government, running out rubbish messages which did not address the real issues of concern to Territorians.
They have spent time - or have they not? - listening to people, looking into the faces of people who have real concerns. I will go into that in more detail later. I quote some words that need to be brought back to mind, spoken in a no confidence motion by the member for Macdonnell. It was a revelation; the member discovered Labor had a profound problem with the truth. I quote:
I am the member for Blain. In my electorate, the Melville girl suffered appallingly and died on a lawn. We had a list of ministers vested with the responsibility to care for children who had a greater interest in protecting the political interest and not responding to the needs of those children or one poor girl who died on a lawn in Moulden. It took pressure from the opposition to get the government to respond, and to investigate how it could do better. That is the spin; that is the complete disconnect from reality. A little kid dying on a lawn in a community, in a street, in a suburb, and not being responded to in any coherent or caring manner - that is the concern.
I came to Alice Springs not to put out a media release like the Chief Minister saying he was meeting people to create an impression. I came to Alice Springs to listen to what people were saying. I saw things I have not heard reflected in any of the responses of government and, sadly, the exercise we have in this Chamber does not allow these things to be weighed up properly.
The Chief Minister claims to know nothing about pressure being applied to an organisation responsible for airing advertisements. I can believe the Chief Minister may not have known about that; however, I also believe we have a government with a greater interest in protecting itself than doing the right thing.
While in Alice Springs I ensured I had the opportunity to hear people. One thing that sticks in my mind is while being shown around I found the loved ones of people I was speaking to were dying in extraordinary numbers. My feelings when I lost a loved one - I look into the face of someone I do not know very well and think the feelings would be the same. I went to the hospital with a friend to visit a man I knew at Ngarnka. I remember meeting him and seeing his body covered in scars. I saw friends’ bodies were covered in scars. I inquired as to the reason for the scarring, thinking perhaps it was a cultural or traditional practice. They found it difficult to explain those scars were a result of pain. I found it difficult to understand initially; however, I understood when I listened to them. It was pain that would be relieved by cutting their bodies. When I looked at these handsome young men they were covered in scars. I visited his brother in hospital, who I had worked with briefly in Central Australia. Sadly, his brother – I will not mention his name – the pain he was relieving by cutting himself had become so much he is with us no longer. As a young man he leaves behind children and a wife.
I visited that community with Tony Abbott. That was the time Kevin Rudd announced massive reforms to the health system. It sounded great. However, the day of the announcement I was standing in a clinic in a little community where one young lady found the courage to talk to me and said: ‘I want to talk to you. I want to show you something’. She did not know about the big announcement made in the lead-up to the federal campaign. She did not know the significance of what she was going to show me. I saw old ladies sitting in the scrub under a tree in broken plastic chairs on dialysis, who try to rustle up enough money to put petrol in their car to get into town. When they get into town, they are stuck. This young lady, who had a fierce, wild look in her eye, said: ‘I have to show you something’. We went to the clinic. What she showed me was in the face of this grand announcement that would make a difference. She said: ‘Our clinic is full of dog shit. We cannot keep the dogs out of it. There is a dead animal and we do not have responsibility for the key. We cannot care for our own community. We are not even entrusted with the key and we have raised this concern a number of times, yet we cannot run a clinic, we cannot even be entrusted with the key, nor can we keep the dogs out’.
I saw that was the challenge. Yes, it is easy to put an advertisement on television. It is easy to put things into place before we come to the sittings. It is easy to respond to why a minder on the fifth floor advised police to embarrass the Lord Mayor of Darwin - which has been a line of questioning in a previous sittings. Yes, you can get caught up in that. However, too many of us in this Chamber have seen such things and are trying to comprehend them. How can we respond to this? How can we let it continue with the spin and bull that allows us to occupy this space all this time, and make no difference to a very simple but very challenging and very complex issue in a place called Ngarnka?
Going to the next step, when I arrived here I was introduced to people. I saw them as fellow citizens. Sometimes in this game you can become a little disconnected. I recognise these people are fellow citizens – mothers, fathers, uncles, brothers, sisters. I acknowledge Pastor Basil, who showed me some things. He said: ‘I want to show you a couple of things’. There is the challenge of policy to respond to what we see.
What I am fed up with, and why this Chief Minister deserves censure is because, in 2008, he stood there with ashen face, lips trembling, shocked that the massive campaign of spin with the sole purpose of holding on to power - to heck with the campaign you ran, failing to address the things that concerned ordinary folk. It shocked you that you could possibly have a vote of no confidence from the Territory community when you thought you had an opposition you could treat with contempt, a community you could treat with contempt, and you found yourself in a very vulnerable position. All you could say was, ‘Yes, people have spoken and we will listen’. We see no evidence of that.
When I take tours under the radar, not issuing media releases, one thing that sticks in my mind is electrical cables hanging out of a tree in Alice Springs. Spin will not remove the memory of those electrical cables hanging out a tree not far from this parliament which are indicative of three separate suicide attempts by a young girl. I have a daughter and I want to see policy respond to that in some meaningful way.
Blame games, failure to show, failure to present, failure to address the issue; I want to have a discussion about that. An honourable member said: ‘Let’s have a bipartisan approach’. Well, not on the basis of what we have been offered so far - spin and deceit. We have to be fair dinkum; we have to respond to that which is real. That is the challenge faced by this parliament and members at this time. Make no mistake: everyone has a challenge at some time and I believe we have to respond to this challenge. Yes, we can play the game of politics. We can have the giggling out the back about all the little things we might be able to run in parliament to embarrass someone. Well and good. However, if we fail to respond to the challenges we have seen, we have failed our duty and missed an opportunity.
I bring this censure because these are matters we need to consider. How are we going to operate and respond? Are we going to leave and go somewhere else thinking we scored more points than the other side, and have left an action from a community which stood out the front? You try to categorise them into one spot and say they are trashing the town. You happily run that. You probably have a few characters who think: ‘Oh well, that is it, they are trying to trash the town without asking the honest question, why are they concerned? What are they concerned about? What is the problem and what response should I give to that?’ It will not be easy; however, I cannot allow this to continue any longer with a Chief Minister who increasingly is more comfortable with deceit and spin rather than a genuine response to a very real problem.
Madam Speaker, a challenge: recall the Little Children are Sacred report, and recall the sickness we see in this Labor administration, its preoccupation with self-protection, sitting on that report, masking that response, to manage the politics of it. At about the same time, we had the equine influenza - I find this instructive. We had a government forming its political position on a response to the intervention because of its failure to act. What did it need to respond to? Children’s protection – delayed; hesitated. It shifted ministers whose primary charge was to protect children. Pressure increased, and then came the need for an inquiry - sat on that. The government was embarrassed. It spent its time working its way out of it and developing the lines to get from it. Then it found its cause: ‘Let us argue this along ideological lines; let us not worry about the children, let us attack the intervention along ideological lines’, which then became the exercise. The government probably believes that; however, if you put children who need care in front of us and continue to run those arguments that would be difficult. It is easier to dismiss the children and run a political argument. When I mentioned the equine flu issue we found lightning cooperation; everyone patting each other on the back about sorting out legislation for cross-border agreements; how the federal government could liaise more effectively and efficiently with the Territory government. It was a sight to behold: we could respond so quickly to the care of horses, but could not for children. And it continued.
The reason I bring this is quite clear: matters have given rise to concerns in this community that, in the first instance, have not been respected for what they are. The government has put together nine points which are to be responded to in a sensible way. If we fail to do so, we will increase cynicism and compound the problem which has already beset this community and communities like it across the Northern Territory. There has been a response motivated by genuine concern. There may be faults with it; we need to sit down and sort that out. I am prepared, in the interests of ensuring we can, in the first instance, protect children and families, to find that place to work. I cannot allow, in the run-up to the next Territory election, an expectation we are going to cooperate on the basis we have continued spin, deception, lies, deceit, dishonesty, gloating and arrogance in the face of a very clear problem which requires a very real response.
The Chief Minister should hang his head in shame when it comes to the need for a proper response to a very serious matter. This Chief Minister should be censured for his failure to respond appropriately to the genuine concern of citizens of the Northern Territory, Centralia in particular, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the government will treat this censure with the contempt it deserves. This is the desperate political death throes of the Leader of the Opposition. This is his desperate attempt to make a speech to his own, to say: ‘I want to keep the numbers in the party wing, stick with me. I will be your Leader of the Opposition. I will serve it up to the Chief Minister, stick with me’. He has been a leader missing in action since it was exposed he tried to bribe Leo Abbott, the candidate for Lingiari in the federal election campaign, with a job to not stand. He was overturned; he was rolled by his own party machine. It started when Terry Mills was exposed for that deceit; exposed for the entrapment of Leo Abbott, one of their candidates in the federal election campaign. And when it was exposed by the leaks from the CLP what did Terry Mills do as leader of the party? Did he step up to the plate? No. He went into hiding. He hid from the public for eight days …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Deputy Chief Minister how this is fixing children’s problems in the town camps of Alice Springs?
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: There is not one mention in the censure motion of children in the town camps of Alice Springs. To your disgrace, if you expect us to take this political rubbish and stunt and survival attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, mention the issues he rambled on about and I will address them. I am calling this for what it is: the last death roll of a desperate, divided opposition which does not have a leader because he went missing in action last year and has stayed missing in action.
A picture tells a thousand words. Count the numbers sitting in the opposition in the Chamber this afternoon. A picture tells a thousand words …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is fully aware she is not allowed to refer to absence or otherwise of members in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: Did not name any members.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what was said. Minister, if you can be reminded of that please.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I move on.
The Leader of the Opposition went missing in action for eight days - hid from the media. At no time in the political history or in the democracy of our great nation has a Leader of the Opposition hid from the media for eight days. It is unprecedented; it is unheard of. The member for Blain was the one hiding for eight days to his eternal shame - how embarrassing - in a restaurant and would not come out. He had his staff check to see if the media was still outside. To this day he still has not answered the simple question: did you or did you not try to bribe Leo Abbott? You have dodged, ducked and weaved because you know the truthful answer because the transcript of that conversation was leaked to the media.
The CLP is leaking like a sieve. Why? Because of widespread party disenchantment with the member for Blain. The Litchfield Branch, the Alice Springs Branch, the Katherine Branch and the CLP Central Council all went after his scalp. They said to their respective CLP party wing members: ‘Throw your support behind Dave Tollner, the member for Fong Lim. We want this guy out; he is damaging the CLP in the Territory. He does not stand for core CLP values, our sponsors and donors are leaving us in droves’ …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! How is this dealing with crime in Alice Springs?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Ms LAWRIE: Do not worry, I will get to it. Sometimes, member for Port Darwin, the truth hurts and the truth is being spoken here. The truth does hurt.
They say at CLP Central Council, backed up in e-mails the Chief Minister tabled in parliament today, that their donors are deserting them in droves; the business community does not support the current leadership of the member for Blain.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: Feel free to put them on a warning.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The union thug will scratch that surface; the union thug.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, could you pause for a moment.
Honourable members opposite, there are far too many interjections. I remind of you Standing Order 51:
Thank you. Deputy Chief Minister you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was about to refer to the e-mails tabled in parliament today by the Chief Minister at the request of one of the men trying to get the numbers; however, my information from CLP leaks is you will never get the numbers …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin starting talking straightaway because he knew who I would refer to. The e-mail from the CLP President Sue Fraser-Adams essentially said …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … it was tabled in parliament today. I am reading from it.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Could you draw the honourable member to the censure itself and …
Ms Lawrie: It is very broad.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear a point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the subject of the censure was the protection of children and the need for honesty in government. We see a member more preoccupied with the politics of this matter, which reinforces the need for the censure.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. The censure is quite wide-ranging.
Ms LAWRIE: Nowhere in the censure motion are the words ‘the protection of children’. If you had, it would have been good. Nowhere in the censure are the words – this goes to show probably why they do not support you; you cannot get your own censure motion right - nowhere does it go to the protection of children …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I was about to refer to the ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale! I will be putting members on warnings shortly.
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to refer to the e-mail tabled today by the Chief Minister, at the request of the member for Port Darwin, from CLP President, Sue Fraser-Adams, which says:
The clock is still ticking on that one, and I dare say a few people are busy gathering their dollars because they know they are going nowhere under the inept leadership – a leader who goes into hiding from the media for eight days, hides in a restaurant for eight hours, and who has been, essentially, missing in action since then to today.
Look at the number of times he has sent the members for Goyder, Port Darwin or Brennan out to do media that anyone who wants to be the Chief Minister ought to be doing - the Leader of the Opposition ought to be doing. No, he is hiding. He does not have, as we know, the support of his full parliamentary wing. We know there has been a challenge. We know there was another muted attempt at a challenge. We know the numbers are still being worked on. We are hearing it will only take one or two to move. That was, I tip, a farewell speech from the member for Blain. That is my tip: a bit of a farewell speech from the member for Blain.
The Leader of the Opposition is censuring because he thinks the Chief Minister is not attending to the raft of law and order problems in Alice Springs. Well, I will go he; that is ridiculous. As Police minister, he has overseen the increase in police operational staff in Alice Springs. He has ensured the government has stepped up to the plate in additional resources for police for Alice Springs: the appointment of the Senior Sergeant position to coordinate the patrols; the establishment of a juvenile detention centre in Alice Springs; and his oversighting Cabinet processes drove through the establishment of safe houses for juveniles to get them off the street at night. He leveraged Commonwealth funding into Alice Springs to provide for lighting in the hot spots - we have the temporary lighting up already, and is working with the Mayor, Damien Ryan, to deliver lighting through the council as a result of the funding he leveraged with the Commonwealth.
He has been a strong advocate and supporter of the establishment of the ANZAC Hill Youth Hub. He has been a strong advocate and supporter of ensuring that, fundamentally, if you want to turn the lives of families around you have to get the kids to school. He has driven, as a former Education minister and as Chief Minister, the reforms in education to get the truancy policy in place; to get the punishment and penalties in place to get kids to school.
He has also ensured that, as a government, we are delivering housing in Alice Springs. We are transforming the town camps of Alice Springs to ensure there is new housing - 85 new houses - as well as 200 refurbished houses to improve the living conditions and lives of people in Alice Springs because, if you do not, your social programs are not going to work. You have to have improved housing - talk to experts around the nation about that. By the end of this year, under his Chief Ministership, we will have delivered 520 additional new beds into Alice Springs. He attended the opening of the short-term accommodation site. As Chief Minister, he has presided over the most comprehensive, bold, and progressive policy of improving the conditions of remote communities and growth towns of the Northern Territory. As Chief Minister, he has driven this through.
I will go to the member for Blain talking about the dire and tragic circumstances he has witnessed. I do not believe there is a parliamentarian in the Territory who would not have seen dire and tragic circumstances of individuals in the Territory. He talked about a suicide. This Labor government has dramatically improved investment into mental health. We have put a suicide prevention position in place, and are funding initiatives to combat suicide in remote communities. Under the CLP that funding did not exist, those positions did not exist – to your eternal shame.
You talked about schools and health clinic infrastructure in remote communities. Under the CLP, there were no secondary schools in remote communities in the Territory - not one. They were not there. As a Labor government, we have funded the introduction and development of schools, have put teachers in, provided teacher housing and, for the first time in the history of the Territory, under Labor, we are seeing Indigenous kids in remote communities achieving Year 12 qualifications. He has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Clontarf program which is delivering real results for Indigenous young men - I will call them young men - across our schools, across the Northern Territory. He has also supported the introduction of the girls program, which our government is funding. To say he is failing in the law and order problems is a political nonsense.
Saying a minister has been abusing his office in relation to Imparja was proven in Question Time today to be a fabrication and fantasy of Adam Giles, the member for Braitling. The Chief Minister made the position very clear: he has publicly spoken out against the advertisements which were run on Imparja which have been trashing Alice Springs. Quite appropriately, the Minister for Central Australia answered in Question Time yesterday, and again today, that he did not pressure, did not bully. He spoke to his family members on the board, his friends on the board, and let them know what he thought about the trashing of Alice Springs, and what he thought about denigrating Indigenous Territorians of Alice Springs – quite appropriately so. That was wrong in your censure motion.
Attacking the Darwin Lord Mayor - our Chief Minister has a constructive working relationship with the Darwin Lord Mayor, and it was not him or his office that attacked the Darwin Lord Mayor. The front page of the NT News article that exposed the police raid on the Lord Mayor’s home was a leak from police, not from the Chief Minister, not from his office, not from the fifth floor. Hence, the Lord Mayor, quite appropriately, lodged a complaint and the police investigated.
It is ridiculous to say the Minister for Health has misled the House. You have made that up; it is a furphy. There is nothing to back it up, it is just four words on a piece of paper; a complete furphy.
The member for Blain, in his speech in the Chamber, misled the House. He said the government was opposed to the intervention. He talked about how the death of Deborah Melville had been ignored by the government, and only after pressure from the opposition did it undertake an inquiry into child protection. You have that one wrong also, and I will take you to the facts of that matter.
After the tragic death of Deborah Melville, which has been the subject of a coronial - read the coronial outcomes if you want to understand what occurred; I was the Minister for Child Protection at the time. I was asking significant questions around the handling of that matter by the agency, and within a small space of time after Deborah’s tragic death, we had a tragic death in Central Australia, perpetrated by one of our mental health clients. I immediately sought and obtained approval from my Cabinet colleagues to undertake a high risk audit of all high risk clients from Child Protection, Mental Health, and Alcohol and other Drugs under Family and Children’s Services by Howard Bath. That is when Howard Bath first started work in the Territory as an independent expert in the field.
Go back to the media of the time; there was no call by the opposition for an inquiry. That pre-dated the good work done by Jodeen Carney in following up on an inquiry. The Chief Minister followed up the Howard Bath high risk audit report with the inquiry into the Little Children are Sacred report undertaken by two independent experts. Yes, the government of the day - not the current Chief Minister - took a long time to consider the recommendations and fund those recommendations. I point out, in stark contrast, the Growing them strong, together child protection inquiry was responded to immediately by this Chief Minister and funded to the tune of $130m. To pretend, in your lame child protection responses in your censure debate where you got the facts wrong, that this Chief Minister sat on an inquiry is completely wrong.
Growing them strong, together, undertaken by Bath and a panel of experts, was responded to immediately by this Chief Minister. He stepped up to the plate and funded child protection to the tune of an additional $130m. He also pointed out consistently that government has a responsibility for the care and protection of children but we cannot do it on our own; it is the responsibility of every single person in the Territory to care for our children. Everyone has to care for our children. We have to change our society and our community to an unacceptable level of tolerance towards neglected children in the Territory. We are funding a system; however, as the Bath inquiry showed, a government-provided system, in and of itself and on its own, will not work. The Little Children are Sacred report said the same.
The Little Children are Sacred report, as those of us around at the time fully understand, led to the intervention by Howard and Brough. That was done without any consultation with the Northern Territory government. However, on the day it was announced by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and his minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, the Chief Minister of the day walked into Question Time and said: ‘We accept the intervention. We commit to working with the federal government’. We have held true to that ever since.
We continue to say - and the Chief Minister said it today in this Chamber to the cloth ears of the member for Blain - the intervention did much good and is continuing to do so. It has made the Commonwealth step up to its funding responsibilities. This government consistently said its top-down approach was wrong. If you want real and effective change, you work from the bottom up with communities and the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The Little Children are Sacred report said that in its recommendations; the Growing them strong, together said that in its recommendations. We, as a government in the Northern Territory, have held true to that view. That is the way we work.
You are wrong to say we were opposed to the intervention. We have consistently been on the public record saying it was top down - the approach was wrong. We are absolutely opposed to the view a Commonwealth person intervenes and oversights in Alice Springs. What arrant nonsense. The letter from Tony Abbott to the Prime Minister has about seven points on things he wants addressed. We are doing six. We do not have an overarching Commonwealth official controlling Alice Springs. We have, through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, a high-level collaborative working relationship with the Commonwealth. We also have positive working relationships with all key Commonwealth ministers and, at our officer-to-officer level, productive and constructive relationships.
The Chief Minister and the Prime Minister call each other and talk through the issues. As Treasurer, I am on the phone to Wayne Swan; we call each other and talk through the issues. Ministers and ministers - go through the entire team. Whether it is the minister for Health, Children, and Resources, whether it is the Minister for Central Australia with his important portfolio of Environment, we are all on the phone. We know our counterparts and are advocating and lobbying - that is the way government is getting results. The Chief Minister is a team player. He lets his ministers strengthen and form strong relationships with Commonwealth ministers. That is how we are getting results. The Minister for Indigenous Development had a series of meetings with minister Macklin, and the counterpart minister Arbib, regarding Indigenous employment opportunities in the Territory.
The results speak for themselves. As Treasurer, I can say we have grown Commonwealth investment in the Territory significantly. Our budget shows we have doubled investment in the Territory by the Commonwealth over the last few years. We have grown the special purpose payments and we have grown the national partnership agreement payments. Thank God we have because, at the same time, the GST pool was reducing. We have, as much as possible, carved off the effects of a declining GST pool as a result of the global financial crisis under the strong leadership of our Chief Minister.
If you genuinely want to ask if our Chief Minister is addressing the real issues and concerns of Territorians, does he have his eye on the ball in policy and resources and important outcomes – yes. Look at the challenge laid down in the censure motion contribution from the member for Blain in the greatest area of need, the bush and our remote communities - the dire need to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We had the greatest expenditure in the Territory’s history in the 2010-11 May budget. We had $1bn going into construction and building in the bush across schools, health clinics, housing, and we are resourcing them with the doctors, nurses and teachers necessary to improve the literary and numeracy outcomes and the health outcomes.
We have reduced the morbidity rate amongst Indigenous Territorians. I could not believe my ears when I heard the member for Blain talk about dialysis. I will tell you your shameful history - you would not even put it into Tennant Creek. Blood on the hands of the CLP when you would not put dialysis into Tennant Creek! Unbelievable! Some of us have been around for a while, guys. Some of us remember the shame of the CLP government which believed it was an Indigenous problem, let them go. Let them die because you would not fund renal dialysis …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: In stark contrast, this government has been rolling out renal facilities across the length and breadth of the Territory, across all of our regional towns, into Alice Springs. We have mobile remote renal dialysis going out and we are saving the lives of Territorians who have to rely on dialysis, in stark contrast to the shameful CLP. Some of us will never forget the way you treated Indigenous Territorians. Let the member for Blain raise dialysis whenever he feels like it.
Health is at the core of what we have improved. Morbidity is turning around. Education is at the core of the reforms the government has been driving. Law and order: we have been increasing our police force year-on-year, giving it legislative tools and powers. We know driving crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory is alcohol-fuelled violence. We have stepped up year-on-year with alcohol management plans, putting in supply measures area on area, and have based our latest reforms of the evidence we have seen working in places like Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy, and the ID system that has been an incredibly useful tool in Alice Springs, with 9009 sales refused in the last year alone - a useful tool in Katherine also. To pretend the Chief Minister is not focused on reducing crime - he is the Police minister – yes, he is.
I have covered all matters raised. I went into the child protection aspects in quite some detail. Bring on that debate any time because I am seriously - $8m was what the CLP funded in child protection - $8m …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am rounding it up. It was $7.8m - I am rounding it up to $8m. The current child protection budget is tracking at about $135m.
When I was Minister for Child Protection it was tracking at around about $35m, and there has been dramatic investment since then. This government has taken it from $7.8m to over $100m, with $130m investment over five years. You cannot protect children if you do not get the pathways right. The Growing them strong, together is about an innovative dual intake system, understanding you have to work with the non-government sector, you need Indigenous organisations at the heart of improving, and that without the communities, without the parents, you are nowhere.
Without taking them away from the harm of grog, changing the domestic violence occurring in the households and the neglect because people want to spend their money on grog - it took a Labor government to continue to pursue the roll-out of quarantining of welfare across the Northern Territory. Minister Macklin stepped up to the plate, she is tough, she is continuing to roll it out, and we have been there supporting every step of the way.
We have mechanisms for quarantining welfare embedded within our alcohol legislation reform that, curiously, it seems the CLP does not want to support. Unbelievable! Grog reform is not going to be the only answer, and we have always tried to, under the tutelage of this Chief Minister, tackle the myriad of responses required through health, education, law and order, housing, Closing the Gap, through targeted and specific-funded programs, whether it is the capital or building the bush we have had to do. Growth towns is the most innovative public Indigenous policy in our nation.
People are starting to take notice of the leadership shown by the Territory in understanding the service delivery model needed to grow the bush, to improve conditions, training, jobs and regional economic development. All that has been driven through the growth towns policy, and we know we have a complex series of policy changes and fine-tuning to grapple with the homelands, or the outstations, and the communities around those growth towns. I am confident in our ability to get through because the Minister for Indigenous Development is working through those policy settings with the Indigenous Advisory Council. It is inclusive. It is not top down; it is inclusive. It is understanding that across the regions of the Territory there is a difference in the vibrancy of some remote communities, some homelands, and some outstations. We understand that.
This censure motion, I am tipping, is a farewell speech from the member for Blain as Leader of the Opposition. It is a farce. I look forward to returning to the motion being debated showing the leader has no leadership and no support because he is backflipping on his own views around the mining of Angela Pamela 20 km from Alice Springs.
My tip is the member for Fong Lim will speak next and it will be his leadership speech. We have heard the farewell speech from the member for Blain, and we will hear the leadership bid speech from the member for Fong Lim. My tip is he will be better at giving his speech than the member for Blain because he is a better politician and performer. The opposition has a small chance if he has the numbers. It has no chance at the moment because a man who hides from the media for eight days - still has not answered the question - and spends eight hours hiding in a restaurant is politically dead in the water. That is what he has been since last year and continues to be to this day.
Our Chief Minister has driven the Territory forward and seen real outcomes in improving literacy, numeracy, health outcomes, improved housing …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and understanding tackling grog will turn around the crime that is unacceptable in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning!
Ms LAWRIE: Clearly, the government does not support the farewell speech motion from the member for Blain.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, goodness me, the member for Karama is indeed visionary. You saw me getting ready to speak and you called it. It is about the only thing you called right in the whole speech. Goodness me, I thought for a second you were about to tear up - a sight we do not often see in this House - the member for Karama, ready to burst into tears. It was almost like a silent plea: ‘Please forgive us, we are doing our best. Please forgive us. Can’t you honestly see all the work we are doing around the place?’ Goodness gracious me, what a pathetic effort!
I have seen it several times. When I was first elected and the member for Johnston was under attack about his bungles in the health system, he virtually threw himself on the floor of parliament and said: ‘Come on, look guys, I am doing the best I can. Health minister is a tough portfolio. Please forgive me, cut me some slack. There are many problems in the system but, really, it is not my fault’. We have just heard the same from the member for Karama. She used to be fiery; would come into parliament making allegations and casting aspersions at people - calling people all sorts of names. This time she comes in and is practically begging for forgiveness. What a sorry state it is.
I agree with this well-worded censure motion. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition: the Chief Minister should be censured because, quite obviously, he is asleep at the wheel. He does not know what he is doing; he has lost all grasp of reality. We had several hundred people out the front protesting, begging the government to do more, begging the government to take notice in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister was too gutless to talk to them. He said something along the lines of: ‘I have agreed to meet a delegation from Action for Alice’, as if all those people were from Action for Alice. They were simply Alice Springs residents, business owners, some people from the bush - a number of people the member for Stuart recently bussed out of town because the government does not like them hanging around Alice Springs.
These guys, I understand, were the same people who went to Adelaide, and it was as if they committed some heinous crime by leaving their community. Mike Brown in South Australia was screaming blue murder that a group of Aborigines from the Territory arrived on his doorstep. Imagine a bunch of homeless white people turning up in Adelaide. Do you think they would get the same attention? Highly unlikely! What was so wrong was these people embarrassed the Northern Territory government by getting on those buses and going to Adelaide. They embarrassed the Northern Territory government by staying at a park just outside Alice Springs rather than going home. That is what happens with those people, they embarrass the government. As a result, the government does everything it can to get them back to Yuendumu. Only time will tell the ramifications of that decision, and I pray there is no violence and people are not injured or attacked when they return. That has been the concern of many who are aware of the plight of these people.
The Chief Minister cannot help but defend himself in the most misguided way. The member for Araluen makes a complaint about crime and law and order in Alice Springs, and the Chief Minister abuses her saying she is somehow inciting antisocial behaviour and crime, and damaging tourism and businesses for outlining the fact crime is occurring. If you extrapolate that idea, it means every victim of crime should do nothing in case they damage Alice Springs businesses or the tourism trade. What a ridiculous line to be taking. Rather than showing real leadership, this Chief Minister would prefer to cower inside the walls of this House than talk to the people of Alice Springs and outline what plans he has for them.
It was interesting to listen to the member for Karama, the Treasurer, talking about what the government has done as a sign of leadership. She talked about the Growing them strong, together report saying it was a sign of leadership; that the government had acted quickly. The government acted so quickly the document had barely been tabled when it said it automatically accepted the 147 recommendations and would commit $130m. What sort of leadership is that? It is like outsourcing leadership to someone else - to Professor Bamblett and Dr Bath for direction because you cannot provide any yourself. It is absolutely pathetic! The Health minister is guilty of that. I am sure he ticked off on those 147 recommendations.
Also, there are recommendations to set up a separate childcare system - we will now have two childcare systems in the Northern Territory. We will have one for Indigenous Territorians and one for non-Indigenous Territorians, as if there is a difference in raising a black kid as opposed to a yellow kid, a brown kid, or a white kid.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The fact …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, order!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, 27 years, here we go. We have the Health minister interjecting …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … saying 27 years of this. I did not see any Four Corners reports in the 27 years of CLP government. No, they are all happening under Labor’s watch. Why? Because you are asleep at the wheel and you do not care.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You outsource responsibility; you do not care.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to put you comments through the Chair, thank you very much.
Dr BURNS: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should be directing his comments through the Chair, and take a deep breath, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, minister; it is always good to see you. You always put a balance to things. The Health minister fires me up because of his indifference to kids; he does not seem to care what goes on. He is quite prepared to outsource responsibility for protecting children to consultants and will blindly accept the 147 recommendations. He is blindly accepting the fact that we need two systems of child protection in the Northern Territory, one for Aboriginal Territorians, one for non-Aboriginal Territorians. He seems to think apartheid works. He wants to see a separate Aboriginal healthcare system as opposed to a mainstream one covering everyone.
Minister, if you are sick you should be able to see a doctor regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. If you are poor you should be able to get government support regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. If you need an education you should be able to go to school regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. And, if you are a child needing protection, you should be protected regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. We do not need separate systems. We will end up with duplication and wasted money - exactly what is happening under this government. Look at the billions and billions of dollars that has been wasted …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is good to see the member for Fong Lim enlighten us with CLP policy; however, can you ask the member for Fong Lim to direct his comments through you as the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you need to direct your comments through the Chair. Perhaps it might be easier for you if you went to the microphone there.
Mr TOLLNER: It is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker. In past rulings you have insisted I look at you while commenting, so I will make every attempt to maintain my focus on your countenance, if that is okay …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that, member for Fong Lim. We would all appreciate that.
Mr TOLLNER: … and not be distracted by the unruly people on my left because that is what happens. It is interesting that the member for Arafura should point that out. She is not exactly innocent in this whole debate. You will recall when the member for Karama was having her little whinge and beg for forgiveness she said: ‘Oh, we supported the intervention, you know. We got the Little Children are Sacred report going’. The government got the Little Children are Sacred report inquiry happening but when it was handed in, it buried it. The Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, tried to hide it; swept it under the carpet for several weeks and, in fact, the federal Indigenous Affairs minister had to obtain a copy of the Little Children are Sacred report off the web. The Chief Minister did not have the decency to forward a copy of the report to the Prime Minister and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister. She tried to hide it away - it was absolutely appalling. This censure motion talks about honesty; where is the honesty in that action - trying to sweep such an issue under the carpet, trying to hide it away?
What happened when the intervention was announced by the Prime Minister? The member for Karama will have us believe there was dancing on the streets by all Labor members; they thought it was a wonderful thing and wholeheartedly supported it, and the member for Arafura did not go to Sydney and give a speech about the black kids Tampa. She will have us believe none of that happened. The member for Karama will have us believe she was a wholehearted supporter of the intervention.
This government has been lying to the public if it is now trying to convince us …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask you to rule on whether that is suitable language. It is a censure but …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk on that point of order. Member for Fong Lim, the advice I have from the Clerk is we request you withdraw, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, I will withdraw that. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has not been lying, it has been very, very free with the truth and has been trying to convince us black is blue and blue is red. Good on it; it is a master of spin. It is a master in the dark art of political spin, and that has been proven time and time again. Eventually that comes out and people understand it is nothing but a pack of …
Member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly. It is not what it says, it is what it does that matters. This government has not been doing much. This is the most moribund, mendicant, shambolic and pathetic government the Northern Territory has ever seen. It is absolutely appalling. We have a Chief Minister asleep at the wheel, and a government laden with dead-beat ministers quite prepared to mislead and trample over the rights of Territorians with the audacity to attempt to convince us white is black. Goodness me, how appalling.
I received a phone call this morning from a constituent who has driven to Katherine. He informed me there are over 200 potholes between Adelaide River and Pine Creek. This is not a road this government has to fund; all it has to do is the work, hit Canberra with the bill and Canberra pays it. However, we have a road with 200 potholes. I imagine they will blame that on Cyclone Larry, Cyclone Monica or Yasi, or the fact the Commonwealth is slow in giving the government money, or Julia Gillard has other priorities at the moment. It will be anyone’s fault but the government’s that there are over 200 potholes between Adelaide River and Pine Creek.
The member for Karama talked about police, policing, and how much the government has done. It has moved the police call centre from Alice Springs to Darwin. We have the minister for place names - he did not know he was minister for place names; the Speaker did not know there was a minister for place names. There is and when asked to pronounce the names of the streets he is minister for he is void of any information whatsoever. He cannot explain the pronunciation of the streets. Instead he wants to spin a story about how the Place Names Committee works - a very exciting story but nothing to do with the question. Rather appalling. I am at a loss sometimes when I see the names of places. I respect Indigenous culture; however, it is like driving through the streets of Russia trying to understand the pronunciation of some of the places and streets.
The Commander of Palmerston Police Station has recently been moved to Darwin city - not Berrimah headquarters, Darwin city. The commander of most of the eastern Arnhem Land area has also been moved to Darwin city. Not only do we have the Alice Springs call centre now based in Darwin, we have a group of commanders responsible for local policing around the Territory based in Darwin as well. It is no wonder people in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek – minister, you might want to note that one - Katherine, right across the Territory are starting to take note this government is full of BS rather than any fact. It is a shambolic, moribund, mendicant and pathetic government and easily the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
I have great confidence in, and support for, this censure motion. The Chief Minister deserves to be censured. He is asleep at the wheel; he does not know what he is up to. Talk about the political dead - he is a walking corpse waiting for someone to place a couple of pennies on his eyeballs so we can bury him. He has lost control; he has no idea which direction to take the Northern Territory. He stands for nothing and is, basically, a husk of a man waiting for a political burial.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments regarding the motion we do not support. The Minister for Central Australia said Alice Springs was not a mining town, which I find extraordinary. Not only does he need a mining regulatory briefing from the mines minister, he needs to look into the history of Alice Springs. It is a regional mining centre, it has been a regional mining centre, notably the Arltunga goldfields. He has obviously overlooked and forgotten that and the contribution they made to the township in Central Australia. Of course, there were the mica fields with the Italians; Harts Range currently; Gem Tree, albeit small but mining operations.
We have the large exploration activity around Central Australia predominantly serviced out of the town; the second-largest gold mine in Australia, the Granites; and associated operations. In fact, during a previous company’s life and ownership of that project the company specifically gave incentives to personnel if they relocated to Alice Springs. We even have Lasseters Casino, named after, some would say, the fictitious Lasseters gold reef - perhaps it is still out there. To claim it is not a mining town is clearly not correct. Perhaps he needs to look at the history of the town where he was born and grew up.
The government tries to make some play about division on our side of the House. It too has division when it comes to the uranium issue and perhaps future uranium issues. In the ALP branch in Alice Springs the vote to support it was as close as seven/six. Six people in the ALP ranks are clearly very supportive of this project going ahead to a mining phase if that is what is undertaken by the companies.
I would be interested to know what conversations the Chief Minister has had with the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, minister Ferguson, because I would hazard a guess minister Ferguson would not be happy with this statement by the Chief Minister, nor with this government not being fully supportive of the uranium industry across the Northern Territory.
The final comment I make is about what this government has done with this project. Apart from playing political football with companies, which is appalling, it is pre-empting the official process. This was a political intervention which has seriously undermined investor confidence in the Northern Territory. When the announcement was made by the Northern Territory government I was contacted by many exploration companies, some with joint venture and financial business deals with Canadian companies in the uranium industry, alarmed at what happened in the Northern Territory, a place where there was a great deal of confidence and business potential. There are still many companies which invest in the Northern Territory; however, it has placed a confidence cloud over us, and that is very regrettable.
In conclusion, it is a sad indictment on the Chief Minister, an appalling motion, and it is not supported.
I will not be supporting the motion. I have withdrawn my motion because the debate we are having would cover the same ground.
There is no doubt there are members of the Alice Springs community who oppose a uranium mine near Alice Springs - that is their right. There is also another group, usually The Greens, which opposes all things nuclear. They are clever in gathering as many other groups as possible into their fold to achieve their goals and, of course, they will use the Japanese nuclear power plant failure to push their argument against any other mines. Regardless of the problems in Japan, nuclear power will continue, so will the need for uranium. There will be those whose voice is hardly heard, and those who support a mine.
The debate is not about nuclear power and the safety of nuclear power generation. That is for another day and not relevant to this debate. This debate is not so much about whether there should be a mine near Alice Springs; it is about the process which would enable a rational decision to be made in relation to whether it should happen.
Under Territory law, a company can explore for a mineral. That is exactly what Cameco did in 2008, and the Chief Minister said at the time:
Two years later, after Cameco went ahead exploring, spending millions of dollars doing so, the Chief Minister said …
A member: $12m.
Mr WOOD: $12m. Two years later the Chief Minister said:
The formal process is for the company to explore and then ask for approval from the federal minister for the Environment through an EIS process. If you want to find out what the EIS process is, look up the website under the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. It talks about what matters are protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. One of those is nuclear reactions, including uranium mines. It says the minister must take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development; the results of the assessment of the impacts of the proposed action, including the relevant recommendation report from the secretary of the federal Environment department; referral documentation; community and stakeholder comments; any other relevant information available on the impacts of the proposed action; and relevant comments from other Australian government and state and Territory government ministers, such as information on social and economic factors.
There is a chart which explains the process: the company would lodge an EIS and the minister would provide either standard or tailored guidelines to the proponent for a draft EIS; there would be preparation of a draft EIS; the minister would approve publication; it would go out for public comment; the EIS would be finalised, taking into account public comments; the proponent then would provide the final EIS to the minister and publish the report; the department would prepare a recommendation report and provide it to the minister; the minister would make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or not approve the proposed action. That is the process we have not gone through.
All those people who opposed or supported the possible mine – I say possible because it was a long way before a mine would even get off the ground – there is some doubt whether Cameco would have done it. Through this process they would have their chance to put forth their views, regardless of how outrageous or reasonable, and have them tested by science and logic. If people believed the water table was to be affected, or dust would affect everyone, that would have to go through a rigorous process to see if the argument was true. If they thought it would affect tourism or have an effect on health or the economy, as the Chief Minister argued, that could be argued through an EIS.
Science, facts, and logic would have to be the basis for whether a mine could go ahead, not noisy protests, theories, ideologies and claims. Unfortunately, none of that happened. The company, which had spent millions of dollars exploring and talking to the people of Alice Springs, was told by the same government that even though the Chief Minister had said this is a huge stride towards potentially billions of dollars worth of economic opportunity and jobs for the Territory, that it would not happen.
Then, a by-election popped up and, hoping to win the seat, the government announced two weeks out that it would not support the mine. Just when you thought things were bad, out of the blue came the CLP, normally pro-mining, and knock me down with a feather, on the same day the ALP made its announcement coming up to the by-election, the CLP said it would not support the mine either. That must have knocked Cameco over with a feather because it issued a media release which, when you read between the lines, shows they were quite upset.
When we talk about jobs, that decision has affected jobs in the Northern Territory because the Angela Pamela project update media release by Cameco said:
It continued:
It continued:
If you read between the lines they were very disappointed and the proof of the pudding is they have moved to an industrial shed.
As well as that, there is statement the member for Goyder referred to from the Minerals Council of Australia. The heading was: ‘NT government’s Angela Pamela decision sends a dangerous message to minerals industry’. It was a statement from Mitch Hooke, Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Council of Australia. It said:
The Alice Springs News said:
That is obvious from what he said today. I am unsure who made the decision not to oppose the mine. Was the decision made by the member for Greatorex or was it made by the CLP? It is hard to work out who made the decision to oppose the mine.
The member for Fong Lim said, according to the ABC news, I was opposed to the fact the CLP mimicked the government on the decision. I am completely opposed to it because it sends a dreadful message to our business community saying we are prepared to do and say anything in order to get our person up, including wrecking our economy. Mr Tollner said the normal process should go ahead without putting politics ahead of economic development. Public consultation is part of that process. I am opposed to the CLP policy as well and have no problem saying that.
Later, the Country Liberals issued a new statement supporting uranium mining. However, it was still not clear if it would support the Angela Pamela mine, something I hope will be clarified today. There was also a media release from Matt Conlan which included a statement:
I understand the member for Greatorex saying that; however, he also said he would support it if the process showed it was safe. The difficulty you have is if the community still does not want it. I suppose that is one of the difficulties of being a local member. However, the matter has to be raised.
I am confused as to where both parties stand on this issue. It seems both had a policy which changed when a by-election arose. The science, obviously, was political science. I believe the debate needed to go through a proper process. The process was run through the media by a well-oiled and well-funded anti-uranium lobby well versed in getting its views publicised. That is not to say there were not people with genuine concerns; however, I have been around long enough to know how things work. Good on those people, but it does not mean they are right. The government should have been able to counteract some of those arguments by using the science from the department of Resources. We sometimes let people argue about something and then let it go. Governments are not willing to put logical, scientific and commonsense responses. They seem to be drowned out or government is not willing to do it.
It should be noted the Arid Lands Environment Centre has used this debate, not because the uranium mine is 20 km from Alice, but as stated in the Alice Springs News, in:
This is part of a bigger campaign the government has fallen into hook, line and sinker. The Greens have it by the proverbials when it comes to a similar proposal to Angela Pamela anywhere in the Northern Territory. If you can make enough noise, they believe the government will cave in. If the government thought it was off the hook with Angela Pamela, do not believe it. The government should have put forward rational arguments about mining and not let the green left dominate and control the debate. The northern suburb electorates might have had a say as well.
If it was shown through an EIS this mine would not be detrimental, would the government support it? If the government will not agree with a mine being 20 km out of Alice Springs, what is the limit? Would the government agree to a mine being 25 km, 45 km or 55 km from Alice Springs? If you support mining of uranium, what are the limitations? Tell companies now so they do not spend money on exploration leading nowhere. If iron ore was found 20 km from Alice Springs, is it going to be the same argument, or is this about uranium and a fight by those who have an ideological bent against mining uranium?
The Chief Minister made a statement last night titled ‘Taking Real Action for Alice Springs’. Surely, wealth and job creation is taking real action. If we have urban drift and there are no jobs will Alice Springs become a welfare town? Talking to people recently, a long-term Alice Springs businessman raised the fact that Alice Springs continues to lose business people and their families because of social disorder and, if the percentage of Indigenous people continues to rise, and if many are either on welfare or required to be employed by government, the town will not be wealth creating but will become a service provider dependent on the government.
A mine near Alice Springs may have helped turn that trend around. Who knows? It is unlikely now. By opposing this motion, it does not mean I necessarily support the mine. I support the due process, and do not believe the process has had a fair chance. I will not support a motion that avoids the process, and one based more on political expediency because there was a by-election in Alice Springs at the time.
The Northern Territory government needs to broaden its economy. We are far too dependent on government handouts. We receive the highest percentage of GST of any government in Australia. We cannot claim we want to be a state if we do not develop our economy. Otherwise, we will continue to be a Territory reliant on funds from Canberra and always at their beck and call. We really should reconsider this decision and allow the process. This will send out the wrong message to many people - if they try to establish a uranium mine in the Northern Territory and people make a noise about it the government will, once again, use the same argument it has used in this case and cave in. That will be bad for the mining industry of the Northern Territory.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the government’s motion today opposing the development of Angela Pamela. I reiterate the meetings and contacts I have had with people in Alice Springs, even when I was the minister for Environment. I attended several rallies and was not afraid to represent the government at any. It is important we take into consideration why people come here.
The cleanliness, the beauty of this town is what many people come for. Aboriginal people and non-Indigenous people in this town have said: wiya Angela Pamela, lawa Angela Pamela, itja Angela Pamela. It is a strong message from a group of people in this town who have said ‘no’ in many different languages. We need to keep the beauty of this town to allow us to raise our children in a very clean environment. Sometimes people think activities coming out of Alice are too far left; however, this goes beyond what Alice does.
This is about the future of this town. We should not just be looking at the economic future of this town based on Angela Pamela. As the Chief Minister and other members on this side have said, there is a future for economic development in this town in many other areas, even in the mining industry - not 20 km out of our town. At the end of the day, we are the people born and bred in Central Australia and will die in Central Australia. We do not have anywhere else to go. We cannot be moving out in 20 years time to live in Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. We will not be buried anywhere else except Alice Springs or in our communities.
Town camps are close to where this mine is proposed - like Little Sisters and Karnte and Anthepe. It might be 20 km from the CBD, but it is only 10 km or 11 km from these town camps where Indigenous people live. There are many things to consider when debating this issue - the future of generations to come of all Central Australians - all children born today in Alice Springs. What is the hope and future for these children? As adults, parents, and grandmothers who live in and enjoy this beautiful town, do we really want a mine 20 km from town which will have an effect on our future generations - our grandchildren - growing up in this town?
The Chief Minister - please correct me if I am wrong, Chief Minister – said many people come here because there is no mining 20 km, 30 km or 40 km from this town. Doctors, teachers and social workers come here because of the cleanliness and beauty of the town and because they can go camping anywhere. The area of the proposed mine is absolutely beautiful country. I drive past to go to Titjikala all the time, and know the member for Arafura has been down that track a few times. They are really …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The clock, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Apparently there is a problem with the clock, but you have 16 minutes to go. I will attempt to give you a warning with about one minute left.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have to ensure there are other avenues for economic development in this town. There are many other economic opportunities in the mining industry and the tourism industry. We cannot go around wrecking the environment 20 km out of this beautiful town. Sure, we have our problems in this town; however, we cannot wreck our environment just to have an economic base. What guarantee do we have that most of our young people would be employed in this industry?
We have to ensure the future generation and the future environmental aspects of this town are looked after, which is why I am voting with the government on this motion today.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this motion the government has put forward opposing the establishment of a uranium mine at Angela Pamela, 20km from Alice Springs, is a furphy. There is no mine at the moment, and, as other speakers have pointed out, the Angela Pamela site is an exploration site. It is in the early stages of its exploration phase.
Members have spoken about the uranium mining industry being highly regulated and, as the member for Nelson pointed out, it is a formal process we are talking about today which uranium miners must adhere to with regard to providing scientific evidence and logic about how mining could be conducted at different sites in the Northern Territory. This formal process, as the member for Nelson pointed out, includes environmental impact studies which look at the impact of uranium mining on people’s lives.
The member for Macdonnell talked about how significant uranium mines are, particularly one as close to an urban setting such as Alice Springs; how important this particular mine is, and others will be in the future no doubt, and those in the past to the lives of people living in the area.
I am one of those people; I live in Alice Springs and I have a family; I have a vested interest in the town; I love the town and I share those concerns about the exploration of the Angela Pamela site for uranium mining.
Six months ago, when I was the candidate for Araluen, I had those concerns and was very worried about this mine. As I embarked on my campaign walking around the streets of Araluen for many days leading up to 9 October 2010 by-election, I spoke with many people who raised their concerns about the Angela Pamela uranium exploration going on 23 km outside Alice Springs. People wanted reassurance that (a) it might not go ahead, or (b) if it did go ahead we would, as a Country Liberal government, ensure rigorous studies had been conducted and there would be no harm to their safety.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Put that down please, minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I went about my business of doorknocking and campaigning for the Araluen by-election, as green as I was and green as I still am. On 28 September 2010, the government announced a backflip on its uranium policy and Angela Pamela. In 2008, as other members of the opposition have pointed out, it announced the exploration licence for the Angela Pamela site and spoke highly of what this would mean to the town of Alice Springs; talked it up and made out this was something it supported.
The government backflipped on 28 September and, as the candidate for Araluen, I was quite confused, as were many people in the Alice Springs community. The member for Nelson pointed out it seemed a strange move to make for a government that had, no less than a few years before, spoken of how successful it was in securing this exploration licence for the Cameco Paladin consortium to start exploration at the Angela Pamela site.
That was an interesting position for the candidate for Araluen – me - to be in. I was very concerned about the Angela Pamela mine; worried for my children, worried for the water supply and worried for the future of the town. I was sharing the concerns of my possible future constituents and, as a member of the community, my concerns were very much the same as many other people in the town. The government backflipped and I was placed in a very interesting situation where I did not support the Angela Pamela mine, and I still do not.
The advice I had was the Country Liberals’ policy was we support uranium mining and, indeed we do, across the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about it; however, this one was a curly one …
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … and I am seeing the nod and hearing the ‘yes’ from the mines minister who agrees it is a curly one. I have a story about the mines minister I should share before my time expires; however, I agreed with the Labor candidate for Araluen, Adam Findlay - we were on the same page; we did not support the Angela Pamela mine. It was not so much a case of mimicking as the member for Nelson suggested, it was a case of two residents of Alice Springs competing for the distinguished position of being a member of parliament for the seat of Araluen, and I stand by that commitment today: I do not support the mine.
On 28 September, I was thrust in front of the ABC cameras - I remember it well - and I am on the public record saying: ‘Yes, it is true, I do not support the Angela Pamela exploration site’. However, I support due process, the crux of my concern about the motion today. Due process was dumped by the government for political reasons and, probably in the long term, to the detriment of the government because we are trying to foster a strong and prosperous mining industry in the Northern Territory. We have a prosperous mining industry which we want to improve; we want to have a future relationship with the industry and to dump it had far-reaching implications my colleagues have already listed. Because it was dumped with very little explanation apart from it seemed like a good thing to do on the day, a good way of perhaps capturing a few votes through the by-election, the Northern Territory is now seen as a risky entity by mining companies.
Yes, I was surprised as much as anyone that the government backflipped. We were put in an interesting situation where I had to be honourable to myself and the people I had spoken to. I was halfway through doorknocking the whole electorate. So, it was an interesting change in my approach because, after that point, I was knocking on doors saying: ‘No, I do not support the Angela Pamela mine and I share your concerns’.
I support mining in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia. My family has a strong connection to the mining industry. My sister has been married to a mining engineer for over 20 years and they have lived and worked throughout Australia. I have many close friends who are connected very strongly to the mining industry. As a member of the Country Liberals and, of course, a member of the opposition, I want to support and foster that.
You are right, the government has been correct in its analysis of the situation. The opposition is in favour of uranium mining, and that includes all areas of the Northern Territory. I am in a quirky, tricky situation where I personally oppose the Angela Pamela exploration site, but most of my shadow cabinet colleagues, and the party, do not oppose the Angela Pamela exploration site.
The future of my position on this issue is about maintaining my support to my constituents - the people who voted me in. Seven out of 10 people in the electorate of Araluen voted for me on 9 October. Of those people, who could tell who voted for me because I opposed the Angela Pamela exploration site? However, given that both candidates opposed the Angela Pamela site, it probably neutralised the whole issue in many respects. Perhaps that was a positive thing in the campaign. We were both on an equal footing, so to speak.
The future for me, though, is about due process. If exploration of that site was to continue or be reignited, I would be a strong proponent of ensuring the mining company involved adhered to every single condition or requirement necessary. This is my home, my life, my future, and the life, home, and future of my constituents. For me, it is about safety and quality of life. There is absolutely nothing that will stop me from ensuring 100% that, if any exploration was to continue and any mining lease on that site ever to be considered, those things were absolutely 100% completed to the satisfaction of the community.
That is a long way off. Where we are today is exploration on that site has been suspended for many different reasons, some of which could be rumours I understand. We were told during the by-election that the exploration site may not have been as viable as hoped. Who knows? There was much speculation and talk about why Cameco withdrew fairly quickly from the site and moved on, and not all necessarily about the fact that both the government and the opposition seemed to withdraw support for exploration of the site.
If I am not satisfied the mining company has jumped through every single hoop there is, and there is not a shadow of a doubt this is a safe mine for the people of Alice Springs, I will continue to not support a mine on that site. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, no matter what the consequence is, I will never support a mine on that site if the people of Alice Springs are at stake. That is my position.
I go back to the motion, and I have a few minutes to tell a story. This morning I went to a breakfast. The Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory and Desert Knowledge Australia Outback Business Networks and the Central Australia Mining Services Network invited me to a breakfast meeting on Wednesday, 30 March 2011. That was held this morning. It was a lovely gathering of mining industry people. In attendance at that breakfast was the mines minister, minister Kon Vatskalis, and the minister for Business. It was a non-political affair. Everyone was sharing information. The mines minister gave a short speech updating the group on mining activities within the Northern Territory, and possible opportunities for Alice Springs mining industry people that could be coming up in the future.
Right at the end of that gathering a member of the local branch of the Chamber of Commerce made a comment about the Angela Pamela mine, basically inferring the opposition was not supporting the mining industry. The mines minister and the minister for Business remained absolutely silent. There was not one word mentioned of the fact that at 10 am the government would debating a motion opposing the establishment of a uranium mine at Angela Pamela, 20 km from Alice Springs. That is deceptive and misleading, and if you want to talk about people within the opposition - members of parliament representing their constituents honestly and openly - you do not have much ground to stand on because that was very deceptive and highly hypocritical.
I end my speech today by unequivocally stating I oppose the Angela Pamela mine. I am a member of shadow cabinet and my loyalties are quite confused as to what the future holds. What I am very clear on is if this mine proceeds, or if this exploration proceeds, then I have to be absolutely convinced, and most of my constituents have to be convinced, this mine will be safe for the people of Alice Springs.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that for quite a long time I have had my colours nailed to the mast in relation to this issue. Since being the federal member, I have always maintained a very pro-nuclear, pro-mining and pro-progress stance on these areas. It is no news to people in this Chamber that I supported Australia’s need for a nuclear waste facility, and that Australia had to be pragmatic in finding a location for the nuclear waste facility. Unfortunately, due to a situation in relation to federation, it meant one of the few places a nuclear waste facility could be placed was in the Northern Territory. It is interesting to note there is not a Premier around the country who opposes a nuclear waste facility, but they all, to a man or woman, oppose a facility in their state. Because of the way our Constitution is structured in this country, the Commonwealth was left with very few options as to where to locate a nuclear waste facility.
It is also a given amongst anyone who knows the debate, that a location has to be found by 2014 because we are under a contractual obligation to take nuclear waste back from France, where we send it for reprocessing. Australia has a desperate need to find a location for a nuclear waste facility.
It is interesting when people talk about these things they say: ‘Let us look at the science and let science be the guiding factor’. If these people were true to that idea they would acknowledge science has long decided nuclear waste facilities are safe; that you could practically build a low and intermediate waste storage facility on the side of Mt Vesuvius because it is not a scientific problem anymore, simply an engineering problem, and provided you have the engineering right and spend the money on building the facility correctly, you can build one practically anywhere.
It is crazy in Australia that this facility is coming to the Northern Territory because you could quite easily build one in New South Wales, Queensland or Canberra. There is no problem with that. However, because of a quirk of federation we find ourselves in a situation where government needs to do something. I was quite happy to say: ‘It is a safe industry, science has proven that. We can have it in the Northern Territory providing we receive adequate compensation’.
I travelled overseas to look at nuclear power stations; I looked at nuclear waste facilities, and I stood in an election campaign based on the national nuclear waste repository. As a result, people call me Nuclear Dave these days. It is not something I shy away from. When I was presented with this in relation to the Angela Pamela mine, for me the decision was simple. Providing the process is followed correctly, providing we do everything right, and if that process and those checks and balances are maintained and everything is ticked off, the mine should be able to proceed.
The greatest concern of the members for Araluen, Macdonnell and Greatorex is for the environment, and I agree with them 100%. We should have major concerns about the environment in the Northern Territory. We have some wonderful industries in the Northern Territory: agriculture, tourism, mining, all of which rely on our natural environment. They are totally dependent upon our environment and I have no drama at all with protecting our environment - it is the goose that lays the golden egg. We have to be very stringent with our environmental requirements, which is why we have processes that go through every detail of environmental impact. That is why I am happy to support the process surrounding Angela Pamela, if it ever becomes a mine, because it has to go through such a stringent process.
Uranium mines, Madam Speaker, I am sure you are aware, are not like iron ore mines, coal mines, even gas extraction plants. They are the most regulated, highly-scrutinised mines in the country. In order to get a uranium mine to approval stage and operate it requires a level of scrutiny not applied to any other mine. The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a mine’s answer to a range of different federal institutions other mining does not require. In that regard, I have no problem supporting the concept that Cameco Paladin should be allowed to proceed through that very stringent and rigorous process we have in place for all mines.
What a boon to Alice Springs and Central Australia if it proceeds. Looking around this town is interesting because we are consumed with problems of law and order, many of which are symptoms of unemployment, homelessness and lack of opportunity, and we are, on the other hand, taking away more opportunity or looking for ways to undermine the processes we have put in place as a government and a community. That is totally wrong.
When we talk about hypocrisy and who says what, it is simple to see this motion is aimed at embarrassing several members on the opposition benches. That is all it is about. Let us be honest: tell us why you are running it? The Chief Minister, for a good 90% of his debate, aimed it at division within the ranks of the Country Liberals, which may well appeal to the Machiavellian spinners in the Labor Party …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, all right, we have a French teacher here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair. Order! Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this is aimed at. That is the grubby political game they like to involve themselves in. However, when we talk about hypocrisy and division, let us look at the government side of things. There was a ballot process almost for who would win the right to explore the Angela Pamela lease, and a number of companies were very involved and wanted to do some exploration. When the decision was made as to who would be awarded that opportunity this government was quick to say how many hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent, very close to Alice Springs and how many employment opportunities it would create.
People have tabled media releases the Chief Minister and the mines minister issued at the time saying how wonderful it was. I have to agree; it was a good decision. Eventually, we had to get someone to explore that area; look at it, see if it is feasible to go ahead, and you only find out by going through the process - what a great thing - and the Chief Minister at the time was right. The hypocrisy of the man is he now says the government is a party of due process - what a joke. It completely undermined the process, just as it did with the Arafura Harbour project in Darwin.
The member for Fannie Bay was one of the first to applaud the government for undermining due process as if it was a great badge of honour to wear on his chest. The member for Stuart does the same thing with Angela Pamela. The government undermines due process and he says: ‘Bewdy, this is a win for the people of Alice Springs’. It is not a win; it is a great big loss for all Territorians, not just the people of Alice Springs. It is a great big loss in Darwin when you undermine the due process based around the Arafura Harbour.
I do not believe Arafura Harbour had a hope in hell of getting up through due process. However, there are businessmen who put their money and their livelihoods on the line - who mortgaged their houses to take a risk. The least they should expect is that it is looked at fairly and not have a government stepping in making arbitrary decisions and undermining the whole process. When a government does that it scares off other investors willing to take a risk and put money where their mouth is.
The people behind Cameco Paladin are not big timers; they are not the high rollers of the mining and exploration industry. These are guys who, in many cases, are putting up their own money. They are not gambling the money of other Australians and super funds - some of it is - much of this money is personal investment. When you get up the noses of these people it sends a very clear message, not just to them, but other people who have money to invest and want to seek out opportunity and create jobs and wealth for a local economy - when you undermine that process, you create an element of risk.
This is what Mitch Hooke, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, was talking about when he said this is a great blow for sovereign risk. Who would have thought this bunch of mendicant, shambolic goons could create a level of sovereign risk in Australia which scares off international investors? That is exactly what they have done. They sit here proud of it - smiling away: ‘We have done a great thing’, rather than explain to people there is no certainty this mine will go ahead. There is a very stringent and rigorous process to go through before anyone is going to give them a tick.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when our mines minister, the member for Casuarina, spoke with Martin Ferguson, the federal Resources minister. I have had a slight relationship with Martin Ferguson over the years, long before I entered politics - he was my boss for around 10 years. I entered federal politics and we both served on the Industry and Resources committee for six years, and I got an inkling of the way he thinks. In fact, I am proud to call him a friend. We are on different sides of politics, and there are members on the other side of this Chamber who will not find that unusual because some of them I also call friends. We will not go into that; I will not embarrass them here.
I know Martin Ferguson as good as, or better, than most people on the other side of the federal parliament. I have a rough idea of the way he thinks. At one stage, Martin Ferguson and I sat on the Industry and Resources committee on an inquiry into uranium in Australia. The unanimously supported report was Australia’s Uranium – Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world. If you analyse that, it gives you an idea of the feelings of the committee in relation to uranium mining. It was a very good report unanimously supported by all members of the committee, both Labor and Liberal - and Independents as Bob Katter was also on the committee. Martin Ferguson is one of the most pro-mining, pro-uranium people in the federal parliament, and also the federal Resources minister.
I do not know if there was discussion prior to a decision being made; however, I have a pretty good idea Martin Ferguson would have absolutely horrified with the decision this Labor government has taken. After years and years of fighting the views of the uninformed Luddites with their heads buried in the sand - and I refer to the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as one; she would prey on people’s fears in relation to anything nuclear. Martin Ferguson has spent a long time, as have many other people, saying: ‘Hang on, when electricity was invented people were scared of that’.
Nowadays, we do not think too much of electricity being supplied to most places; in fact, we want it. In years to come it will be the same with nuclear power because the industry will become so safe. It has an incredibly safe record now, and most places will want it regardless of recent events in Japan.
This debate is merely a political stunt. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. It is a political stunt for two reasons: one, it quite rightly will embarrass some people within the CLP. We have aired our dirty laundry in public, and it will give a few of us something to think about in the future. Good on the government for raising that point. Second, it is the most deceitful motion designed to take the focus away from people of the Northern Territory regarding the real issues in Alice Springs. You only have to pick up any newspaper, turn on any radio, watch the news at night - look at The Australian, our national newspaper. When you read about the Northern Territory it is about crime in Alice Springs and law and order. This government has failed; it knows it and is ashamed of it.
The Deputy Chief Minister practically fell down on her knees begging us to recognise some of the achievements of this government. It was one of the most appalling speeches I have heard since the member for Johnston did the same thing several years ago when under the pump on the health issue. You crawl in completely frustrated, at a complete loss, do not know where to go, have no idea, no direction, are fresh out of ideas, shot to pieces and say: ‘Please, we really have done something’. What? Assault statistics are going up, break and enter is going up, and dreadful damning reports come out every few years in relation to child protection.
Everything you do in relation to alcohol punishes the population not the offender. That is exactly what you are doing with your current grog laws - punishing the social drinker rather than the hardened alcoholic. It is all wrong, and that is what this debate is about. That is the level of trickiness this government will go to in order to divert attention from the problems it faces face.
We saw the terrible scene yesterday of people leaving their workplace and business coming here to register concerns, and a shameless Chief Minister hiding inside this building - would not even talk to the crowd for two minutes. Why? He said he does not talk to rabbles. What way is that to talk about the local population, decent hardworking business owners and citizens of Alice Springs? It is appalling. We come here …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired
Mr TOLLNER: I thought I had two minutes to go about one second ago.
Madam SPEAKER: Maybe the clock is wrong. Sorry, you have a minute to go.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time under Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear the Treasurer agree. Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. I am disappointed the Treasurer does not want me here any longer ...
Ms Lawrie: It is scintillating, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: I thought it would be. The truth hurts at times. I imagine you would be in pain at the moment given the fact you have been seen through ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, you have been given an extension, can you come to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, I am talking to the point; this government has lost control of due process. This decision also points out this government is anti-mining and has shown that time and time again. A number of projects have gone interstate and a number of mining companies have left the Northern Territory, most recently Cameco, which moved out of the Territory after spending a long time here. They have upped stumps and left, and who could blame them? They have been shafted - pardon the pun - by this government.
Who could forget McArthur River and its river diversion program? This company spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a mine management plan and environmental impact statements about 5 km of river diversion. This government sat still, asleep at the wheel, waiting for the rock star in Canberra to make a decision - Peter Garrett. No minister went to Canberra and said: ‘This mine is 5% of our gross state product and employs 400 people; this mine is the lifeblood of Borroloola and provides many health services in Borroloola; this mine provides many educational services; this mine is building a local swimming pool’. None of that. This government was quite prepared to sit by and watch the mine close down. Four hundred workers left the Northern Territory because it shut down. The government said: ‘Oh no, they are just veiled threats by the mine; it will not go anywhere’. Well, it shut down. There was no urgency on behalf of this government, or Canberra, to keep the mine open. Instead it listened, the same as here to a minority group, and said: ‘We will take your concerns on board and say nothing; button our lips and see what Mr Garrett has to say’ - someone who has spent most of his life campaigning against all forms of mining.
The government is prepared to say there is huge community opposition in Alice Springs to the Angela Pamela mine. I say to the mines minister: show us the Labor Party polling; show us how many people are opposed to it. I remember the protests the last time we were here. They were in front of this building and there would not have been 50 people. They had some good stunts; a naked bloke in a box and some big signs. The loony left and greenies are pretty good at putting on a show but I do not believe they represent the majority of people in Central Australia - that is outrageous and ridiculous. They are the people this government listens to.
Ultimately, it is not just this government; it is the federal Labor government. I feel for my good friend in Canberra, Martin Ferguson, because he sees his leader, Julia, in bed with Bob Brown from The Greens. Nationally, Labor has embraced the lunatic fringe policies of The Greens, which is why we are getting a carbon tax even though it is going to eventually cost Julia her job. However, she feels …
Madam SPEAKER: Member Fong Lim, I allowed it the first time, but I remind you we refer to members, particularly the Prime Minister, or someone from another House, by their title not their first name. Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not call her Bob Brown’s bitch, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon! I ask you to withdraw that, thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. The Prime Minister is in bed with Bob Brown, metaphorically. The ramifications of that political marriage are long and deep. Who knows what we will see in the Northern Territory: maybe a ban on all cars over four cylinders. We might have heroin injecting rooms in the Northern Territory even though we do not have any heroin addicts. Who knows what we are going to have? We are going to get a tax Australians were promised, before the election, would never happen. We have seen the Prime Minister completely backflip. It has been suggested she lied to the Australian people and is now proceeding with a carbon tax in opposition to what she said before the election and with no mandate from the Australian people.
These are the people Territory Labor answers to. These are the political masters of Territory Labor, so it is no wonder we are seeing such an anti-mining penchant in the Northern Territory. There are not too many mining companies anywhere that would disagree with that statement. I challenge the minister to say what drove him to support such a ridiculous position of the government Cabinet. What an outlandish situation we saw at the Araluen by-election when the government said it would disregard due process and the approvals project and say it was 100% opposed to it. What absolute nonsense. It has cost the Northern Territory and its population much. We have lost jobs, we have lost the respect and confidence of the mining community and, ultimately, it is going to take much work to turn that around. This government will not be able to do it because it refuses to say it stuffed up on its decision.
Our side of parliament has had some disagreements on it; however, the Country Liberals are completely united on the issue. We have received much support and accolades from the mining industry for taking what has been seen to be a fairly tough decision - saying some of us might have it wrong but, at the end of the day, we support the mining industry, due process; and the very stringent controls we place on the environment, but are not going to undermine investment options and opportunities into the future.
Madam Speaker, that is why I oppose this motion. It is a ridiculous motion designed to do two things: (1) to somehow embarrass the opposition; and (2) to take attention away from the government’s major faults in Alice Springs. We have seen the breakdown in so many different areas of governance - too long to list here. I implore all sensible people in this Chamber to oppose this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Dr Burns Mr Conlan
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mrs Lambley
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Ms McCarthy Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009, tabled in the Assembly on 26 November 2009, for the provision of travel and communication entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for the calendar year 2010, with the annual schedule containing government payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense. I also table a schedule of ministers’ phone expenses during the calendar year.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I know it is 5.30 pm and we ordinarily go into General Business; however, as there are a number of government business amendments for introduction, with the agreement of the opposition and the Independents, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of Government Business, can I just clarify? We need a procedural motion relating to Question Time tomorrow. Is it included in that?
Dr BURNS: I thought I would do that tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: It would only take one minute if there is agreement on the 6 pm.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I have no objection - for the sake of the motions before the House at the moment, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, sorry …
Mr ELFERINK: I indicate our support for the motion. If you would like to put the question we can then deal with the Question Time motion.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, as has been previously agreed, I move - That the Routine of Business, Questions be taken at 6 pm on Thursday, 31 March 2011.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Now we have two questions before the House. We should deal with the first question first.
Madam SPEAKER: We will deal with suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Which one are we voting on, so I am clear?
Madam SPEAKER: This is the suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: The first one, thank you.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Question Time – Thursday 31 March 2011
Madam SPEAKER: I am concerned about Question Time. The member for Port Darwin indicated if you did that now it should take one minute and not be a problem.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to do this tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: No, from a procedural point of view it has to happen.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move - That the Routine of Business, Questions, be taken at 6 pm on Thursday, 31 March 2011.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
On 26 October 2010, during the October 2010 sittings, I outlined the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package following an announcement of the same on 1 September 2010. On 28 October 2010, I tabled two draft bills which form part of this package of comprehensive alcohol reforms as exposure drafts for public consultation. The two draft bills were the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court Bill, and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill. The tabling of these draft bills was to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduced legislation.
The government conducted extensive consultation on the tabled draft bills and is confident it has public support of the proposed measures in the bills being introduced today. The public consultation on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the draft bills ran until the end of November 2010. It employed a range of strategies to gain feedback on the reforms including: a household survey sent to every home in Darwin and Palmerston; a free call 1800 number; a dedicated website allowing for public comment; targeted consultation with key stakeholders; public forums held in each of the major centres of the Territory; and media coverage and advertisements.
We are all well aware that the cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult, more than four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol per capita consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime - 60% of assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work is alcohol-related. Public feedback received through the consultation indicated strong support for the proposed reforms. The reforms are seen as a genuine attempt to holistically address the needs of people who misuse alcohol and other drugs.
I turn now to the detail of this bill, the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011 or SMART Court bill. This bill provides for the Alcohol Reform and (Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment) Act of 2011. The bill provides that:
the Alcohol Court Act is repealed;
the SMART Court will offer assessment and access to programs for offenders who are misusing substances.
The SMART Court will have the power to make particular orders, including bans and treatment for eligible offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol or other drugs. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate a reduction in offending and antisocial behaviour associated with substance misuse and to facilitate improved health and social outcomes for people whose offending is related to substance misuse. The bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of acts which contain references to the Alcohol Court Act, and also transitional arrangements concerning matters before the Alcohol Court at the time of the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act.
Madam Speaker, as you may be aware, a discussion paper on the Alcohol Court proposing reforms to the Alcohol Court Act was released for comment on 29 October 2009. The discussion paper sought comments on the following issues in relation to the Alcohol Court: confusion concerning Alcohol Court orders; alcohol dependency; applicants for referral; no penalty for prohibition order; entering a plea or expressing an intention to do; deferral of sentencing; failure to appear; provision of information to victims; and reporting of breaches and domestic violence orders. It also sought comments in relation to antisocial behaviour regarding Alcohol Court and infringement notices and Alcohol Court and non-offenders.
In the feedback on the discussion paper it was suggested the Alcohol Court Act should be repealed and a new act developed to provide for both alcohol and drug offenders, giving us many options to deal with these offenders. This would enable poly drug users to be appropriately treated and remove the distinction between alcohol and other drugs. The need for youth to be able to address youth offending involving drugs or alcohol was also raised.
It was determined that new legislation would better provide for the matters raised in the discussion paper and fit within the comprehensive alcohol reforms being undertaken. Thus, the SMART Court bill was developed providing for the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act.
Clause 5 of the SMART Court bill lists the general principles that must be applied in the administration of the act. These principles include that offenders eligible for referral should be identified as early as possible; the process of the court is to be collaborative and non-adversarial; and there should be significant and ongoing monitoring of the progress of offenders who are subject to SMART orders. The system must be one that contains both rewards and sanctions.
Part 2 of the SMART Court bill establishes the SMART Court and provides the defined jurisdiction in which the SMART Court can exercise power as a court of therapeutic justice. The SMART Court bill provides that the jurisdiction of the SMART Court is exercised by a magistrate with the Chief Magistrate to decide which magistrate should exercise jurisdiction of the court. Both adults and youths can be referred to the SMART Court. All matters capable of finalisation in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court can be referred to the SMART Court. An appeal from the SMART Court is to the Supreme Court.
Part 3 of the SMART Court bill provides for referral of offenders to the SMART Court. In order to be referred to the SMART Court, a person must: be charged with a relevant offence; admit guilt or indicate intention to plead guilty; or have been found guilty and not yet been sentenced for the offence. Defendants must either admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty.
Participation in treatment and programs set out in a SMART order forms a part of the sentencing process. Drug courts across Australia require offenders to admit guilt, with treatment programs used as part of the sentencing process. Before referring an offender to the SMART Court, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court must be satisfied the offender must be an eligible offender. That means the offender must appear to have a history of serious substance misuse.
Part 4 of the SMART Court bill provides for the making of a SMART order. An offender must allow information to be given to a court clinician regarding the charges and facts of the relevant offence and any antecedents, as well as other information that will assist the clinician in making an assessment. The court must order the offender to attend clinical assessment and for an assessment report to be made. A SMART order may be made if the offender has been found guilty but not yet sentenced. In addition, the offender must be willing to comply with a SMART order. The court must also be satisfied the offender has a history of serious substance misuse, the misuse contributed to the offending and, if appropriate, for an order to be made. The SMART Court will then, once the defendant has been found guilty, have the option of:
making a SMART order and deferring sentencing for up to 12 months on condition the offender complies with a SMART order;
refusing to make a SMART order and sentencing the offender; or
referring the offender back to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court for sentencing.
Clause 20 enables an order to be made deferring sentencing while treatment is undertaken as part of a SMART order. An order under clause 20 would be made in matters involving less serious offending where it is unlikely an offender will be sentenced to imprisonment.
Clause 21 enables a SMART Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment with the execution of the sentence being suspended while treatment is undertaken as part of the SMART order. An order under clause 21 would be made in matters involving more serious offending where the offender is facing a sentence of imprisonment.
The SMART order, whether made under clause 20 or 21, may include conditions as to: the conduct of the offender; actions to be taken by the offender; consumption, use, purchase or possession of a substance by the offender; courses, programs or activities in which the offender must participate; and testing of the offender for substances. During the course of the SMART order the magistrate monitors the progress of the treatment and sentences or re-sentences the offender on completion of the SMART order.
Part 5 of the SMART Court bill sets out the monitoring process. It also sets out a system of rewards and sanctions.
Clause 25 sets out the rewards that may be conferred and the sanctions that may be imposed by the court when reviewing the progress of an offender on a SMART order. A reward may be conferred or sanction imposed depending on the progress of the offender under the SMART order. An offender who is complying well with the order may be conferred a reward, while a sanction may be imposed on an offender who is not in compliance. Rewards that may be conferred include changes in the frequency of counselling, treatment, or other intervention. They may also include a decrease in supervision.
If an offender contravenes a SMART order a sanction may be imposed. Sanctions include a change of condition to increase the frequency of testing for alcohol or drugs, and the offender be detained for a youth, or imprisoned for an adult, for up to 14 days. When an offender, the subject of a SMART order under clause 20, appears before the court to be sentenced, or if the order is revoked or cancelled, the court must sentence the offender. When an offender, the subject of SMART order under clause 21, appears before the court for reconsideration of the sentence, or if the order is revoked or cancelled, the court must reconsider the sentence and either confirm the sentence or set aside the sentence and make a new sentencing order.
When sentencing an offender, or reconsidering the sentence of an offender, the court must take into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the SMART order, any sanctions imposed during the period the order was enforced, and any other matters considered relevant.
When reconsidering the sentence and imposing a final sentence - unless the order has been revoked or cancelled - sections 78BA and 78BB of the Sentencing Act do not apply. Sections 78BA and 78BB of the Sentencing Act mandate a sentence of imprisonment for certain offences. Allowing the SMART Court to sentence an offender who has completed a SMART order without the constraints of these sanctions will allow this therapeutic court to properly take into account the extent to which the offender has compiled with the SMART order, any sanctions imposed during the period of the order was enforced, and any other matters considered relevant.
The submissions received during the consultations on the exposure drafts SMART Court bill were generally supportive of the draft bill and the objects of the legislation. The inclusion of drugs, and of youth as offenders who can be dealt with by the SMART Court, was supported. The major concern raised by stakeholders was the potential model, as outlined in the bill tabled in the October 2010 sittings, fell short of an effective and best practice therapeutic court. Stakeholders were supportive of a SMART Court model that met the objectives of a therapeutic court.
The majority of submissions regarding the SMART Court supported remodelling the SMART Court bill so that: there is incentive to participate by ensuring sufficient reward for progress and sanctions that can be imposed with failure to comply with orders; there is provision for judicial monitoring of matters before the court so the progress of an offender can be monitored; there is a statement of principles providing clear direction that the SMART Court operates in a collaborative, rather then adversarial manner, to promote the offender’s rehabilitation through consensual decision-making; the sentencing options are clarified to ensure there is an incentive for offenders to participate; and terminology is broad enough so the SMART orders may cover expanded services, if available.
The government considered the suggestions made during consultation and has made amendments, together with amendments of a technical nature, to ensure the effective operation of the SMART Court. Persons who have not committed criminal offences are not within the jurisdiction of the SMART Court. Persons who have alcohol or drug misuse problems, but who have not committed offences, may be referred to the Alcohol and Other Drug Tribunal established in the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
On 26 October 2010, during the October sittings, I outlined the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package following an announcement of the same on 1 September 2010. On 28 October 2010, I tabled two draft bills which formed part of this package of comprehensive alcohol reforms as exposure drafts for public consultation. The two draft bills were the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, and the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court Bill. The tabling of these draft bills was to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduced legislation.
The government conducted extensive consultation on the tabled draft bills and is confident it has public support of the proposed measures in the bills being introduced today. The public consultation on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the draft bills ran until the end of November 2010. It employed a range of strategies to gain feedback on the reforms including: a household survey sent to every home in Darwin and Palmerston; a free call 1800 number; a dedicated website allowing for public comment; targeted consultation with key stakeholders; public forums held in each of the major centres of the Territory; and media courage and advertisements.
We are all well aware the cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult, more then four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime: 60% of assaults, 67% of domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work are alcohol-related.
The public feedback received through the consultation indicated strong support for the proposed reforms. The reforms are seen as a genuine attempt to holistically address the needs of people who misuse alcohol and other drugs.
I turn now to the detail of the bill currently before the Legislative Assembly, the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011, the PACSM bill.
This bill provides for the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011. The objects of the PACSM bill are to support family and social welfare, and improve the health and wellbeing of people in the Territory by providing a legislative framework for: the prevention of the commission of alcohol-related offences; the prevention of misuse of alcohol or other drugs; the protection of people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs from severe or serious harm because of the misuse; and the protection of people, particularly children, from harm or nuisance resulting from misuse of alcohol or other drugs by others.
The objects of the bill are facilitated by measures for preventing the commission of alcohol-related offences. These measures include:
prohibitions on access to and consumption of alcohol by people who are misusing alcohol and increased availability of intervention aiming to reduce misuse;
compulsory assessment of people reasonably believed to be misusing alcohol or other drugs;
compulsory treatment for the recovery and rehabilitation of people with dependency on alcohol or other drugs;
appropriate intervention for people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs; and
income management for people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs.
The PACSM bill provides for a police-driven administrative banning system allowing police to issue banning alcohol and treatment (BAT) notices.
The bill also establishes the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal (the tribunal) with a power to make orders for the benefit of people who misuse alcohol or other drugs. Part 2 of the PACSM bill sets out provisions relating to BAT notices and alcohol misuse interventions. It enables police to issue a BAT notice to certain people, including those who have not committed an offence but have come to the attention of police for alcohol-related incidents. Police can issue notices to persons who have been:
taken into protective custody three times during a three month period;
given two infringement notices under section 23(1) of the Traffic Act for low-range driving under the influence of alcohol within the previous three years;
charged or summonsed in relation to an alcohol-related offence; or
a defendant in a police-issued Domestic Violence Order (DVO) if police believe the person was affected by alcohol at the time the DVO conduct occurred.
Alcohol-related infringement notices include drinking in a public place which is a dry area, such as within 2 km of a licensed premise. An alcohol-related offence includes drink-driving offences under the Traffic Act where a person is automatically suspended from driving, offences captured by section 19 of the Traffic Act.
Clause 8(1)(b) provides that a BAT notice prohibits the person from purchasing, consuming or possessing alcohol for a three-month period. A BAT notice, therefore, prevents the person from purchasing takeaway alcohol. A breach of the BAT notice can mean police issue a further BAT notice, which results in a longer ban.
Clause 11 provides that for a person charged with an alcohol-related offence or issued with a police DVO, the BAT notice remains in force for three months or until the person appears before a court and an order is made under section 14. The court may make orders to continue the ban or may revoke the ban.
Clause 12 provides that for a person issued with a BAT notice following three alcohol-related infringement notices, or on three protective custody incidents, a first BAT notice remains in force for three months. This means the ban from purchasing alcohol stays in place for three months the first time a person is issued with a BAT notice. This ban can be reduced to one month if the person undertakes certain treatment. Treatment in the bill is referred to as alcohol misuse intervention. Undertaking the treatment is at the election of the banned drinker. The motivation to undertake treatment is so the ban period can be reduced.
A person issued with their first BAT notice is encouraged to undertake treatment such as a brief intervention. A brief intervention facilitates behaviour change through a one-to-one approach. It involves making the most of any opportunity to raise awareness, share knowledge, and get a person thinking about making changes to improve their health; in this case, the person’s consumption of alcohol. Intervention is a part of what health professionals do in primary health care and other health and community settings. As a public health approach, a brief intervention is complemented by group and community strategies to improve health. If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the first BAT notice, it becomes the person’s second BAT notice. Under the second BAT notice the ban is for six months, which can be reduced to a two-month ban if treatment is undertaken.
With the second BAT notice the type of treatment changes. This time, for the ban to be reduced, the banned drinker will be required to undertake treatment such as a short program of brief interventions. If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the second BAT notice, the next notice is a third BAT notice lasting for 12 months. The 12-month period can be reduced to four months if certain treatment is completed. This will be a more intensive treatment such as community-based counselling. If a third BAT notice is received and the banned drinker breaches that notice, or within 12 months is given an alcohol-related infringement notice, or is taken into protective custody for alcohol, police must refer the person to the tribunal. However, police do not have to wait until this point. They can also refer a person to the tribunal at an earlier stage if they have reasonable belief the person is at risk because of substance use.
Part 3 of the PACSM bill provides a mechanism for health providers and others to refer persons with alcohol or other drug problems to the tribunal for appropriate orders to be issued.
Police, health practitioners and family members are referred to as authorised applicants who can refer a person to the tribunal for assessment if they have a reasonable belief that a person is at risk because of the use of a substance. Authorised applicants are defined in clause 5 of the bill. Clause 32 of the bill provides that a person may also voluntarily apply for an order to ban themselves from using a substance. A person who is constantly asked to purchase alcohol by family members or others may wish to apply to the tribunal for an order so they can say: ‘Sorry, I cannot buy alcohol for you. I am banned’.
Once an application is made the tribunal considers the application and makes a decision whether to refer a person believed to be misusing a substance to an appointed substance misuse clinician for an assessment report. The tribunal is empowered to make orders in respect of persons who are misusing alcohol or other drugs, including prohibitions on access and consumption and orders to undertake treatment or other interventions.
With the BAT notices, treatment is optional. If a person wants to have the banning period reduced they need to get treatment but they can choose to stay banned for the entire duration of the BAT notice. However, once a person has been referred to the tribunal, treatment becomes mandatory and the person is required to undertake clinical assessment. If a person does not attend the assessment the tribunal can make what is a called a general alcohol prohibition or GAP order. The GAP order is a ban on consuming and purchasing alcohol which operates for a three-month period or until the person attends the assessment.
As a GAP order is registered on the banned drinker register, the person who is a subject of the order will be prevented from purchasing takeaway alcohol. After three months, if the person has still not attended for the assessment, a further GAP order can be made so the ban continues. Where a person does attend for assessment and is assessed by a clinician as misusing a substance, the tribunal must make a banning alcohol and other drugs treatment order - BADT order. The order prohibits the person from purchasing, possessing or consuming a substance and may also include other prohibitions, requirements or conditions as considered appropriate for the person. For example, the BADT order may include that the person undergo treatment. What the BADT order contains will depend on the clinical assessment. The tribunal can make a BADT order which lasts for up to two years. However, there are mechanisms whereby a person can end up back in front of the tribunal and the BADT order can be extended for a further period following further clinical assessment and a review by the tribunal.
Part 4 of the PACSM bill deals with the establishment of the tribunal. The tribunal is not a court and will not be comprised of judicial officers. It will comprise of (a) a chairperson and deputy chairperson, each of whom must have practised as a legal practitioner for at least five years; (b) at least four other persons each of whom has qualifications or experience suitable for the tribunal functions, and (c) other persons representing the interests of community or area. The tribunal members are to be of both sexes and from diverse backgrounds including members who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders or who demonstrate an understanding of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture.
Part 4 of the bill also sets out the constitution for proceedings and the conduct of proceedings generally. To ensure the best interests of persons who appear before the tribunal, clause 61 provides a person with expertise in general care, health, rehabilitation or treatment of persons misusing a substance can be appointed as an advocate for a person at risk appearing before the tribunal. The functions of the advocate are to represent the best interests of the person at risk and assist the person during a proceeding. Appeals of tribunal decisions are to be made to the local court.
While clause 70 provides it is an offence to publish or broadcast the name of a banned person, this does not apply to a person who reasonably believes it is their duty to give information to another person; for example, a police officer informing a person that another person is banned and should not be supplied with alcohol.
Clause 72 provides supply of alcohol to banned persons is prohibited and may lead to a person who contravenes this provision being issued with a BAT notice under section 9(2)(b). Clause 73 empowers police to require a banned person to submit to a breath test to determine if there is alcohol in the person’s blood. This can only occur if the person is in a public place and the police officer reasonably believes that the person has been consuming alcohol in contravention of their ban. The bill also consequentially amends acts to provide for the objects of the bill.
Clause 80 consequentially amends the Information Act so the information privacy principles under that act do not prevent the tribunal from sharing information with persons such as counsellors, or when referring the person for assessment for income management.
Clause 86 consequentially amends provisions relating to protective custody and the Police Administration Act. The amendment allows police to require a person in protective custody to submit to a breath test or breath analysis, and to take and record the person’s name and other information. This information may only be used for the purpose of the PACSM bill or the SMART Court bill.
The model of administrative bans and a tribunal set out in the PACSM bill is considered as having a good range of options with encouragement through BAT notices, and enforcement through tribunal orders, of treatment considered to be essential to changing people’s drinking behaviours. During consultation on the draft bill, the ability to ban problem drinkers from purchase and consumption of alcohol was positively received by stakeholders. The bans from purchase and consumption of alcohol itself are considered to be a treatment mechanism and provide a motivation for a person to address their consumption of alcohol. Stakeholders were also very supportive of the non-criminalisation of people receiving bans, and to the application of bans and enforcement applying Territory-wide. The framework for the tribunal was also positively received by the health sectors and non-government organisations, including Indigenous organisations.
The tribunal is supported by stakeholders as a mechanism to treat alcohol and drug misuse by non-offenders separate to the criminal system. It is recognised that it provides a channel for families and a range of providers, including health organisations, to refer people who are at risk, or who place others at risk, for assessment for treatment.
The government considered the suggestions made by stakeholders during consultation and consequently made the following changes to the draft PACSM bill tabled in the Legislative Assembly in October 2010: the consequential amendment to the Police Administration Act protective custody provisions so information obtained can only be used for the PACSM or the SMART Court purposes; clarification in clause 8 that police can record grounds for belief that a person is affected by alcohol when issuing banning notices, ensuring police and others can inform persons that other persons are banned to reduce the risk of secondary supply; provisions to allow police to conduct breath analysis; and restructuring the tribunal constitution and conduct of proceedings so there is capacity to operate the tribunal throughout the Northern Territory, more flexibility in the way the tribunal operates, community members may be appointed by the Administrator as members of the tribunal, an advocate may be provided for persons assessed and appearing before the tribunal for orders and authorised applicants refer a person to the tribunal, but the tribunal refers the persons for assessment.
Although the PACSM bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly today has been redrafted and restructured, the policy intent remains the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 is part of a package of comprehensive alcohol reform legislation. This bill complements the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011, the SMART Court bill, and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011, the PACSM bill, which have been developed as part of the alcohol reforms announced in October 2010 in this government’s Enough is Enough campaign.
While those bills are aimed at addressing the effects of alcohol abuse in the community and reducing dangerous alcohol consumption, this bill will reform the regulatory regime around the sale of liquor generally, and tighten up offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to children. This bill will assist to make licensees more accountable and provide the community generally with a more effective, efficient, flexible, and transparent regulatory framework.
The amendments proposed in the bill will provide greater clarity for licensees, and improve enforcement in relation to licensee breaches. It will reduce the likelihood of licensees operating irresponsibly and adding to the harm caused by alcohol. Without addressing issues relating to alcohol supply and sale, the reforms implemented under the Enough is Enough campaign would not be as effective.
The bill will introduce a new regulatory framework for liquor licences, one that creates a more flexible, responsive, and modern compliance regime in the Liquor Act. This will be done by addressing gaps and ambiguities in relation to the role of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission. The bill will address problems and inconsistencies in relation to the existing penalty structure under the act. The amendments will also clearly separate the role of the commission from that of the courts on disciplinary matters, and provide flexibility for the commission and the Director of Licensing to use a wider range of enforcement tools, including the imposition of fines, enforceable undertakings, and infringement notices.
The amendments in the bill will allow the commission to more appropriately respond to individual breaches by licensees and, in turn, create a more effective enforcement regime. It will make licensees more accountable while, at the same time, allowing for minor level breaches to be dealt with in a manner which is consistent with the nature of the breach.
As I said, the bill will also tighten up the offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to children by creating new offences relating to the irresponsible supply of alcohol to children and a blanket ban on the supply of alcohol to children in licensed premises.
I now turn to the substance of the amendments in the bill. Currently, the role of the commission in relation to breaches by licensees and its relationship with the court has not been clear or consistent. Licensees have often complained about the lack of clarity as to the role of the courts in relation to licence breaches. Furthermore, the powers and functions of the commission currently under the Liquor Act in relation to licensing misbehaviour are disjointed and difficult to follow. The commission has a range of enforcement options such as suspension or cancellation of licence and variation of licence conditions, but direction on how and when these options can be imposed is scattered throughout the act and can vary depending on the type of breach or the type of application to the commission. In this way, it is very difficult for either licensees or the commission itself to have any real clarity or consistency in relation to enforcement or disciplinary measures.
The bill consolidates all the provisions relating to disciplinary actions that can be taken by the commission for licensing misbehaviour. The bill inserts a whole new Part VII into the Liquor Act specifically headed ‘Enforcement provisions for licences and special licences’. It consolidates all the powers of the commission in relation to licensing misbehaviour into one part of the act and sets out one clear disciplinary process. All offences under the act will still be able to be dealt with by a court; however, the new disciplinary process will clearly indicate the breaches by licensees should, in the main, be dealt with by the commission. It is anticipated that only rarely will a breach by a licensee be dealt with by a court; for example, where a licensee may chose to challenge an infringement notice, or where the court is dealing with a range of other offences committed by the licensee unrelated to the breach of the licence.
New Part VII sets out clearly the grounds on which the commission can take disciplinary action against the licensee. The grounds specified in proposed new section 67(3) include: where the licensee has contravened a provision of the act; the licensee has breached a condition of licence; the licensee has breached an enforceable undertaking; a manager, employer or licensee is not a fit and proper person in relation to the business of the licence; the premises are no longer being used consistent with the activities specified in the licence; the licensee obtained the licence by fraud or misrepresentation; the premises have been used in a manner that has caused disturbance to the neighbourhood or caused disorderly conduct; and the licensee is no longer eligible to hold the licence.
Where a ground has been established, the types of disciplinary action that can then be taken are also set out clearly in new section 67. Disciplinary action can include: giving a formal warning; varying a condition of the licence or adding new conditions; suspending a licence; cancelling a licence; imposing a monetary penalty directing the licensee to take or refrain from specified action; and disqualifying the licensee from holding a licence. The commission will now have the flexibility to impose the most appropriate disciplinary measure for each specific breach.
The power to impose fines is a new form of disciplinary action that the commission will be able to take. It is proposed the maximum fine the commission will be able to impose is 100 penalty units, which currently equates to $13 300, noting that the commission cannot impose a fine in excess of the statutory maximum specified for the relevant offence in the Liquor Act. This means that for a minor breach of a provision, such as a failure to post a notice in accordance with section 107, which is proposed to only have a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, currently $2660, the commission could only impose a maximum 20 penalty unit fine. This is despite the commission having a jurisdiction to impose fines of up to 100 penalty units. The ability to impose relatively higher fines is necessary in a regulatory environment to ensure an adequate deterrent effect for businesses so that they cannot derive any financial advantage from intentional non-compliance.
To clarify, it is not intended that the commission will make any findings of guilt. Its determinations in relation to disciplinary breaches will be made on the balance of probabilities. Fines imposed by the commission under the new regime will be different to fines imposed by a court in relation to a finding of guilt for an offence. A fine imposed by the commission will not result in a criminal record, and it cannot be enforced as a court-imposed fine. If a fine imposed by the commission is not paid within 28 days, or such later date set by the commission, it will become a debt due and payable to the Territory. The debt will be able to be enforced, as with other civil debts, by registering it as a judgment debt in the local court, and enforcing it through civil action, such as a garnishee order or warrants of seizure and sale.
With the increased enforcement options and ability to be able to set financial penalties, it is good policy to enable an appropriate appeal mechanism. Currently, section 56 of the Liquor Act provides that there is no appeal from a decision of the commission in relation to a decision it makes under the act. Therefore, the bill inserts new section 72 into the Liquor Act to provide an express right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a matter of law from decisions made by the commission in relation to disciplinary matters.
The commission’s role will be supported by a more clearly defined and wider formal enforcement role for the Director of Licensing within the Licensing Regulation and Alcohol Strategy Division of the Department of Justice. Currently, all complaints and breaches must go to the commission if any form of punishment or disciplinary action is considered necessary other than those dealt with by the director through education or informal warnings. This means that the commission is often forced to deal with relatively minor matters and first-time matters which can clog up its workload and distract the commission from conducting its core business. The Director of Licensing is best positioned to make the initial decisions on the severity of the breach in the context of each situation and whether it should be dealt with at a lower level or elevated to the commission. This ensures approaches that are commensurate with a level of offending in each given situation.
Accordingly, the bill better defines the Director of Licensing’s role and provides alternative enforcement tools at the lower level to enable a more effective and appropriate response to the whole range of possible licensing breaches. This is achieved in the most part through the new sections 72A and 72B, which provide the Director of Licensing with the ability to enter into an enforceable undertaking with a licensee in relation to a matter the director has a parallel function for under the act.
An enforceable undertaking is where a licensee enters into a written agreement with the director to take, or not take, particular action in relation to contravention of the act, or to prevent a further contravention of the act. If the licensee fails to comply with the undertaking, it is a ground for the director to apply to the commission for disciplinary action. Such processes are available in other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, and have been working well. They are often used as a first stage in the enforcement process and are very effective at addressing minor breaches and encouraging compliance. They are an effective alternative for low-level offences or first-time breaches to more time-consuming and costly court procedures or commission hearings.
It is also proposed that, under the new regulatory framework, the Director of Licensing will be able to issue infringement notices for low-level offences committed in relation to licensed premises under the act. Police officers will still be able to issue infringement notices for other non-licensee-related offences such as offences relating to restricted areas.
Additionally, the prescribed offences and the infringement notice penalty levels will be reviewed in light of the amendments in the bill, noting the infringement notice penalties will be in the range of one to five penalty units. Regulations are being developed to prescribe the offences and penalty levels will be in place prior to commencement. This policy will be supported by the issuing of clear guidelines to assist licensees and inspectors. The issuing of infringement notices will provide an additional enforcement tool for low-level breaches of the act by licensees.
Own motion applications for disciplinary actions and applications as a result of a formal complaint will be made by the director under new section 69. Applications will be made after an appropriate investigation and consideration of whether a lower-level response such as an enforceable undertaking or infringement notice is warranted.
As mentioned already, there are currently problems with the existing penalty structure in the Liquor Act. Section 124 of the act currently provides a common maximum penalty for all offences under the act of $1000 or six months imprisonment. For second and subsequent offences, that penalty is $2000 or 12 months imprisonment. This blanket provision does not assist in identifying the seriousness or otherwise of individual offences.
There are many offences for which imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty, moreover, the monetary penalty levels are now outdated. They are inconsistent with the penalty levels for other similar offences in other jurisdictions and, as already discussed, the current inability of the commission to impose significant monetary penalties also undermines the deterrent effect of the offences to the licensees. Accordingly, the bill proposes to repeal section 124 and identify each individual offence in the act, specifying the maximum penalty for each offence.
The penalty levels have generally been imposed consistently with the current Department of Justice penalty policy position and, as much as possible, are within the midrange of penalty levels in other jurisdictions. The bill is also drafted so that the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory apply to all offences in the bill. Converting all legislation to be consistent with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code is an ongoing project. It is the general policy that when an act is being amended for any reason, the offences in the act should be made Part IIAA-compliant at the same time so that gradually the entire Northern Territory statutory book will be converted.
Another aspect of the existing penalty structure relates to existing section 124AAA. That section provides that the commission may impose an additional penalty over and above the penalty imposed by a court for specific offences. Section 124AAA also prescribes strict periods for suspension for specific breaches. As it is proposed the commission will now have greater flexibility around the taking of enforcement action in relation to disciplinary breaches by licensees, this section is no longer required. However, to avoid two actions being taken in two different fora and ensure that a licensee cannot be punished twice for the same offence, the bill inserts new section 124 to clarify that the commission cannot take disciplinary action if proceedings for an offence have commenced or an infringement notice has been issued in relation to the same act or circumstances.
Similarly, an infringement notice cannot be issued or court proceedings commenced in relation to a contravention of the act if the commission has already taken disciplinary action for the contravention. However, these limitations will not apply if the infringement notice is withdrawn or the proceedings discontinued.
As I have discussed, part of the aim of the bill is to clarify the role of the commission in relation to breaches committed by licensees. On the other hand, it is proposed to also clarify the role of the courts to deal with serious unlicensed breaches. As new Part VII of the act clearly provides that disciplinary action can only apply to licensees, any enforcement action against non-licensees must be by proceedings in court. This applies whether the offence is one committed by an employee on licensed premises or whether it is an offence such as bringing alcohol into a general restricted area or selling liquor without a licence.
In relation to this latter offence, the bill clearly identifies this as the most serious offence in the act. The proposed maximum penalty proposed for sale without a licence is 250 penalty units, $33 250, or 12 months imprisonment. The inclusion of imprisonment as a possible penalty indicates the serious nature of the offence and that it can only be dealt with by a court. The maximum penalties in other jurisdictions are similar. For example, the maximum penalty in Queensland is $50 000 for a first offence. The maximum penalty in Victoria is $28 880 plus two years imprisonment; and in both the ACT and New South Wales the maximum penalty is 100 penalty units and 12 months imprisonment.
Additionally, the proposed maximum penalties for breaches of offences relating to general or special restricted areas are also being increased significantly in recognition of the potential harm that can occur to the community as a result of these types of offences. For lower level offences, such as possessing or consuming liquor in a restricted area, the penalty will be 100 penalty units. For more serious offences, such as grog running that involves selling alcohol in a general restricted area, it is proposed to increase the penalty in line with the offence of selling without a licence; that is, 250 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.
To assist licensees and law enforcement a definition of ‘drunk’ is being inserted into the act at section 7. Currently, under section 102 of the act, licensees and their staff commit an offence if they serve or supply liquor directly to an intoxicated person. There is no clear definition of intoxication in the act. This creates uncertainty for licensees and employees, and is the cause of regular complaints by licensees and other stakeholders. It is proposed to include a new definition of intoxication and change the terminology to ‘drunk’. The use of the term ‘intoxication’ has been confusing for many, and a person is technically intoxicated once they have any alcohol in their system. The term ‘drunk’ is a much better understood and accepted term. A new section 7 will articulate what is meant by ‘drunk’ by clarifying that a person is considered to be drunk if their behaviour is noticeably impaired and it is reasonable, in the circumstances, to believe the impairment results from consumption of liquor. A similar definition of drunk applies in the Liquor Control Act of 1988 of Western Australia, and in the definition of intoxication in New South Wales and Victorian legislation.
Another issue around intoxication in section 102 puts the onus on the licensee to prove that the person is not intoxicated. The existing reverse onus in relation to the question of whether a person is intoxicated or drunk will be removed. Most other jurisdictions do not have a reverse onus provision. Additionally, as the penalty for this offence is to be significantly increased to 100 penalty units to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to be more consistent with other jurisdictions, providing a reverse onus provision is no longer appropriate.
The other main area of reform is in relation to the sale and supply of alcohol to children. Currently, the only offence relating to the supply of alcohol to children is in relation to the supply of alcohol on licensed premises. There is no existing offence applying to the general community, and to encourage a more responsible attitude to alcohol across the whole community in relation to young people.
The bill now inserts section 106C that creates an offence for anyone to irresponsibly supply alcohol to a child - it will always be an offence to sell alcohol to a child under section 106CA - in line with the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as Queensland and Tasmania. This offence will take into account such things as whether the child or adult is drunk, the age of the child, whether food has been consumed, and whether there is adequate supervision. It is proposed that new section 106C will be supplemented by new section 106CA that creates a blanket prohibition on the supply or consumption of alcohol to or by children on licensed premises. This provision will replace the existing section 106C that allows for the sale or supply of alcohol to minors where the minor is accompanied by their parent, guardian or spouse who is over 18 years and the alcohol is sold in conjunction with a meal.
This policy position is consistent with the move in other jurisdictions across Australia, including Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. To address concerns raised by industry, section 106CA includes appropriate defences, for example, where the licensee or an employee sighted an apparently valid ID showing the child to be an adult, or where the licensee took reasonable steps to avoid the offence occurring. This second point will address a situation when an adult buys a bottle of wine for a group of adults and provides the child with a glass of wine in the situation where the licensee would not be expected to be aware of the situation.
The bill also contains various consequential amendments required to the Liquor Act as a result of the PACSM bill. Most noticeable is the inclusion of new section 106BB. This offence is based on the existing sections 106BA to 106BD which relate to the use of false identification by children. Proposed new section 106BB will duplicate these provisions to also apply to any person using false identification when purchasing takeaway liquor. This approach is required Territory-wide now as the identification system will be rolled out across the Northern Territory so all sales of takeaway liquor will require identification. This will support the liquor reforms under the PACSM bill that will provide for banning notices to be issued.
Amendments to the Liquor Regulations have also been included consequential to the roll-out of the identification system Territory-wide. Further amendments will also be required to the Liquor Regulations to support the new regulatory framework. This will include prescribing processes around the making of enforceable undertakings, and the technical aspects relating to the commission’s procedures for conducting disciplinary hearings.
In summing up, there is growing concern about the misuse of alcohol by children. The tightening up of offences and introduction of a blanket ban will send a clear message to the general public and licensees that irresponsible supply of alcohol to children is not to be tolerated. Furthermore, there is a clear public interest in ensuring the holders of liquor licences operate in an accountable manner. The current penalty levels are not sufficiently high so as to act as a deterrent, and there is a growing concern that the commission is unable to respond in a flexible, tailored, and transparent manner to breaches by licensees. There is also a growing concern about the impact that irresponsible licensees and illegal sales are having on the general community. All these concerns are being addressed in the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I add that most licensees in the NT liquor industry are generally compliant. The purpose of this legislation is not to suggest there has been any significant increase in the numbers of licensees breaching their obligations, but the aim is to modernise the regulatory framework and improve compliance outcomes. The effect of this new framework will not be to see more cancellations or suspensions of licences or generally more disciplinary action at the serious end of the scale, but to see more low-level compliance action that will prevent the escalation of conduct to serious breaches.
Having said that, when a serious breach does occur under the new framework, the commission will be much better placed to respond to it effectively. In modernising the existing regulatory framework, this bill will reinforce to the community and to licensees what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Nowhere is this more important than in relation to the offence of sale of liquor without a licence.
This bill, by significantly increasing the penalty level to be the highest in the Liquor Act, sends a clear message that this type of behaviour that undermines and has the most deleterious effect on the regulatory system is absolutely unacceptable. Overall, this bill will benefit both licensees and the community generally by creating a regulatory framework that can more effectively and transparently respond to misconduct by licensees, whether the misconduct is one of a serious or minor nature.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have discussed with the shadow Leader of Government Business and Opposition Whip that I will be deferring the introduction of my bill until tomorrow. That has been agreed, so we can get on with the General Business Day. I will introduce my bill on the reform of the Audit Act tomorrow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
General Business
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 6.28 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and general business will now have precedence over government business for the next three-and-a-half hours.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
(a) immediately deploy a task force of police in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour; and
That part of the motion is to ensure we do not see a repeat of what we have seen in Central Australia, particularly over the last few months, but on a regular basis every summer - the hotter the summer the hotter the hot spots.
That is in preparation - as it says in the motion, emerging or known law and order issues. Through you Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the Chief Minister how long the police deployed here over the last three or four weeks after numerous pleas from the opposition this summer to put more police on the beat in Alice Springs to address the chronic law and order problem we have been facing and are well aware of, will remain here? I ask the Chief Minister - through you Madam Deputy Speaker - this because there are strong rumours those police will be leaving on Friday, if not Saturday. Can the Chief Minister confirm or deny when the up to 18 police placed on the beat in Alice Springs to address law and order issues - and I might say it is giving the town some breathing space, we make no bones about it - extra police does work; it gives the community some breathing space. I ask the Chief Minister how long they will be here for. The rumours are they are leaving on Friday or Saturday, although we have further rumours from people in the know - it is a small town - that they might stick around for the Prime Minister’s impending visit to Central Australia.
We need a permanent police presence. The Chief Minister told the Centralian Advocate on 14 March that police are now on top of the law and order problem. Chief Minister, I can read you some of these headlines, as I have done in previous speeches; they are compelling reading: 14 March, unlawful entries in Alice Springs; 15 March, stabbing in Alice Springs; a tourist assaulted in Alice Springs on 22 March, and the very next day a sexual assault. On the same day we had the tragic story of a two-year-old assaulted in Alice Springs, and on Friday, 25 March, a witness was sought for an assault in Alice Springs. In 10 days we have had unlawful entries, a stabbing, a tourist assaulted, a sexual assault, an unprovoked bashing, and a shocking case of child abuse. It is terrible; it is appalling to read it out time and time again. It feels like we are being hysterical, but this is what has happened. These are police media releases.
The question is if we are on top of law and order why are these things happening so regularly in the space of just 10 days? If we are getting on top of law and order with the added police presence why not leave the police here?
What are the indicators? The Chief Minister said, hand on heart, that police will remain here as long as required. That is fine; however, it is wriggle-room language. What is the indicator to suggest they are not required any longer? All of a sudden there are X numbers of assaults, or assaults have dropped by Y amount, or over the course of this quarter we have seen a drop of 500? Is that the indicator the commissioner, and you as Chief Minister and Police minister, work out? You are in government; can you please explain to the opposition and the people of Central Australia what the benchmark is?
We see police suddenly disappear from the streets of Alice Springs, streets across the Northern Territory, and the government says they were not required. They were there for the time required according to operational matters. I would like to know what indicators the government uses to satisfy that requirement because it is quite unsatisfactory for the people of Central Australia. It is like a cloak and dagger thing behind the scenes - we do not need police there because we have met the statistic. Everything is based on statistics rather than real life situations. The people of Alice Springs and people across the Northern Territory require this effort from their government - they are not just a statistic; they are living and breathing people in this community.
As stated in the political argy-bargy motion that wasted five or six hours’ time today so the government could make a point, this is personal to me. I live here, I want to raise my family here. I intend to stay here; I do not want to go anywhere. However, people are leaving and people are very concerned. The government needs to understand people are leaving in droves. The minister for Central Australia, whether he wants to admit it or not, knows it. He walks the streets of Alice Springs and knows many people in Alice Springs. People tell me they cannot believe people are leaving – they are thinking about leaving – it is a sad situation indeed.
I would like to know the indicators that police are not longer required. I would like the Chief Minister to put that to the people of Alice Springs and see if they are satisfied because in the space of 10 days do I have to go through the unlawful entries, assaults and robberies again? That is one every two days, yet the Chief Minister said we are on top of crime - on top of the law and order problem as quoted in the Centralian Advocate. My concern is if an assault or robbery every second day over the space of 10 days indicates he is on top of something, God only knows what the indicator is to suggest police are no longer required. Are 10 assaults in two weeks enough to suggest we are on top of things and police are no longer required? I hope you can join the dots, Chief Minister, and understand my point. It is an important point very relevant to the situation unfolding in Central Australia.
I want to run through some of the statistics around the law and order situation facing Central Australia. It is relevant to the motion to develop the argument and make the point about more police in Central Australia and the response group we are calling for if we understand why we have reached this point. The government likes to say: ‘You have no policies; you just shout and scream. It is not just about police’. The opposition understands it is not just about police. I do not know how many times we have to make that point; however, it is as if it falls on deaf ears. I suggested yesterday that the government is tilting at windmills and it seems that is all it can do - feign an imaginary enemy. There is a raft of measures that needs to be put in place. This is one measure that is working. The community of Alice Springs is starting to feel more comfortable about things because we have extra police. There are now 18 or so police officers on the streets.
To demonstrate why we have reached this point it is worth looking at some of those crime statistics - the government’s own crime statistics. They are not the Country Liberals’ - we do not have the resources to map out every assault, break-in, robbery, crime against the person, or murder that occurs across the Northern Territory. A department does that and the information is freely available. This is the government’s own crime statistics: Alice Springs, since 2004-05, has had a 450% increase in robbery – in only six or seven years it has gone up by 450%. General assaults are up by 87%; sexual assault, sadly, is up by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft by 97%; and property damage is up by 71%. Those figures paint a pretty bleak picture of where we have come in the last six to seven years, let alone the last 10 years.
We all understand there are problems in our community that government cannot fix. People have to take responsibility, but government also has a fundamental responsibility to protect its residents, townships and its communities. We believe this government has failed in that fundamental responsibility. It is not just me who believes it and is trying to make a point and convince everyone - I am onto something here so back me. The Alice Springs community is demonstrating - whether it is several hundred people here yesterday, talkback radio calls on local radio stations, business people compelled to form a group the government does not like, nevertheless, they had to form their own group and fund television campaigns to get the government’s attention, to plead with the government to do something about it. This is not an imaginary battle I have concocted to lash at the government. This is a very real problem and it has been for a long time. Those crime statistics paint a bleak picture of where we are and I have, on a number of occasions over the last few days, and previously, and my predecessors while in opposition have, offered a raft of policies and amendments to bills, or motions about ways to improve our community.
The government wants to portray the Country Liberals as a policy-free zone. It is not the case, and if it looked at itself it would see that. That is part of the argy-bargy we see when the galleries are full and the cameras are on us - government likes to paint us into a corner.
I am staggered at the amount of time the government spends criticising the opposition. It is a great lesson for the opposition, if we become government one day, of how not to do things. The obsession the government has with the Country Liberals is almost unhealthy. There are serious community issues yet a quick look through the speeches - the Hansard on the table – shows the motions, the questions and the dorothy dixers over the last few days. Count the number of times the words Country Liberals, the CLP, or opposition appear - it is quite frightening. The obsession the government has with the opposition is unhealthy and counter-productive to what is occurring in the community.
I have already run through Labor’s health and education failures and we have seen the revolving door of ministers. However, this is law and order and is the top-of-mind issue for people of Central Australia and across the Northern Territory. We have offered up numerous policies, have taken numerous policies to the election, introduced numerous bills on General Business Days, numerous amendments to government bills and many motions on general business days over the term of this and previous parliaments. The Country Liberals are ready to put a platform forward to deal with the real issues of the Northern Territory. This government has had 10 years to do it and, in Central Australia, it has failed.
Looking at 100 years of the Northern Territory - has anyone considered we have only been a Territory for 80 years? - it is 100 years of the Top End How do you think Centralians feel? We are celebrating, with great fanfare, 100 years of the Northern Territory but Central Australia was its own jurisdiction from 1927 to 1931. It is really 80 years of being a Territory and 100 years of the Northern Territory. People scratch their heads and say: ‘Crikey, the government cannot even get that right. How can we trust it to look after our best interests?’
It is very disappointing. A range of issues need to be addressed - there are many problems. We hear there are no silver bullets; there is one shot in the locker. We are well aware of that. Some of these problems are more complex; however, when it comes to securing Alice Springs and giving the community breathing space, allowing the residents to get on with their lives and walk across the street without fear of being abused or assaulted - which is happening on a regular basis - this goes a long way to restoring confidence and improving the psychology of the community. If only you had done this 10 years ago.
We have seen a huge swing towards the Coalition in New South Wales in seats no one would have dreamed of winning let alone contesting. Places like Bathurst have had a 30%-plus swing and Campbelltown went to the Liberal Party by a huge amount. Barry O’Farrell has a great opportunity to shore up that seat and gain the confidence of the people. I hope he does; if not he will have wasted an opportunity to consolidate those seats. He can deliver for those people and say: ‘We have never won a seat here’. Have the Country Liberals ever won Nhulunbuy? I do not think so. Has the CLP won Nhulunbuy, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Elferink: Possibly when there were no Labor candidates.
Mr CONLAN: Either way, it has been a long time so you could draw a parallel there. The member for Nhulunbuy is sitting on an enormous margin. It would take a mammoth effort for any other party to defeat the sitting Labor member for Nhulunbuy. If you did it, you would not waste the opportunity, you would consolidate. This is what has happened in Central Australia.
The Labor Party has never won a seat in Central Australia because it has never seized the opportunity. We had two government ministers based in Alice Springs when the former member for Macdonnell was a member of the ALP, and both opportunities were lost. If there was ever a chance for Labor to win the confidence of the people of Alice Springs it has been the last 10 years. People are happy to go with your policies if they see some progress or positive results. You say: ‘It only takes seven seconds to swipe your ID’, however …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It might only take seven seconds to swipe your ID, but are we really seeing serious inroads with the alcohol management plan - a massive decrease in behaviour as a result of alcohol-fueled violence? People are not seeing that. There is evidence across the town that we are not seeing inroads or positive results. There are some results. If you shut down the takeaway until 2 pm some people will not purchase alcohol, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. However, when you map this out on a graph you are only seeing small spikes, up or down, not a massive decrease in takeaway alcohol.
The government is not using the figures properly - not counting takeaway alcohol bought through wine clubs. A very easy estimate - talk to any of the operators who import wine from interstate - is anywhere between 10 000 to 15 000 litres of pure alcohol is coming into Alice Springs through wine clubs. You will see a drop in takeaway bottle shop sales but that is offset with over-the-bar sales, and some of those figures are incredible.
This has been a missed opportunity for Labor. Many people could not care less which way it goes. They are not too hell-bent, not losing any sleep, over whether it is a CLP or a Labor government. We care about this, it is our job. Many people could not care less. They want the sun to come up, their kids to go to school safely, receive a decent education, ride their bikes home from school, dad go to work, mum maybe go to work and live in a happy, healthy society such as Alice Springs - a nice, small country town. What a beautiful place, one of the most iconic parts of Australia and one of the most important parts of Australia.
People who live here commit to it, love it, and resent what is happening to their community as a result of failed government policies. If the government put the right policies in place, and we were seeing positive results, people would not care less. They would be happy with a Labor member for Greatorex. However, people seem to be voting for the Country Liberals in spades because the opposition is listening and echoing their thoughts and concerns.
The Chief Minister continues to blame everyone else for the problems. He blames television commercials, journalists and talkback radio saying we cannot attract nurses because of bad publicity. That publicity is as a result of what is taking place on the ground. If you stop that you would not receive bad publicity and be able to attract nurses, doctors and teachers to the community.
People resent the continual lip service from the Labor government - glossy brochures and no results. We are told there are results but people are saying: ‘Have I missed something? Where have I been? Have I been asleep for 20 years? Have I stepped into the twilight zone?’ We are told there are results through glossy brochures, parliamentary speeches, media releases and interviews with government ministers, particularly the Chief Minister.
We see glossy brochures protecting our community. These are just some placed in letterboxes over the last 24 months or so: Protecting the Territory; Building Alice Springs - making it the greatest place in the world; this is an older one - New Police for Alice; Ministers Here to Listen; Alice Achievers. That would have been 2006, maybe 2007, because Clare Martin’s head is on the newsletter. In the September 2010 Alice Springs Newsletter: New Programs …; Land Growth for Alice Springs - another problem. The government has turned off 75 or 76 blocks in 10 years with another 39 at Mt Johns Valley. That is about 110 blocks turned off in Alice Springs in 10 years – 110 new homes - 10 new homes a year. Ask a real estate agent - ring from down south and say: ‘I want to move to Alice, can you give me a house and land package?’ ‘Sorry mate, I do not have any. There are none’. There are no house and land packages available in Central Australia - none in Alice Springs. There are some in Tennant Creek which the Country Liberals started many years ago. This government has done nothing with land release, which is choking the system.
This motion could say ‘more police and more land’ because they go hand-in-hand. If you are going to grow the town you need law and order, but we also need affordable housing for low- to middle-income earners. We are not seeing that; it is the top end of town only at this stage. We need land growth for Alice Springs. Apparently land growth is occurring, but no one - waiters, checkout staff at Coles or Woolies …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, member for Drysdale. People cannot find accommodation. There is plenty of work but restaurants are struggling to find waiters because there is nowhere for people to live.
I do not know how a first- or second-year apprentice in Alice Springs would go. For a young married guy with a couple of kids - a new baby - it is nearly impossible to get into the housing market let alone rent. We are looking at $350 a week for a two-bedroom unit somewhere - $400 a week - more. Two-bedroom units in Gillen have ludicrous prices - $320 000 to $340 000. That is about average, let alone a house.
We see newsletters in our letterboxes saying more land growth for Central Australia; protecting the town and making our streets safer; budget 2008 - $40m increase through the street safer plan; a $9.3m two year safer streets plan; and more for Central Australians schools. However, the government has done nothing and missed an opportunity.
The Chief Minister will read these achievements; he will lump them together and it will sound impressive. Keep an ear out because there will be a double-up on a few. But, what is the outcome? The outcome is to make the streets safer. The government is constantly saying it will make the streets safer, is doing its best, and is releasing more land. It would be great to say you have released land, you have made the streets safer because you have put more police on, everyone is walking around saying Hallelujah, you are on top of the alcohol problem; you have managed to curtail alcohol abuse in Alice Springs. You constantly talk about what you going to do without any real results.
This is what people are faced with. The latest one has been in the newspaper from the Northern Territory government: ‘We all love Alice Springs. We want it to be a great place where we can work, live, and raise a family; however, there is no denying we have some social problems. We have work to do’. The government has run out of time and lost the confidence of Alice Springs residents - and not because it is a Labor government. That is the point I want to make. There might be a bit of that now; however, you had an opportunity because mum and dad and Joe average are not too worried about it. They want a nice life; they want to get on with life and raise their kids in a safe and secure environment. They want Alice Springs to be a great place where they can live, work, and raise a family.
The Chief Minister said yesterday he wants to bring Alice Springs back to the great place it once was. That was an admission from the Chief Minister that he has dropped the ball: it is not the great place it once was. By virtue of that he is taking responsibility - he has dropped the ball and has not done enough to keep it a great place.
That brings me back to the motion - there is much to do in Alice Springs. We talk about land release, education, alcohol issues - you cannot talk about law and order without alcohol issues. However, there are several questions for the Chief Minister. How long are these police going to stay? People are very cynical about it. They are grateful on one hand, cynical on the other. Are they going to disappear? Are they here because the parliamentary road show has rolled into town? What are the indicators to suggest they will no longer be required? He said they will stay as long as required. Any Central Australian, any person who has lived here for any amount of time will say they are required permanently.
We have more police per capita than just about any jurisdiction - we have 1400 or so police officers in the Northern Territory per 200 000. New South Wales has five million people and 14 000 police officers. It is weighted very heavily in favour of police per head of population in the Northern Territory because we have some serious law and order issues. That does not mean we do not need more. Considering the social issues in Alice Springs, and some of the welfare issues in the communities, we need to be ready for what will unfold over the next few years.
Urban drift is happening and is very real. People are welcome to come to Alice Springs - everyone should be welcome to Alice Springs. However, we need a law and order presence because we cannot head into chaos, which is what seems to be happening on the streets. Residents have lost confidence, the government has lost control, and people are extremely worried and taking drastic measures. By that I mean leaving town.
Alice will not continue to grow and become a great place. It will be very difficult to get Alice Springs back if we do not address this situation and maintain the presence. It is not good enough; the 10 to 15 assaults we have seen over a week or two - the 47% spike in crime, the 450% increase in robberies - all those crime stats from your department. It will not be tolerated. It is not acceptable and people need to know that.
The way things have evolved recently suggests the best way to deal with this is a strong police presence on the streets of Central Australia. Therefore, a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duties police officers able to respond across the Territory is very important. It could be a great tool and resource to keep on top of problems when they flare up.
As for immediately deploying a task force in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour, that is what the government has done in the last four weeks. The question is: how long will this group of 18 police stay, and what are the indicators to suggest they will not be required any longer?
Alice Springs is desperate for some leadership on this, and the Chief Minister and his government have a responsibility to provide ratepayers, taxpayers, children, Aboriginals, non-Aboriginals, whoever it is in our diverse multicultural society, the mums and dads, every living, breathing human being in Central Australia, the right to feel their government is taking responsibility for law and order. This government has let them down. This is perhaps the Chief Minister’s last chance to do something about it, because if he fails them now and the police disappear, and we are back to this next year, God knows what will happen.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, in addressing the motion the member for Greatorex spoke to we could almost support it except it requires the Northern Territory government to direct the Commissioner of Police. It would be illegal for us to do so. Under the separation of powers the Police Commissioner is the authorised person to make decisions regarding where police should be deployed.
Regarding the rest of the motion, from when the notice was given some weeks ago in Darwin, police have deployed additional officers to address the issues in Alice Springs with significant success.
Moving to how long extra police will stay in Alice Springs, as I have said ad nauseum in this House over the last two days, and as Assistant Commissioner Mark Payne said to a meeting of community groups and other people recently, police will maintain the presence as long as required.
The next question was what circumstances determine how long that will be? I take advice from the Police Commissioner on that; however, some issues taken into account - there is no simple magic formula; you cannot deploy police based on formula - go to the number of unresolved matters police may have on their books at any one time. A significant number of unresolved matters and cases have been cleared up as a result of the additional resources. The number of property offences being committed on a daily basis has been significantly reduced. The intelligence police have regarding repeat property offenders - anyone who understands the profiling of crime and property offenders recognises there is a small hardcore of repeat property offenders and whilst they are incarcerated in the big house the crime rate goes down; when they are let out, the crime rate goes up again. Depending on whether these individuals are out of business or in business, also provides police intelligence regarding deployment of police resources.
Another issue making a difference to people on the street being a problem goes to lighting in public places. That lighting is in place now and will stay until permanent lighting is in place. It has made a significant difference to the police workload.
All those issues are taken into account by the Police Commissioner when making decisions on where resources are deployed across the Northern Territory. I will give some figures on the impact of additional police and the number of cases resolved, and people now on bail or on remand who are serial nuisance offenders in Alice Springs. Operation Roland, run over the last three weeks, has seen more than 60 arrests and almost 1000 protective custody apprehensions. Many of those arrests would have led to people being put on significant bail conditions; now legislation has gone through this House making it an offence to breach bail.
We have seen 1500 litres of liquor tipped out, and the lighting in public places has meant drinking occurring there is not happening at the moment - not in those public places anyway. Regarding people causing trouble associated with that, almost 100 people have been taken home or to safe places. The government is implementing safe houses in Alice Springs for police to take young people to who are out on the streets at night.
Genuinely, member for Greatorex, there is no simple formula around the deployment of police resources, but many things are being taken into account regarding the issues this town faced. I have said for the last few weeks now - unacceptable in January and February. Police made admissions in public forums I attended in Alice Springs that the wave got ahead of them and they now have things more significantly under control. I cannot say as Police minister - if the member for Greatorex was ever Police minister in a government - that no one will be assaulted again in Alice Springs, that a tourist will never be assaulted again, that the awful tragedy of the baby being thrown to the ground is never going to happen again. We do not live in a perfect world. People who commit those offences need the full weight of the law thrown at them, and that is what we attempt to do. To suggest I, as Chief Minister, should be able to say: ‘Tourists will never again be attacked in Alice Springs’ - well, tourists should never be attacked anywhere. We have incidents of tourists being attacked all around the world. It does not only happen in Alice Springs. Police, on their own admission, let the wave get ahead of them, on their own volition deployed additional resources, and the advice I have been given by the Police Commissioner is things are much better now and they will maintain additional resources as long as required.
I go to the next point in the member’s motion calling on the government to form a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duties officers to respond across the Territory to emerging law and order issues. That response group is already in place: the TRG - tactical response group. The Police Commissioner deploys those resources whenever needed across the Northern Territory. There are now three very capable police planes to deploy officers very quickly across the Northern Territory.
I accept the sentiment in the motion from the member for Greatorex. The government cannot accept the motion and will be voting against it. The motion calls on the government to direct the Commissioner of Police and that would be illegal for the government to do so. There is the issue, under the Westminster system, of the separation of powers and police make operational decisions. Heaven help we ever reached a position where politicians were making decisions on operational police matters - corruption would take a grip in the Northern Territory. As Police minister, I have confidence in our Police Commissioner to make those decisions. No Police minister or government would ever say all crime would be eliminated and people not be assaulted.
Regarding the appalling numbers the member for Greatorex mentioned in his statistics - the tragedy of the bleak picture he painted - most of the violence he was talking about is Indigenous on Indigenous, related to alcohol, and the tragedy of the cycle of alcohol abuse. That is why my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, introduced in this House earlier this evening the toughest alcohol laws the Territory has ever seen to make a significant and real impact on that violence. If the member for Greatorex is genuinely concerned about seeing domestic violence and assault rates reduced, to see sexual assaults reduced in Alice Springs, he will support the government’s legislation when it is debated in Darwin in a few weeks time.
Madam Speaker, we are very close to supporting this motion but cannot because it asks the government to direct the Commissioner of Police and that would be illegal.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will do my best not to speak for too long. The Chief Minister, the minister for Police in the Northern Territory, failed yesterday to talk with and listen to some 300 business people, victims of crime of failed delivery from his failed government. It is a sad indictment. The fact that the Police minister, who should have stood tall and explained to the people who had come to see him, hear from him and be reassured by him, failed to speak to them yesterday is a national embarrassment.
The fact the Minister for Central Australia - and the people who came to this parliament yesterday to protest are from the Central Australian region - failed to speak to, listen to, or be seen in front of these people to explain himself is a sad indictment of his failure.
The statistics are scary and, when properly interpreted, horrendous. They demonstrate 10 years where this Labor government has not only failed Alice Springs, but failed the Territory. It is a national embarrassment that this Labor government, after 10 years, has so badly failed the Northern Territory people.
As the member for Greatorex pointed out, the government had a great opportunity to cement and hold the Territory; to demonstrate to the people of the Territory how good it could be. All we have seen is rhetoric, talk, spin, splashing of money with no real outcome, and some of the worst crime rates in the history of the Territory - a national embarrassment. The fact the Chief Minister would not front the crowds that had come in a peaceful manner yesterday is a national disgrace.
The figures the member for Greatorex used to indicate Alice has felt the brunt of this 10-year failed Labor government are horrendous: an increase of 450% in robbery; assaults by 87%; sexual assaults by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft by 97%; and property damage by 71%. These are greater than many of our increases in land prices, which have been bad enough under this 10-year failed Labor government.
The figures are scary because they are not about a patch of dirt; they are about the effect on the citizens of the Territory the government represents. It is a national embarrassment but this government continues its rhetoric and its spin.
When dorothy dixers are used to puff up failed ministers to spin a lighter subject it is an embarrassment. The fact you could conceivably try to spin your way past an increase of 185% on commercial break-ins is disgusting. Business people, their employees, and without doubt some government employees, stood in front of parliament yesterday to say they have had enough; they have been punished by this government enough, and the members responsible refused to talk to them.
Consequences are not to be seen under a 10-year failed Labor government. We have had children grow up in families where discipline and consequences for bad behaviour have been demonstrated. Under this failed Labor government we see a lack of consequence and we see more and more bad behaviour by people who have not had consequences applied to them.
The application of law and order is about a consequence. How you moderate that consequence is another debate. There has been a material decay in the fabric of society because of this 10-year failed Labor government. We see it almost acceptable to swear at law officers and assault law officers under this 10-year failed government. What standard does that set? If the kids who walk the street see people getting away with swearing at police, having a go at police and no consequence, it is disgusting; a national blight.
The fact that the federal government, under this 10-year failed Labor government, has seen fit to impose itself on this 10-year failed Labor government several times is an indication that it has failed. The fact we have had many reports of abused children, children dying under ministers’ control and care, ministers moved and shuffled within the ranks to avoid the consequences of their bad and poor behaviour is a national disgrace. We saw the Police minister only 10 minutes ago abrogate his responsibilities and say: ‘I have no control; I cannot direct the police to do anything at all. I have no influence on them’.
Yet, during Question Time, we heard the Minister for Central Australia and the Chief Minister indicate they merely spoke with Imparja, although it was enough for the board members of Imparja, an incorporated body, to feel they had been influenced. The minister feels he cannot speak to the commissioner enough to assist people achieve better results on the ground. He is the minister for Police, unlike the Minister for Central Australia, who thinks he might be the minister for Imparja, giving him the right to dictate to them what they should and should not do when criticising this failed 10-year Labor government.
The minister for Police has some influence, one would hope; some ability to help the people he is elected to represent get past this blight on our history. Ten years of failed Labor government will go down in history, not remembered for its glory days, but for the time commercial break-ins went up 185%, robberies up 450%, assaults 87% - and it goes on. It is not something I appreciate talking about; it is a national shame. It is a national shame the Chief Minister did not have the strength to stand before 300 people.
We have heard many discussions about alcohol and its influence on violence. Yes, you are right; alcohol has a major impact on assaults, bad behaviour, and crime. It has a major impact on road deaths. Yet, when members from this side of parliament tried to introduce tougher drink-driving laws to mirror those of grog runners into communities where their vehicles can be seized, or people who take too many barramundi from the rivers can have their vehicles and boats seized - when 50% of road deaths in the Northern Territory are related to alcohol, you do not want to take cars from repetitive drink-drivers. Somehow, you feel that is not as criminal or as bad as other behaviour related to alcohol. If you were serious, if you were not a mere joke, perhaps you would have come back with a slightly modified version because alcohol and drink-driving are serious - they cause deaths. If you were serious, if you were a good government, but you are a failed government.
It comes down to consequences. If this Chief Minister was true to himself he would have read some of the 2008 Country Liberal Party media releases, some of the policies. He may have even introduced them into this Chamber and unpacked them for people. Perhaps he could have critiqued some. It would have clearly demonstrated there were very strong Country Liberals’ policies dealing with antisocial behaviour and repetitive drunkenness very similar to some of the policies you have rolled out recently. These policies were in the 2008 election campaign.
Our drunks policy was launched by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Terry Mills, under the Palmerston water tower with me as candidate for Drysdale. Whilst we stood there I was able to point out the results of violence related to alcohol - a person I had repeatedly placed into protective custody for drunkenness had been murdered not 5 m behind where we stood. There is a consequence for repeat bad behaviour and there needs to be serious reform.
Our policies, on the Internet for those who wish to read them, set out a real process; a life-changing process which makes a difference to people. It is not about a prohibition form; it is about rehabilitation and consequences. Those policies extend into our prisons for better and appropriate reform, a new era one could say, but they are serious and have been there since 2008. It is disingenuous of the Chief Minister to say the opposition has no policy on these issues. We have very strong and very good policies I am proud of.
The member for Port Darwin addressed a crowd in front of this parliament recently, as did the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain. They are not the Chief Minister or Minister for Central Australia, but they had the ticker to stand before people and answer questions. It is his responsibility, as Chief Minister and Police minister, to ensure the safety of people of the Territory. That is his job. If he does not want the job give it up; resign as the Police minister and Chief Minister - give it up so we can fix these abhorrent problems. If you are not good enough to be the minister, not strong enough to stand in front of people, give it up and move aside, because there are people who care about where they come from like the members for Greatorex, Araluen and Braitling - all strong Centralians who believe in this lovely desert country we are in today.
Member for Barkly, you need to fix your roads because there is probably a problem getting police on your roads at the moment. The member for Barkly laughs - the reality is our highways are down to one lane in many areas which poses a safety risk for people. He has to take his role seriously.
Madam Speaker, the member for Greatorex put forward some wise thoughts. A response group made up of 20 able-bodied people - a rapid response vehicle - is a very wise move. It is about being flexible with the forces you have and adapting to growing trends. I recall when I was Officer-in-Charge of the Kintore Police Station having some minor troubles - 150 people rioting in front of me, a small problem - and being the only police officer for over three hours, I could have done with a rapid response team. Perhaps I could have done with a plane to bring in some extra officers to help that night because we have a wide red and brown land which is very isolated at times. The need to be flexible with our troops, the need to support our public, to support victims better is even more paramount today with this 10-year failed Labor government.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his support in this motion. The Chief Minister gave a definite answer about how long the police would stay. To save going over old ground about the problems facing Central Australia and running through the crime statistics and failed policies of the government - in fact, the interesting point made by the Chief Minister about supporting the alcohol bills before the House which no doubt will be debated next sittings. It will be interesting. We will read those with interest.
The Country Liberals understand the effects of alcohol in our community. We are very concerned about it and have put forward a raft of policies to address it. The Chief Minister says if the member for Greatorex is really concerned about this he will support the bills before the House. This has been the wedge again today - the opposition will support the alcohol bills because if not it means it does not care and is not interested in reforming the way alcohol is consumed and supplied in the Northern Territory. We will see what is in those bills.
I have a sneaking suspicion it means if you are in the privacy of your own home and your 17-year-old son wants to have a glass of wine with you it will be against the law. Is that what this means? We will have to duck, hide under the table, and sneak a little one for 17-year-old Johnny, because it will be against the law to share a glass of wine, maybe even a light beer, with your 17-year-old child. If that is what is contained in these bills I do not like your chances that the opposition will be on board. Off the top of my head, I do not like that idea very much. That will be before the House in the May sittings I assume.
The Chief Minister said today in response to this motion he could almost support it if it did not have the words ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. Let us test the Chief Minister and see how true to his word he is. We have seen him say one thing and do another. He said he would front the crowd yesterday and he did not ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: He said he was going to get on top of law and order yet he has not. He has brought the town to where it is now. He said in this House – I understand with the logistics of being here that we cannot get a rush copy of Hansard - it is probably too soon anyway considering it was only 20 minutes to a half-hour ago. He said: ‘I could almost support the motion put forward by the member for Greatorex if it did not have direct the Commissioner of Police’. The motion, for those in the gallery, says: That the Northern Territory government direct the Commissioner of Police to immediately deploy a task force, etcetera. Part (b) says: form a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general police officers. The Chief Minister said he could almost support that if it did not have ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’ and explained the separation of powers etcetera. Let us remove ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. I seek leave to move an amendment to this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to seek leave, you just move the amendment.
Mr CONLAN: I move an amendment to the bill standing in the name of Mr Conlan, member for Greatorex, that the motion be amended by omitting the words: ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’.
Madam SPEAKER: You may keep speaking to the motion.
Mr CONLAN: The Chief Minister said he would almost support the original motion if it did not have the words ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. I now seek support of this motion from the House which now reads: That the Northern Territory government:
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have heard what the member for Greatorex has had to say. Apart from the principle of amending things on the floor of parliament without prior negotiation - the opposition is well aware of government’s position on that - we are open to changes; however, there has to be prior negotiation - that is the first thing. Second, what is being put forward by the member for Greatorex is mutually exclusive because the Northern Territory government cannot direct police resources that way without directing the Police Commissioner - that is within the Police Administration Act. What you are proposing, member for Greatorex, cannot be done without a direction to the Commissioner of Police. That is why we will be opposing this amendment.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I reject out of hand what the member for Johnston has said in relation to an attempt to negotiate. The member for Johnston well knows, and it is borderline misleading this House and the people of the Northern Territory, when he says we have to negotiate these things. That is precisely what happened. Indeed, as a result of a conversation with the member for Johnston he went to find the Chief Minister in an effort to negotiate these things because this side of the House took the Chief Minister at his word. That is not an unusual thing to do when people make promises. However, this Chief Minister has twice in two days made a promise to people and not kept it.
Yesterday, Mr Geoff Booth was advised by one of the Chief Minister’s advisors that the Chief Minister was going to address the crowd. Did he front? No, he did not. He said something, sent an instruction out the front and changed his mind on the fly. Now, we hear a similar offer from the Chief Minister, and he does not have the courtesy to come back into this House and negotiate …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you please withdraw that, thank you?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I withdraw, Madam Speaker. He does not have the courtesy to engage in negotiations with the member for Greatorex when the member for Greatorex did nothing more sinister than take the Chief Minister at his word. It is a hallmark of how this government and this Chief Minister operate. This is acceptance of an offer the Chief Minister made to the member for Greatorex when trying to introduce this motion.
As for his incapacity to direct police – nonsense! My understanding of the Police Administration Act is if a direction is given it has to be given in writing. Well, guess what? The last time I checked this motion it was written. Stick it in with a covering letter and send it to the Commissioner of Police - he will figure it out; he is a big boy. He has been policing for a while. I understand it is within his capacity to read the English language. This dodging and weaving and talking about the separation of powers - nonsense! Government sets the policy of the day. It even goes so far as to make directions as to how those policies are brought to bear by the public service which serves the people of the Northern Territory. That is how the system works.
Every time this government does not want to do something it claims there is some mystical aspect to the separation of powers that in some way keeps it utterly dislocated from the public service which serves it. In its imagination, the public service does not receive direction from the government of the day at all; it is simply the figurehead of the CEOs who determine what they want to do. That is just nonsense! That is a puerile and facile defence, and I do not accept it.
It is not beyond this parliament to accept the offer made by this Chief Minister. These are not outrageous requests being put to members of this House by the member for Greatorex. This churlish business of making a promise and then, on the fly, refusing to keep it, is just not acceptable. Moreover, it ill-behoves the Leader of Government Business to suggest no attempt at negotiation was made, when a very genuine attempt of negotiation as to the wording of this amendment was made and rejected out of hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers to the amendment? Then I will put the amendment first. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being an equality of votes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 the question is therefore resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived accordingly.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being an equality of votes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 the question is therefore resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Northern Territory government:
1. applaud the members of Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association in its attempted moves to change its land tenure structure seeking to utilise the land for residential development for all Centralians and massage any financial returns for social advancement of children and seniors residents;
3. funds the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association sufficient resources to enable the association to employ an officer to facilitate the development of a land development plan for the area known as Larapinta Valley Town Camp; and
4. promotes these opportunities to other town camps and Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory and actively encourages similar models in other locations across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I start by saying this is not an antagonistic model against Tangentyere town camps in the Northern Territory. This is designed to be a positive motion and a positive debate responding to the needs and requests of the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association.
I understand there is much debate about town camps in the Central Australia, Territory and Australian media. In recent times many people have spoken against town camps calling them many different things, including former Administrator Ted Egan, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda. I am not here to talk about the state of town camps, apartheid, segregation or anything like that.
I am here to lobby on behalf of the people of the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association who approached me seeking alternate models for the future of their town camp. I recognise the CEO of Tangentyere, Walter Shaw, in the gallery tonight, and no doubt what I am moving probably does not fit well with his organisation. However, with due respect, this is not against Tangentyere, this is for the people who approached me.
Much debate happens in this parliament about Indigenous policy, the future of the Northern Territory and how we can make improvements. Having worked in the industry for a number of years before parliamentary service, and since my election to parliament, I have taken a keen interest in Indigenous affairs and my shadow portfolio is Indigenous Development.
I see Indigenous affairs as a life cycle issue. It is a system of government on its own with health, education, employment, corrections - a whole number of portfolio areas where intervention needs to occur to rectify things and move forward. It is a moving beast. It will always need reforming policy because people always change, times grow, cultures evolve and develop - there will always be need for reform.
Having worked in private housing, property management for New South Wales public housing, and working for ATSIC in the housing and infrastructure area, I have a fair knowledge of housing. I would not say I am an expert, but I have a fair knowledge and interest in it. I believe in economic development as a way forward. I have spoken in the Chamber on many occasions about the need for land tenure reform and an economic approach to how we do things.
I was critical yesterday of SIHIP money being spent in the town camps - $100m in town camps to build 64 new dwellings and some civil works - 43 three-bedroom houses and 21 four-bedroom buildings or two-by-two duplexes. That is not the best value for money. There would have been enormous potential to use that $100m to leverage the private sector to gain full development of quite a number of town camps. I understand not all would be suitable but, for quite a number of town camps - the civil side, the subdivision, the servicing, the headworks, construction of houses – could be moved to a private ownership model supplying high levels of additional housing to town.
Let me explain my understanding of the housing model. This concept is reflected across the Territory and Australia, and many people in Alice Springs say there is not enough housing and we need more temporary housing. I am not convinced of that. I will not say I disbelieve it; I am not convinced. We need housing at all tiers of the housing spectrum – the highly expensive level, the medium level, the low-level entry housing, temporary accommodation, refuges, and caravan parks with camping sites. People need the opportunity to move through that spectrum of housing supply. If people have the opportunity to move out of temporary accommodation and into either public housing or private housing rental that is a market in itself. People at medium-level affordability of private sector housing would be another part of the market. Sometimes the solution to solving a crisis in housing is having the private sector build houses at the upper level so people can pathway through the spectrum of housing creating vacancies in all areas.
At Yeperenye Hostel on Larapinta Drive - a hostel designed for an intake of up to three months - people have been staying for five or six years because they have no opportunity to move into the private sector or public housing because the public housing waiting list is so long. People become trapped in that level of poverty in the low market of housing.
If we are going to move forward with the growth town model put forward by the government, which I support in principal, there needs to be a private sector created in housing, part of which is land tenure reform. It is not about stealing land, it is about moving forward in a new framework about how we see these things.
I have spoken about the opportunities for town camps in Alice Springs to move from the peppercorn leasehold arrangement with the Territory government through the 40-year lease with the EDTL - I understand the model, putting aside the legalistic frameworks - to a fully subdivided private sector model. Whether that is a 99-year lease, freehold, or otherwise, is still open for debate; I am not really fazed either way on the two models. However, that is an opportunity to open access of land to Central Australia and, in particular, we can recognise the people who have been living in those houses for a period of time. For the government to, through some mandated negotiated process, recognise tenure provides availability for people to have part ownership, to a large degree, of that house in a home ownership model.
It is recognising there have been a number of issues over a long period of time since settlement, and people are living in those town camps for any number of reasons. People have not always had the opportunities of education and jobs, and have found themselves living in town camps because they have moved, or any other reason. There is an opportunity, in moving to a private sector model where we remove an apartheid separatist approach, to create availability of land, increase the housing supply and create a wealth sector with security of tenure for residents in these locations. It is not just town camps. This is the model we have to move to in communities. I have spoken about that at length.
Lhere Artepe, the native title body of Alice Springs under the chairmanship of Brian Stirling and the leadership of Darryl Pearce, the Chief Executive Officer, has moved to a similar path with some town camps in Alice Springs or community living areas, for want of a better term. That is a positive approach people are moving towards. I congratulate Lhere Artepe, Darryl Pearce, and Brian Stirling - all members of Lhere Artepe. That is a first step. While I do not believe it is the end game it is very close, and definitely a large step in moving forward.
My conversations about this, publicly and privately, somehow found their way to members of Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association and their executive. I was visited in my office about six months ago by members of the association who said: ‘Adam, can you explain this model?’ I sat down in my boardroom with, I think, three members of the association committee and explained it. They were very keen. They asked me to go to the town camp to have a chat. All committee members were invited, although not everyone turned up. About eight or nine people from the committee attended. I explained it, and I have been back twice to explain it.
The committee, generally coordinated through William Lane, has asked me to draw up a picture of what this might look like in some Utopian society. I cannot do that; I am not an architect or a designer. I have put him onto someone who may be able to do that free of charge with no obligation at all. He has been meeting with other people in town to develop plans about what it might look like so we can show people the concept and design. I do not know the delivery time frame.
I spoke to William Lane this afternoon about this debate tonight, and asked if he minded if I shared the correspondence that has taken place. He said he did not have a problem with that. I note the letter sent by the President of Larapinta Valley town camp, Daniel Forrester - Daniel has not given me authority to publish this letter in full, so I will not table it and I will not read the whole letter out. However, I will read some parts of the letter. I will ad lib a little here; I will not speak verbatim: ‘The Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association is writing to you seeking your endorsement and political support for a progressive economic model of housing on our town camp in an effort to promote home ownership and land development to secure our future independence’.
This letter was dated 23 October 2010 so, obviously, it was more than six months ago I spoke to them. The letter says: ‘Specifically, we are seeking to turn our lease area into a normal private sector suburb in the township of Alice Springs. Our association believes this model will remove us from the perils of welfare and government subsistence and provide the economic opportunities and freedoms that all Australians enjoy’.
That is a very positive approach and a good lead in for the association to move forward. The letter talks about a number of things they are interested in. One in particular is about home ownership, and it relates to concepts I believe in. It says they would like the opportunity of a gifted part of the property on the premise - regarding the length of tenure, which I mentioned before - how long people have previously lived in those places. It spoke about Larapinta Valley town camp being prime real estate - 90.61 ha in the middle of the Alice Springs Town Council boundaries - and in a prime position in front of the MacDonnell Ranges just near Gillen. It is just past Araluen Christian School, for those who might not know the area. It spoke about a minimal amount of land being used for sacred sites, and a small amount of infrastructure utilising a portion of that land. The author of this letter, on behalf of the association, thinks it is a prime opportunity.
The vision, as spelt out in this letter and briefed by me, speaks about a commercial joint venture with a private sector developer giving the association an opportunity to develop an economic base which would contribute to an education fund to support children receiving a proper education, many of the children being sent interstate for school; the development of an aged-care program with elderly members of the community having access to private sector aged-care type services; a funeral trust so money could be put away for a funeral; an investment and development trust, which I will come back to in a moment; and an opportunity for funds to be put aside for return to country.
The investment and development trust idea was that additional money could earn interest and help fund the other programs. Also, if the opportunity arose through the presentation of a development model, a shopping centre complex could be built that the trust would own and would seek to garner incomes through renting out the properties.
It continues: ‘You should know that our association has met, developed and discussed this proposal with Mr Adam Giles, Northern Territory member for Braitling and shadow Indigenous affairs minister, and I would encourage your office and department to work in a bipartisan manner to assist us achieve our goals’.
I will talk you through the response provided to that letter, received on 11 November, from the federal Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, thanking them for the letter and saying the Commonwealth and Territory governments were committed to increasing opportunities for home ownership for Indigenous people in Alice Springs town camps. It talked about some of the redevelopment works occurring with SIHIP. The letter said:
It also said the minister understands staff from the Alice Springs Transformation Plan have discussed the issue already, and will continue to keep them informed of further developments and discussions. It also provided a contact officer.
The federal government seem to be somewhat receptive. I encouraged representatives of the association to talk to the Northern Territory government and brief the federal member for Lingiari about the matter, who I understand has since had a meeting with the association about the desire of these people. There will be many detractors who think it is not a good idea – they will think it is a land grab. The motivation behind this is anything but a land grab; this is an opportunity to set up an economic base. I have had conversations with the CEO of Tangentyere and believe this is an positive opportunity for Tangentyere to move into that development model if it wishes to do so.
I recognise this type of proposal is somewhat of a paradigm shift in a person’s thinking of town camp redevelopment or the readjustment of land tenure, or Indigenous home ownership or housing in Australia. It is something many people are calling for in a negative way; however this is something we should warmly embrace. There has been much debate yesterday and today about Imparja being an independent board of Indigenous Australians who are moving down that self-determination model. This model came about by these people approaching me. They wanted to do this; they believe it is a good idea. More and more people are coming forward as they start to embrace the economic paradigm, which is the future for Indigenous Australians. As a parliament, we should warmly embrace this proposal. The words of the motion are not rock solid - anything is fluid. To embrace it and move forward would be a positive step.
I recently had a briefing from the minister’s office on Indigenous policy in general. I asked whether the minister had been briefed on this proposal and was advised the minister had been. I understand the government is supportive of this proposal so I hope the minister is responsive to progressing this.
The reason the motion was written this way is because the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association, as relayed to me, does not have the resources to financially drive it. It would like support from the Northern Territory government, in principle, to move forward with negotiations. Not a be-all and end-all - to progress anything like this needs a project manager. It is not my job; my job is to provide ideas, advice and help progress this.
I recognise the motion says to provide resources and help employ a project officer. I am not always a big supporter of project officers per se. Quite often it is not the best money spent. In this regard, with good terms of reference and sound guidance on how to move forward with this model if the government were to support it, money would be well spent; either that or supporting provision of a public sector employee from somewhere who would be directed to help drive this process forward. That would be good. Heaven knows - it could go nowhere. It may get to any number of hurdles, and the association and its members pull the pin. What the government can learn from the process for Northern Territory community living areas, town camps and growth towns would provide valuable information on how to progress these things in the future.
Going through the maze of leases and legal battles about how this would work and how native title might fit into different scenarios would be good learning - it has not been tried before. I stand to be corrected by the minister. We could see positive advantages for this. The opportunity to have money set aside for kids to go interstate for education is a positive thing - not all kids; for some kids it is a positive thing. Letting these people self-determine and move to the direction they want to is a positive step.
I will not talk any more as I want to hear from the minister and anyone else who wants to contribute to the debate.
I confirm this is not an attack on Tangentyere; it is not an attack on the town camps. It is a moving forward - not a Julia Gillard move forward, a moving forward opportunity for town camps to break the paradigm in Indigenous affairs of the current model of housing. It is also an opportunity to start breaking that life cycle in Indigenous affairs, particularly around housing. I look forward to other comments.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing forward this motion and acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the CE of Tangentyere Council, Mr Walter Shaw, and Barb Shaw, a resident of the town camps in Alice Springs and a very strong advocate for town campers.
I have no dispute with what the member for Braitling said regarding the motivation of this motion. My own experience is that I began my life in a Territory Housing dwelling, and still live there some 20-odd years later, obviously having to go down the path of home ownership. It is a journey I have had to take on a personal level; I applaud home ownership and am a very strong advocate of it.
The Northern Territory government fully supports the aspirations of town camp residents for home ownership. It is a key aim of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. I acknowledge the members for Braitling and Araluen have both had briefings on the transformation plan, and the member for Braitling touched on the home ownership issue in that briefing.
This government is committed to creating opportunities for people living in town camps, and the commitment is reflected in the home ownership section of the Town Camp Subleases, section 13.
Mechanisms to enable individuals in town camps to purchase their homes are being investigated in conjunction with the Executive Director of Township Leasing, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. As the member for Braitling rightly pointed out, there are many complex technical, legal and legislative issues which need to be addressed to enable a pathway to home ownership for town campers. He touched on some of those complex issues, including looking at extinguishing native title if and where it exists, and possible compensation issues; questions around converting underlying Crown lease tenure; legislative prohibition on the subdivision of a special purpose lease, the need to amend head lease purposes; and to decide whether to subdivide or not. They are complex issues and much work needs to be done to open the doors of opportunity for town campers.
To assist in addressing these issues, a working group involving the heads of relevant NT government agencies has been set up under the transformation plan to progress arrangements to enable home ownership on town camps to become a reality. This working party meets monthly, and is currently developing a paper which fully outlines the legal issues and some of the complex issues I have outlined.
The member for Braitling, quite rightly, pointed to a great model we are seeing unfold in Alice Springs with the residents of Ilpiye-Ilpiye town camp. Ilpiye-Ilpiye town camp is one where residents are looking forward to a future of owning their own homes. I visited Ilpiye-Ilpiye with the federal minister at the time of the announcement of their land tenure, and sat down under the bower shed with residents and looked at the concept designs they have for subdividing Ilpiye-Ilpiye. At the very forefront of their minds is seeing their children and grandchildren being able to buy their own homes in a new subdivision on their own land.
Ilpiye-Ilpiye was converted to freehold land to facilitate future home ownership at the instigation of the residents. Consultants are working with the Ilpiye-Ilpiye residents and stakeholders on developing a master plan. I saw an earlier version of the concept plan, and also a financial model and risk assessment to guide future strategic planning, housing, and urban design features of this estate under the new tenure arrangements.
The three-stage master plan will incorporate the housing and infrastructure works already committed through SIHIP, and identify development options for the next 10 to 30 years. Consultation is ongoing with the residents around housing designs, home ownership and estate management options for the Ilpiye-Ilpiye community.
Further meetings are planned with the Alice Springs Town Council and the Northern Territory government on civil works scoping, approvals, and statutory requirements. As you can see, the NT and Australian governments are well-progressed in enabling home ownership on Alice Springs town camps with the very first one being at Ilpiye-Ilpiye. The process of making available housing lots for home ownership is a reasonably involved exercise and requires the Northern Territory government to work with a number of stakeholders to find the most appropriate pathway, and one that is supported by the residents is very important.
I say: ‘Well done’ to the member of Braitling. He raised this with me previously regarding the opportunities he saw for this land at Larapinta. As he said, the residents at Larapinta Valley approached him. I congratulate those residents who are looking at that model and thinking broadly and creatively about home ownership.
Unfortunately, unlike Ilpiye-Ilpiye, the Larapinta Valley community and housing associations are divided over the model being put forward by one sector of the community. By no way am I having a shot at anyone here; however, I table a letter also. I have asked Walter if I can table it on behalf of the residents who have signed it. I also received a copy of the letter from Daniel Forrester, but I will table the one from the other concerned residents of Larapinta Valley town camp.
I quickly touch on some of the issues they have raised. They feel they have not been adequately consulted over this model. They feel strongly regarding their land; about wanting to see sacred sites protected, and also the safety and future of their children - very similar concerns to the letter from the other residents. There is some common ground. In community discussions about how they should develop and move forward with this model, they raised some issues. So, I am happy to table that from those residents.
Regarding the Larapinta model, I have also read the letter from them and acknowledge some of the issues the member for Braitling has touched on. One of the things they are looking at - and I applaud them for it - is an education fund. Wanting to see the best schooling possible for their children is very much applauded. I had the opportunity to go to boarding school and gain a very good education - I can see the benefits of that. I congratulate them on that vision they have for their children.
The model for Larapinta the member for Braitling talked about involves amending the special purpose lease to allow a 99-year lease over existing housing, and the housing association entering into a commercial arrangement with a developer over the remaining lease. That is a concern expressed in the letter I have just tabled. The letter is signed by 33 people stating they are also residents of Larapinta Valley town camp. It was sent to the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs and the federal member for Lingiari in December 2010 stating they did not want to support the views expressed in the letter from the housing association.
I applaud this; however, it is a very complex issue and there is still much work to be done in consulting with the broader community of Larapinta. I was happy to speak to the member for Araluen, the local member, and she spoke to Mervyn Rubuntja this afternoon. I am keen to see what the member for Araluen thinks about these models. I do not doubt the motivations of the people and the motivations of this motion brought forward by the member for Braitling. However, given the complex nature, particularly around land tenure, and there is still division and people feel they are not being included in this, is reason to say we do not support the motion in its current form.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. It does not surprise me - maybe it does a little - I thought the government might have been slightly responsive. For those people who wanted to drive some change in Larapinta Valley town camp it is unfortunate. There are people who are not fully on board, but that is part of the process of consultation and driving change. That is something you, as Minister for Central Australia and someone who has a vested interest in this, could have been part of. It is quite unfortunate, but onwards and upwards.
When I worked in the public service 10 years ago we had a slogan: ‘We do not have problems, we have solutions’, and this is an opportunity to drive some reform forward. It does not mean everything will work. It does not mean you will necessarily reach the end gain. However, you can still move one foot forward and support people who want to drive change in Indigenous affairs, Aboriginal people themselves - you have to embrace that. No matter who wanted the change, it reaffirms to me the real commitment government has to policy reform in this area.
It is going to be a long and continued battle to get reforms in the Northern Territory. We are the last frontier in Australia. We are the worst performers in Indigenous affairs, and any time you have an opportunity to embrace economic policy reform for Aboriginal people, you should take it, especially when you have people on both sides of the Chamber who want to help. I have not heard anything from government in the last two days to drive forward any positive policy reform to help Aboriginal kids in the Territory, or Alice Springs in particular.
The Chief Minister spoke about pouring more grog down people’s throats and all this argy-bargy about alcohol and whether you support prohibition or not. I have not heard anything about children’s futures. I have not heard any positive steps about where jobs may be created or how a kid might be able to get a positive start in life. I am not necessarily disappointed for myself that you have not embraced this. I am disappointed that people stuck their neck on the line and tried to get some change, and I am disappointed for those kids who might have been able to get some money. At the end of the day it is a long road; they might have been able to get some money to send them interstate to receive a good education so they could come back and have jobs like you. It is very upsetting.
People say self-determination, as a policy, has failed. I do not believe that. Yes, there have been some problems - there are always road bumps, always hiccups, but whenever a blackfella has a go he is always dragged back to the bottom. I am not going to go over old ground about the Imparja board – it is independent. This is the same thing - a similar vein. These people want to have a go and drive change.
There is no economy in any Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. You have been here for 10 years; we were in for 27 years prior to that. We can go back as many years as we want. We have to start somewhere. The growth town approach is creating 20 welfare towns until someone - you are in power; I cannot do it, because I would do it. I am an action man and believe in change. However, until someone on your side gets some gusto - some guts - and does something, there is no industry in any of the growth towns - not one industry.
We had a debate today about uranium and the government has tried to wedge us. I did not talk on this issue, but the member for Nelson had a fantastic debate; he made a wonderful contribution. He spoke about the business aspect of Alice Springs dying and moving towards a service town.
We do not have an industry any longer. We have retail and a little tourism, but we are welfare driven. Alice Springs is being turned into a really large growth town. We need industry. I am not advocating for or against the uranium mine - we need industry. Communities need industry. The opportunity for Larapinta Valley town camp to help start a construction industry would have been good because we do not have that in town because of the small number of houses being built on the small amount of land that is subdivided.
I feel for those people who stuck their neck out. I have no doubt they will be persecuted by the Labor machine for many years to come. I feel for the men and women who would have benefited. I feel for the kids who might have had a better chance in life and a better opportunity for a future. However, it is the Labor way.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
That this parliament condemn –
Madam Speaker, we have just seen a perfect example of failure to provide leadership. I am not going to bang on about all the issues in town; about windows being broken, grog being stolen and women being raped. I will not talk about that.
I will start by talking about part (b) of the motion regarding leadership. Many times hard decisions are made. There has been much negative comment about the intervention in the Northern Territory by a small sector of people who are anti-grog reform, anti-quarantining and anti-intervention.
A fortnight ago tonight, at the request of the ambulance service, I had the opportunity to be an observer in the back of an ambulance. I sat in the back of the ambulance and travelled from depot to location and then to the hospital. Travelling with the paramedics was a fantastic opportunity to see their skill level, their professionalism and their interaction with the police, who are always in an intense situation at a highly professional level. The service provided by staff of the emergency department at the Alice Springs Hospital was fantastic. Everyone seems to get on. I do not know how they do it, but they do. It was really good.
The shift I observed went from 6 pm until midnight. No sooner had it started, probably about 6.20 pm, the first call came in, a Code 1. The police were helping a lady in Eastside - not a town camp, but in Eastside - I will not say exactly where. We turned up in the ambulance, lights a’blazing, to find two officers outside a block of public housing flats with a lady on the ground, blood coming out of her head. They had attempted to put a bandage over her head to stop the bleeding. We parked the ambulance and went over to this lady. I stood back as an observer but saw what was going on. The ambulance officers tried to apply bandages in a better way. The lady was able to talk, in definite pain, and described what had happened. She had been beaten with either a tomahawk or a nulla nulla across the head. It split her head open, blood coming out everywhere - brains. He then proceeded, according to her, to beat her with some sort of metal grate.
We hear about domestic violence and about people, women in particular, being beaten up. In this instance, the bloke who beat this woman was a non-Aboriginal person - a white man - and they were both in some sort of drunken rage. It does not sound too different to other graphic stories we have heard before. Sitting in the back of the ambulance while the ambulance officer was working on this woman as we raced off to the emergency department of the hospital put it into perspective a little. You really start to grasp how bad life is for some people, because this was not a one-off event. This was a quiet night - the quietest night they had had in a long time. When you see the beatings people get - that was the first and the worst of the night I saw, albeit not the only one - it puts into perspective the need to continue to drive reform in the Northern Territory. There is no way any woman should be beaten to within an inch of her life. It was truly devastating and something that really touched me.
When we look at the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report Australia-wide, and look at Indigenous disadvantage in relation to Indigenous expenditure - I will quote from the Indigenous expenditure report and some comments I have received from Helen Hughes, from the Centre for Independent Studies. That report shows in 2008-09, the Australian government spent an estimated $22bn on Indigenous Australians: $17bn on Indigenous Australians accessing mainstream services and $5bn on specifically Indigenous programs. That works out to an average of $40 000 per Indigenous Australian per year compared with $18 000 per non-Indigenous Australian. If you think of a family of four – mum, dad and two kids - that is $160 000 a year spent by the Australian government on Indigenous Australians - on those four people in the family.
Those figures conceal - and I am using some of the words of Helen and Mark Hughes from the CIS - the scale of Indigenous expenditure because 60% of Indigenous Australians live, work or are part of major cities and regional towns and 60% of the Indigenous population equates to around 330 000. These are approximate figures. Many of these people access the same government services as other Australians - they pay taxes. When you look at $40 000 for Indigenous Australian versus $18 000 for non-Indigenous, then re-categorise and say if 60% of the population of about 330 000 fall into the mainstream category the figures start to change dramatically, because that leaves about 215 000 Indigenous Australians on welfare. This relates to this motion, Madam Speaker - I am bringing it back.
That relates to about 215 000 Indigenous Australians dependent on welfare. Most of those 215 000 Indigenous Australians on welfare also live in major cities and regional towns. The remainder, 75 000, live in very remote communities. The average government expenditure on welfare-dependent Indigenous Australians is about $75 000 per head, or $300 000 for a family of four, per annum. If it is mum and dad and four kids - many Indigenous families have high numbers of children. That works out to be about $450 000 per year government is spending on people.
Those figures do not tell the real story, because urban welfare-dependent Indigenous Australians access similar services to non-Indigenous welfare recipients. Most Indigenous funding is supposed to go to the 75 000 Indigenous Australians in remote communities. Government expenditure allocated at 75 000 Indigenous Australians equates to an estimated $100 000 per person, or around $400 000 per family of four, if you count the parents and the kids equally with mum and dad and two kids. It is very interesting to look at some of this. If you have a man and woman and four kids living in remote Northern Territory both on welfare, it is quite easy to assume about $600 000 is being spent by government in some way, shape or form on those people. Whether it is bureaucrats, consultants, or renting of buildings to run the Aboriginal affairs department, the estimated cost is about $100 000 per person, or $600 000 for a family of six, per annum.
You have to equate that as ridiculous money, and think back to when people were advocating for a treaty. I never supported a treaty, however, the idea of giving someone $600 000 and saying: Go away, never come back’, is not a bad idea. ‘Do not come back to government’; or, ‘Here is $600 000, buy yourself a house in the leafy suburbs of Melbourne or Sydney’. Even in Alice Springs, $600 000 should still get you a three-bedroom house.
When you look at that you ask yourself what has gone wrong. We are spending, if it is true - I believe my figures to be true, in consultation with CIS - about $100 000 per person, or $600 000 for a family of six. You start asking why the NAPLAN results are so bad; why school attendance rates are so bad. How come no one seems to be working, or own their own home? We are spending $600 000 a year on a family of six - $100 000 per year per person - barely anyone is going to school - I am generalising - barely anyone is working, barely anyone is in employment or training, or barely anyone is buying their own house. People are relying on welfare and public housing. It seems we have the whole system wrong.
We have just debated the opportunities for people to progress to a home ownership model in a town camp in Alice Springs, something to provide real economic reform. That debate was not just about home ownership, private rental, or even public housing on that town camp or community living area. There has to be opportunities. We have to start thinking about land tenure in the Northern Territory, land trusts and how it all works, then put that into perspective with the big bureaucracy in Canberra and the debates we continue to have.
I mentioned self-determination earlier tonight. Look at the child protection system, the Little Children are Sacred report, where we heard horrifying sexual accounts of children in the Northern Territory, and cast your mind back to that great, big, white hope, Gough Whitlam, when he handed that dirt over to Mr Lingiari in the west of the Territory around the same time people had walked off their jobs in the cattle industry. Everything seemed to go downhill from there.
There have been some successes; the member for Stuart is a good example of someone who has an education and a solid job. There are exceptions and not everything is doom and gloom. However, when you have schools with 40% attendance and unemployment rates well over 50% to 60% in some locations, huge numbers of people on CDEP and chronic alcoholics, that lady who had her brains hanging out in the back of the ambulance, we have to think over the last 30 or 40 years we have got Aboriginal policy completely wrong.
Then you have to ask: how do we fix this? Is this just some big behemoth? Six hundred thousand dollars per year - 10 years is $6m dollars spent on a family of six. That is $6m dollars of taxpayers’ dollars. There has to be some accountability in this argument. What are the results of all this failure? The results are what we see on the streets of Alice Springs and the failure to address the issues: the people who break into Club Eastside as it is now called; the people who get into the Rock Bar and take the UDL or pre-mix drinks; the man who beats up his wife with a nulla nulla or a tomahawk and a metal grate. This is the result and what we are grappling with.
People like me who are passionate about this industry and these issues talk about it on a national and international stage at times, or locally, or come here with a reformist approach for town camps and get knocked on the head. Who are we kidding? We are fiddling around the edges. You cannot point to one thing. The real issue is the left have controlled Aboriginal affairs for 30 or 40 years. The left controlled it tonight. We had an opportunity for a progressive economic approach to a situation in Alice Springs. The left controlled debate on everything. The federal minister for Indigenous Affairs is from the left; the member for Lingiari is from the left. I would like to see someone like Martin Ferguson - strange bedfellow, member for Fong Lim - take over and start driving reform because that is what we need. Bring back Gary Johns; he talks sense.
For the last 30 or 40 years the policies have failed the Northern Territory. Unless you are going to start tinkering around the edges on a whole range of issues, there will not be fundamental change and there will not be corrections to the systems in Alice Springs. You will kill the town. It may be a slow and painful death, and it may take years to recuperate. However, if you are not prepared to make those small changes - someone needs to come in with a big spatula and flip the industry upside down; throw all the policy out and start again. Say this is a failure; we have had a couple of wins here and there but it has failed; it is broken.
Look at how many public servants work in the industry of Indigenous affairs. They thrive off it; there are experts everywhere. When you go to an Indigenous affairs meeting there are more bureaucrats than Indigenous people.
Sidetracking for a moment, when you attend a meeting in the communities they are always held in the middle of the day so no one can work and the kids leave school to go to the meetings.
The way some things work is fundamentally crazy. It is interesting to go through the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report and see exactly where the money has been spent. Most of the money goes to social and welfare programs, a fair amount to education, and a fair amount to health. Nothing goes to Indigenous economic participation, labour and employment.
I do not want to read the report incorrectly - I am sure I have it right. Figure 5 from the overview of the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report looks at part (c), economic participation, where $6300 per year is spent - I am happy to be corrected if I have wrong - $6300 per person per year on direct social security payment, and $1800 per year on labour and employment costs. We are spending more than three times the amount on social security rather than employment. When you go through the report you see the money skewed towards social services rather than the economic approach. That is the difference between the left and the right.
If we want to see fundamental changes in Alice Springs that support this motion condemning the Territory and Australian governments for their failure to present short-, medium- and long-term strategies, we have to effect short-, medium- and long-term policy reform. There has to be tinkering around the edges for a policy context of reform and implementation, or flip the thing upside down and say you have failed for 30 or 40 years. You have failed; you have it wrong. It is nothing personal; you have it completely wrong. You have to flip it on its head because that is exactly what has happened.
How do you move forward from this? I cannot lead this debate from opposition sitting in Alice Springs, a small regional town of Australia. You have to be in government. It has to be three or fourfold. I have called, on many occasions, for the Minister for Central Australia to be sacked - he should be; he has not done his job. I do not say that as a snide remark or a nasty comment. He has not done his job. Sure, I play football with him, I have a beer with him, I have a chat with him. However, in an environment when you are charged with powers under the Crown to make reform for the people, that is what you are there to do. It is not just to receive a salary; not just to be elected. He is not the only person to blame; he should not shoulder all the responsibility, but you have to lead.
The same can be said, but much more, for the member for Lingiari who has been here for 25 years. The seat of Lingiari looks after all the Northern Territory and the islands except for Darwin. That is where the biggest policy failure has been. That is where the left has controlled the industry for the last 25 years under his term of engagement. I stood against him on the economic approach of getting people off the dole and into jobs. I had my butt kicked in certain areas, as the member for Johnston likes to remind me. I am sure the members for Johnston and Casuarina would agree that this is part of the solution to economic reform - get people off the dole, get them working, and develop industries in the growth towns.
Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, has been the biggest failure in this whole debate. The 30 to 40 years of policy failure in the Northern Territory in Indigenous affairs has been exacerbated by his reluctance to lead and his position being on the left rather than the right. If we had people developing jobs things would happen.
I spoke in this Chamber yesterday about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Minister for Central Australia spoke about it in the most recent debate. What does it transform? It is just $150m being spent. What is $150m between friends? Yes, we have a few programs, and I have nothing against those employees in those programs. Yes, we have more money for administration, more money for buildings, and more money for a CEO. That money goes towards the $600 000 per annum for that family of six. The $100m being spent on the town camp redevelopment for 64 new buildings - 43 three-bedroom and 21 four-bedroom and the two-by-two duplexes goes into the mix. There are about 23 Indigenous people working on that town camp redevelopment. I have met and helped quite a number of them. However, $100m for 23 short-term jobs is pretty good money, considering they are paid award wages. That is all counted as Aboriginal money; it is all part of the mix. This report reflects the 2008-09 year so, as the increased spend from the intervention comes forward, we will see the $40 000 average for all Indigenous Australians change.
I will hark a little on the Closing the Gap statement. This is when there was a 17- or 19-year life expectancy gap under the Howard government, but, when the Rudd government took over it become a nine- to 11-year gap. It must have made changes overnight or had really good accounting methods. Either way, the federal government talked about improvements in the gap. The gap relates to what I spoke about earlier: how the money is disbursed. More money is spent in the bush than in the big cities where more people work and have access to mainstream services, and so forth.
The gap might appear to be more of a level playing field, but it is much closer in Sydney and Melbourne. In Sydney, where you have the biggest Indigenous population in Australia, the urban areas have the gap closed the most. However, in rural and remote areas such as the Northern Territory, the gap is enormous. So, it is fruitless talking about closing the gap in the Northern Territory.
I will come to an end. I have not banged on about Alice Springs because I look at things in a holistic manner. It is not just about saying: ‘People are breaking in’. Yes, I know people are breaking in and need to be taken off the streets. It is also about providing solutions so they do not break in next time, and the next person does not break in, and the next.
If we want to get things happening in town, get people working, get them off the dole and give them responsibility. With free housing, free health, free education, free grog money, why do anything else? Pay me to drink - I will go home and drink. I like Jack Daniels and lemonade. You have to run reform.
Part (b) of this motion condemns the Minister for Central Australia for failing to provide leadership. Why not also condemn the member for Lingiari for his 25-year tenure of failure to lead in the Northern Territory, and his absolute abject failure in developing any economy in the Northern Territory. There is not one in any of the growth towns, and there are no private sector jobs in communities in the bush.
Something fundamentally needs to change and, if this government is not going to do it, wait until the Country Liberals get into government. It will wait until we have a Country Liberals member for Lingiari to drive reform. We will not be popular; people will not be happy, but in the long run, when kids are getting an education, when people have a career, and when you do not have to sit in the back of an ambulance and watch someone’s brains being spilled over a blanket, you might feel positive about it.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the member’s motion but, first of all, I compliment the member and commend him. He went out with the ambulance crew and saw firsthand the terrible things going on in Alice Springs and, indeed, across the Territory. Who could not help but be moved and sobered by what you saw and experienced that night, member for Braitling.
Apart from the political bits at the beginning and end in your offering, you made a very thoughtful contribution. In essence - and I am not trying to verbal you - you are raising large question marks about Indigenous expenditure, its effectiveness, and its lack of effectiveness over the past 40 years, if I recall correctly what you said. You may have even mentioned a longer time frame.
This is a very important issue which needs to be debated - taxpayers’ money is precious. Over the years we have seen many wasteful episodes, not just in Indigenous affairs, but elsewhere. You and I have debated at length SIHIP, and we will continue to debate that program. It will be spoken about, written about and analysed for many years to come.
If I could quote from the book, King Brown Country - I am not here tonight to talk about the subject of King Brown Country - the subject meaning the person - this book is very important in that it is a window into Indigenous policy in Australia, and the failures of Indigenous policy in the past 40 years within this country. I will read what Russell Skelton says at the end of his book:
I agree with what Russell Skelton had to say in this book, and I agree with the member for Braitling in general terms on this issue, because there have been waves of failures in policies over the years in Indigenous affairs. Where I might disagree a little with the member for Braitling is when he talked about the predominance of the left in Indigenous affairs.
I recall Malcolm Fraser was very instrumental. Gough Whitlam, from memory, and I might stand corrected here, introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which was subsequently passed by the Fraser government. Indeed, Malcolm Fraser is seen by many on the right as being a lefty and an apologist for those sorts of policies within Aboriginal affairs.
Over many years, from both sides of politics, people of goodwill have endeavoured to improve the lot and welfare of Indigenous people, and everyone in this Chamber would share that as an aim, from both sides of politics. There has been a mixture of federal Indigenous Affairs ministers over the years - and I will not mention the lesser lights. However, Fred Chaney stands out as someone with integrity, someone with the best interests of Indigenous people at heart, and is seen with much respect in Indigenous affairs.
These good intentions, unfortunately, have not been matched with results. We look at Indigenous communities, the ones I travel to - like the member for Blain, I have been out and about for a long time. I have seen what the member for Blain talked about. I have not lived it, but I have certainly seen it, and have pondered on it. Some of the things I have seen, heard and experienced have had a deep effect on me. There have also been many people over many years who have dedicated their lives - people in health clinics, nurses, remote nurses who have been on the ground, some of them, for over 30 years when a doctor would not even go near the place.
It was not like it is now, and it is still very hard to get doctors on remote communities, but the nurses did it. Nurses saw people into the world and saw people out of the world. Over many years there have been dedicated teachers trying to improve the lives of Indigenous people. I guess administrators get a bad name. I can name quite a few administrators over many years who have tried their best, from Harry Giese to a whole range of people.
As the member for Braitling said, unfortunately there has been some dead weight in the saddlebags for some time. I know one particular officer who was in the Native Affairs Branch, in DAA and then ATSIC. The locals used to call him - I will not say his first name because he is probably known to people in this Chamber – Mr Furniture. He was part of the furniture in Native Affairs and the names kept changing but Mr Furniture was there and he, in their view, did not do much.
We see the exemplification of that now with some aspects of the intervention and people have pointed to the fact that an incredible number of Commonwealth public servants have come to the Territory as a result of the intervention. Jokingly, some people refer to the Thursday night direct flight between Darwin and Canberra as ‘the intervention express’. I am not convinced, good people that they may be, that an army of public servants from Canberra is going to turn around the situation for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
I suggest at another level, as I have in this House before, what we are seeing in the Northern Territory for Indigenous people, and for towns like Alice Springs, is profound social change. We have talked about the urban drift, a feature for decades. The urban drift in the last three to four years has become an absolute flood - a torrent.
When I first came to the Territory over 30 years ago and lived in Maningrida it was a big event for Indigenous people to go to Darwin. It was a really big event and not many people went to Darwin unless it was for medical reasons, or occasionally a sporting trip. That all changed with changes in the social security system. I agree in many aspects with the member for Braitling, that we need to look at the social security system because it has fuelled many of the problems we see now.
Underlying that, and one thing I have always been convinced about and where we are at one, is economies in those remote communities; about real jobs and the value of real work for Indigenous people, particularly, young people. That gives direction in life and meaning to life, and makes people feel good about themselves and the fact they are giving back to their community.
Many times I have seen the cycle of councils and organisations functioning and then suddenly, for whatever reason, it all falls flat on its face. Whether the cycle of funding is withdrawn, the CEO leaves, or there is trouble in the town, everything seems to fall into a heap. I have shared the disappointment of Indigenous people on remote communities when things were humming and going really well and then fall in a heap. I can understand how people become disheartened.
I return to the theme of profound social change which I have mentioned in the House before. I was interested to hear the member for Nelson talk about it in the same terms recently, likening it to the Industrial Revolution in Europe where there was a flood of people from the rural areas into the towns, into squalor, disease, alcoholism, violence and the wretchedness of that. The member for Nelson did not talk about the smoking ruins of post-war Europe; the wretchedness of alcoholism that occurred until those countries got back on their feet.
We are seeing profound social change with Indigenous people. I do not pretend to understand it fully, member for Braitling, but I recognise it and acknowledge the first person I had heard talking about it was Professor John Mathews from the Menzies school. I listened hard because this profound social change which was occurring struck a chord with me. As politicians and as a community, we have to ensure we put the best policies in place to address this issue.
Mal Brough brought the intervention, and I do not disagree - the system needed profound change and a great big shake up. In a number of ways the intervention has been very beneficial to the Northern Territory and a number of communities. However, the one thing I have always seen in policies and Indigenous people has been a two-edged sword. There are negatives. The urban drift that has accompanied it - the member for Fong Lim thinks it is a desirable thing; it is not desirable the way it has occurred, and the people of Alice Springs do not appreciate it. It is not desirable to have people living in the conditions they are.
We are endeavouring to build houses in remote communities although it may not be as efficient or effective as the member for Braitling would want. We are, as a government, endeavouring to lift the bar in achievement in education, and I will be introducing a bill into this House tomorrow around attendance - a very difficult issue but we must try.
One thing I have learnt about the intervention, whilst it had positive effects, it has also had a massive disengaging effect with people feeling completely powerless and disengaged. That is not a healthy thing and we have to work hard to engage people again.
The second intervention Tony Abbott is proposing is not the way to go because a second intervention in Alice Springs is really a mop-up of the deleterious effects of the first intervention. As Skelton pointed out, there has been wave upon wave of policy, often well-intentioned; however, there is always an effect with these policies. I acknowledge it would be difficult with our education and alcohol policies because people always find a way around these things. They are ingenious, but we have to have a go and work with people to achieve that.
You mentioned the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report, member for Braitling, a very important issue. It is produced by the Council of Australian Governments to gain some clarity around Indigenous expenditure throughout Australia. What I latch onto is in 2008-09, expenditure related to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory was $2.16bn, or 53.9% of general government expenditure. In comparison, Indigenous people comprised about 30.4% of the Territory’s population. We are spending nearly 54% of government expenditure on approximately 31% of the population. That is because these people are sick - they have multiple illnesses. When they are admitted to hospital they are likely to have many co-existing illnesses that require more attention.
We have a dispersed population and there are many reasons for that. I am not pretending, on a per capita basis, the Northern Territory spends the highest of all Australian jurisdictions. We are up there in our expenditure per capita by comparison, and in the Territory the expenditure on Indigenous people was 2.7 times higher than non-Indigenous people. Western Australia is 3.4; South Australia is 3.3; and Victoria is 2.9.
I can also say to the member for Braitling - and I am more than happy to table this attachment giving a breakdown of the expenditure - the share for Indigenous people in early childhood development, education and training within the Northern Territory is 52.5%. As you pointed out - it is a fair question, member for Braitling – a large amount of money. Where are the results? That is also a question, as minister, I am asking. That is why, as Education minister, I am embarking on a course in relation to equality in teaching agenda. That is why we are investing in a literacy and numeracy task force across the Northern Territory to lift literacy and numeracy scores, and why we are investing in early childhood. We want kids, particularly Indigenous kids, to be school ready. At present, they are not school ready.
The early childhood index indicates Indigenous kids, particularly those in remote parts of the Northern Territory, are not on a level footing with kids of the same age elsewhere in the Northern Territory if they are non-Indigenous kids, or elsewhere in Australia. That comes back to what you alluded to - the home environment where these kids are not being exposed to reading or writing. Those challenges that occur before kids go to school are not occurring so we have to build that capacity in Indigenous communities and, moreover, in Indigenous families because it comes back to the family. There are challenges and you were right to highlight them. They are very important challenges.
Turning to your motion, you ask parliament to condemn the Northern Territory and Australian governments for their failure to present short-, medium- and long-term strategies for the problems being faced by businesses and residents of Alice Springs as a result of the increasing crime and antisocial behaviour across the town.
I reject that part, member for Braitling. This government does have short-, medium- and longer-term strategies which include Closing the Gap and our engagement over a whole range of areas within Indigenous families and communities. We are more than supportive of businesses and residents in Alice Springs. There seems to be an idea that, as a Cabinet, we sit around and think of ways to torture Alice Springs residents - that is definitely not so – and we hate Alice Springs and Alice Springs residents. I assure you that is not so. As part of our Cabinet discussions, Alice Springs is front and centre.
The government wants to do the right thing by Alice Springs. It knows it will probably never win a seat in Alice Springs - it is not about that. It is about doing the right thing by Alice Springs and working with Alice Springs to solve the problems, which commenced when Clare Martin was Chief Minister. She was a great advocate for Alice Springs, spending in Alice Springs, and spending in the Central Australian region. Our current Chief Minister has exactly the same view.
We are doing our best, member for Braitling. You may think that best is not good enough. The challenge for you, if you form government and become part of government and part of Cabinet, is to solve these issues. It is pretty good when you are in opposition - it is easy to pick holes. It is harder when you have to take responsibility and steward your resources and efforts in the most effective way you can. That is a challenge you might have to rise to some time in the future, member for Braitling.
You also want to condemn the Minister for Central Australia for failing to provide leadership for Central Australia on these issues. The Minister for Central Australia is a very strong advocate for Alice Springs and Central Australia, as was his predecessor - his predecessor bar a couple - Peter Toyne. Peter Toyne was a passionate advocate for Alice. I can tell you coming into budget Cabinet, we would all say: ‘Oh well, here comes Toyney again’, and Toyney would get what Toyney wanted for Central Australia. The same exists with the member for Stuart: he is a very strong advocate for Central Australia.
To some degree, apart from the issues you raised regarding the Indigenous economic review, many of the issues you alluded to have been covered in debate in this House over the last day or so. In that context, government will not be supporting your motion. However, I place on the record that the broader policy and historical issues you raised in this House tonight are crucial. They are issues that successive governments, no matter what political colour, will have to wrestle with.
As Housing minister, I have laid it on the record time and time again, and I will again: in relation to Indigenous housing, and the arrears in Indigenous housing - because many of these problems go back to housing - arrears are so large it is going to take several decades to turn the tide, not only in the number of houses, but the long journey for people to understand tenancies and sustaining a tenancy, understand how to look after a house, and their responsibilities as tenants. This is a long journey and it will not be done in a few years. It is going to take decades, and it is going to take successive governments, whether it is Territory governments of whatever colour, or Commonwealth governments of whatever colour.
I will close on a conversation you have heard before, my conversation with Mal Brough at Mutitjulu at the opening of the police post. Mal Brough said he did not want intergenerational change. He wanted change over a couple of years and he was going to get that. I wished him well and told him what I told this House: over the years there have been many good people of goodwill from both sides of politics; many good people have been service providers in Indigenous communities and have applied themselves to the same issues Mal Brough was applying himself to. I said: ‘Mal, if the answers were easy it all would have been solved years ago’. The answers ain’t that easy, unfortunately.
We can simplify it, we can make it into a flat earth; however, it is not a flat earth. There are complexities. At one level it seems incredibly simple. All the cab drivers in Sydney have a solution to it. They will say: ‘You come from the Northern Territory, this is the solution’. There are flat earth solutions, but the longer we are here the more we recognise the challenges exemplified in Russell Skelton’s book, which I commend. I am not talking about the person the subject of this book; I am talking about what the book says about successive waves of policy and successive waves of administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks and say again that the government will not be supporting this motion.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that General Business will conclude at 10 pm.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was disappointed to learn from the minister that the government will not be supporting this motion. I am not surprised; condemning itself is not something government would agree too.
I thank the member for Braitling for introducing this motion, and for speaking on it the way he did. I join with the minister in congratulating and thanking the member for Braitling for the marvellous presentation he gave. He is obviously a person who feels deeply about these issues and has the interest of Indigenous Territorians, in particular, at heart.
I also thank the minister for the seriousness with which he treated the member for Braitling’s comments. You meet people in politics from all sides who grow into a job and, whilst my colleague, the member for Braitling, talked about the left and the right, I have been around long enough and studied enough to understand that some of the things that the minister said are right.
I am no fan of Gough Whitlam or the policies he imposed on Australia, and believe he is the cause of many of the ills we suffer today. No less responsible, though, were people like Malcolm Fraser and his Indigenous Affairs Minister, Ian Viner. I also have some great concerns with Fred Chaney, all of whom were on the Liberal side of politics.
On the other side of politics those magical luminaries Gary Johns and John Reeves - now a QC in the Federal Court - brought real rigour and promoted good debate in the area. It is not a matter of the left and the right; it is a matter of those who are practical and those who are not. The minister was right when he said the answers are not easy. The decisions are not easy, either, minister. In politics, anyone who makes decisions will naturally offend people, and people prepared to make decisions in the area of Indigenous affairs are constantly ridiculed and criticised - in most recent times Mal Brough and John Howard for the intervention. They were blasted right across the country for making those decisions.
The intervention is something I supported almost fully. There were aspects of the intervention I had concerns with which I spoke about this week. However, all in all, it was a brave move to call the emergency intervention into the Northern Territory. Mal Brough, and to some extent John Howard, paid the price for having the courage of their convictions and doing what many of us thought was the right thing.
I agree with the member for Braitling on a whole range of issues. We need to turn the tin upside down, throw the contents out and start from scratch because there is so much in the area of Indigenous affairs that is wrong. I have had a crusade over a number of years in relation to the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act - not that I have any grave concern about Aboriginal people owning land; it should be encouraged and there should be more of it. However, the way that act was imposed on the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth - I notice our Minister for Statehood is quite prepared to talk about the Commonwealth imposing restraints on euthanasia, imposing a nuclear waste facility on us, but rarely talks about the injustice done to the Northern Territory by the imposition of the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act. That is one of the great areas where the Commonwealth has absolutely, utterly, overstepped the mark.
We hear present and previous Labor Premiers all around the country talking about how wonderful the Aboriginal Lands Right (Northern Territory) Act is, but none of them will have a bar of it in their own state because it is too inhibiting and does not allow government, in so many ways, to act for what is in the best interest ultimately of all members of the public and, in particular, in many cases, Indigenous people.
That has been the case in the Northern Territory, and I know the hardships ministers of this government, and other governments, have had in determining locations for schools, police stations and health clinics because there is a new plethora of bureaucracy you have to negotiate with in order to do those things on Aboriginal land. It is very difficult to build a road, a school or a house you are not going to own, or even have a say in where that house, school or road will be located.
As a minister, every time you fail in that area people say you are failing as a government, you are failing as a minister. The reality is the underlying legislation and land tenure virtually prevents ministers and governments from doing many of the things we take for granted in normal society.
I was disappointed when, around 2003, the then Chief Minister was offered by the Commonwealth Indigenous Affairs minister, Philip Ruddock - another good Indigenous Affairs minister - patriation of the Land Rights Act, which meant the Territory government would have control over Territory Aboriginal land. For some completely unknown reason the Chief Minister refused to go there.
It is similar with the Statehood committee. The minute someone raises the issue of Aboriginal land suddenly the shutters come down, the barriers go up, and no one wants to talk about it like it is some sacred cow we cannot go near. All bets should be off, and we should reassess all these things because if we are ever going to deliver services to the bush it is crucial government has the ability to acquire land to build roads, schools, hospitals and all those things for the public good. With the current Land Rights Act that is very difficult and sometimes almost impossible.
I spoke earlier this week about alcohol restrictions of the Northern Territory intervention and I have a problem with that. I have a problem with the way government is operating as well. It is punishing the whole community for the misdeeds of a few, and whilst we have a few more than other parts of the country, ultimately, we are penalising decent human beings trying to go through their daily business by putting restrictions on them. In remote communities we need highly regulated and policed wet canteens where, if people want to have a social drink, they can. Similarly, in the towns and cities, if people want to have a social drink they should be encouraged to drink in a regulated place like a pub or a hotel. What should be discouraged is people going to the nearest Woolies, Coles, or corner store to purchase as much liquor as you can squeeze in the boot of your car, or carry under your arms, and head down to a local park where families want to take their kids, drink all day long and terrorise the neighbourhood. That needs to be stopped.
The minister mentioned the problems of housing. We need a complete rethink on this. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars building houses across the Territory which anyone will tell you will only last a few months and will be wrecked; it will be vandalised, demolished and pulled down. We are creating more expense building public houses. We are not seeing any subsidy or encouragement for people to get into home ownership. We have the First Home Owner Grant available around the Territory for first homeowners, although the thresholds make most out of the reach of first homeowners. However, there is something for mainstream people. For Indigenous people in remote communities, particularly ones who are looking at putting long-term leases on townships, there should be an incentive to buy a house.
For instance, if a house is going to cost $0.5m to build in a remote community, why is the government not putting up an incentive of $250 000 or $300 000 to enable a remote Indigenous person to buy their own home? The ongoing cost and maintenance then becomes the responsibility of that Indigenous person. For a little more than half the cost, government still gets a house on the ground. As Noel Pearson said, if you have to pay off a home and look after a home, you tend to have more respect for that home. Noel Pearson tells a story of his father, who built a house out of corrugated iron and fibro. He said it was nothing to look at but, as far as his father was concerned, it was his castle and he looked after it and treated it accordingly. He was very strict on people who wrecked it, painted the walls, or tried to ruin the toilets, or whatever. Clearly, continuing to build houses for people who are hell-bent on destroying them is an unstainable policy.
The minister said urban drift is not a desirable situation and I understand why he says that. We do not have facilities in urban centres to look after these people. Goodness me, we cannot even find accommodation for full-time workers. The chances of finding accommodation for people coming in from the bush looking for better education opportunities for their children, better employment opportunities, or better access to health facilities, is practically non-existent. To suggest people should continue to live in these hellholes in remote areas is completely wrong. I ask every member of parliament: who wants to live in one of these remote communities? Who, honestly, deep down in their heart, wants to live in one of these places? They are the ultimate hellhole in many cases. I love camping, but if you think I would enjoy living at Port Keats, you have another think coming …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Borroloola is a nice place and there is some good fishing. Tiwi Islands is a good place too with some good fishing. However, most of these communities are ghettos.
In my own electorate there is the community of Bagot. I could not imagine wanting to live in a place like that. I could not imagine wanting all of that filth and degradation around me; people who have no interest in caring for their house. I watched the 7.30 Report the other night on what goes on in those places. You think, my God, how do people do it? There has to be a much better way, and encouraging private home ownership makes far more sense than continuing the welfare cycle of providing free housing for everyone.
Profound social change is occurring. Certainly, in the last few years there has been a real change, particularly in Indigenous organisations around the Territory. In the Top End, the Katherine area, and some of the East Arnhem areas there are calls for new land councils. Aboriginal people are saying: ‘We want an economic future, we want economic development. We do not want to be tied down in these communities. We understand we need to find work and employment’. The problem with many remote communities in the Northern Territory is there is no economic base, and probably never will be.
The only answer is to encourage people to move to where there are jobs because, without a job, it is very hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, give your children a decent education, ensure you have proper health, have food on the table and have a balanced diet, and a reason for living. Without a job, it is abundantly easy get on the grog ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, the minister for Indigenous affairs is laughing at the fact you think it is not reasonable Indigenous people have a job. For God’s sakes, you are part of the problem ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It is embarrassing, and if there is ever a reason why this motion should be passed, you are part of it ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am quite disgusted at the reaction from the minister for Indigenous affairs. What a pathetic joke she is. She sits there giggling away when people are talking from the bottom of their heart, saying: ‘Oh, no, they do not need jobs, give them welfare’. This is the reason many Aboriginal people are in trouble ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This is half the reason people in Alice Springs are so fed up - we have ministers who refuse to change. They grip onto the old socialist days where we believe in the noble savage: put him out into the country and let him somehow survive, feed him welfare money and encourage him back to country, as they call it. Back to country, what a joke! These are the people we are dealing with and the member for Braitling raised this motion.
The member for Johnston should be the minister for Indigenous affairs because the one we have is a pathetic wreck. You have the audacity to say you speak for Indigenous people - you are a joke ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his comments through you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, Leader of Government Business. Please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The same comments apply to the Minister for Central Australia because he is another one. He is a nice bloke, she is a nice girl; however, they are failures. The minister for Housing says he cannot support this motion because the Minister for Central Australia is a great advocate - we are not talking about a great advocate. The motion is about failing to provide leadership. Where is the leadership from any of these people? There is none - zero. There is none from the minister for Indigenous affairs, none from the member for Stuart and none from the member for Arafura. These people are dinosaurs living in the past. We need fresh ideas, which is exactly what the member for Braitling is calling for.
I will be very interested to see if the members for Arnhem, Arafura or Stuart have an input into this debate because they are all failures. They are moribund of ideas, they are losers, they are pathetic and are perpetuating the problems Aboriginal people have in this society, and the sooner they are condemned, the better.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, bear in mind the House will go into adjournment shortly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Yes, Madam Speaker, I am aware, thank you.
Over the last couple of days I have listened very closely, and I listened closely to the Leader of Government Business on this issue. One of the inherent problems with the left intelligentsia still having the death grip they have on Indigenous affairs can be captured by several comments he made. I was quite surprised the Leader of Government Business would assert to this House that it will take two generations to teach a person how to clean a home. If that is the benchmark we are setting ourselves for achievement in Aboriginal affairs, we are setting a very low benchmark indeed.
What this motion drives at is there is something fundamentally wrong about the presumptions we have constructed in the Aboriginal affairs approach, and the presumption is that we have to fix it. I can well understand why people are moved to fix it. The Leader of Government Business articulated the concept. Many good people, he said, from both sides of the House, have endeavoured to achieve outcomes for Aboriginal people. I can guarantee you will, at the outset, set yourself up to fail if you seek to achieve an outcome for another person. If you do so, you are immediately locked into a welfare mentality.
I seek for Aboriginal people economic integration with the greater community and, to that end, changes have to be made which attack the very heart of the presumption we have to do things for other people. The more we try to do things for other people, the less success we have. Welfare itself, which we have heard discussed at some length in this House, demonstrates clearly when you do things for other people and expect them not to contribute to that process themselves, the effect is instant dependence.
I listened carefully to the comments about the need to build Aboriginal housing. Why do we need to build Aboriginal housing? Why are Aboriginal people incapable, being the largest landowners in the Northern Territory, of building their own homes?
The economic fortress which is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has created an environment where Aboriginal land is about as easy to invest in as North Korea. It is isolated, it is distant, and it is not attractive to any form of investment. It scares investment money away.
We hear comments, like the Minister for Central Australia recently, congratulating a person with a new house at Hidden Valley camp, which was given to them so that they could improve their lifestyle. This person, I am told, is proud of the house, and I do not doubt that. The minister congratulated this person for keeping the house clean. That is good but surely that is a base level expectation. A higher expectation is people buy their own homes. They get a loan because they have a job and can buy their own homes in Hidden Valley camp, because it is freehold title, or they can buy their own homes on Aboriginal land because there is a usable, existing, tradeable commodity in the form of a lease, preferably a 99-year lease, and that way you can guarantee the ongoing value of the property. The problem with a 40-year lease is you are already starting to erode the value of the lease by virtue of the brevity of its term.
These are the arrangements that need to be put in place so investment money can find its way into remote communities. There are many examples I could point to where investment money has attempted to get into communities, but unfortunately, the dual effect of the operation of the Land Rights Act and the gatekeepers who form the land councils has prevented that investment money from finding its way into remote communities.
Small wonder when you step over the boundary of a cattle station into a land trust, you step from the first to the third world in a single pace. You can step over that boundary, climb over the fence, or where the fence does not exist just step over, and you are stepping away from a piece of land which generates wealth and income on to another piece of land which is a wasteland economically. Why? Because we have sought to protect Aboriginal people from economic advancement, exploitation and the evils of white society. There would not be a person in this room who advocates the removal of land from Aboriginal people - I am happy they own land. I do not care who owns land. I care that through the interference of parliaments like this one, and the federal parliament, those landowners are deprived of the capacity to make any effective choice to incorporate themselves into the general economy of this country.
Talk about the abject failure of policy. Why? Because we are doing this for Aboriginal people. We are protecting Aboriginal people from themselves? We do not trust the decisions they make and, more importantly, when they make the wrong decision, we have such a strong urge to protect them. It is a natural urge but a destructive one, because eventually we have kids going to school getting an education which they cannot hope to use on their own land. If they go to the shop, the change is figured out for them. If they go to the health clinic, the form is filled out for them. If they go out into the community, what job is there to use that education? It does not exist because we do everything for them.
It is about time the expectation is placed on the shoulders of all Australians as well as people living in the Northern Territory. I will ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it now being 10 pm …
Mr ELFERINK: … conclude my comments at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly is now adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, this afternoon during Question Time I undertook to give a personal explanation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … on a matter involving my family some nine years ago. I am delivering this personal explanation through this adjournment tonight, which represents the first opportunity to do so ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin was in parliament at that time. If he cares to look at the Hansard record he will see I answered a significant number of questions on this issue on the floor of parliament. We are talking about nine years ago. I did not shirk answering those questions. I certainly did not shirk speaking to the media and answering questions ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: … from the media on this issue because I have nothing to hide. I am placing on the record tonight that I am giving a personal explanation as I undertook to do so, as I was questioned on the floor of parliament by the opposition. I do not think the member for Port Darwin questioned me. The member for Blain questioned me, and the former member for Goyder. I answered a series of questions on the floor of parliament in relation to this matter. I also answered media in relation to this matter.
If members care to avail themselves of the Hansard record they will see I did not resile from answering. Indeed, part of what I had to say at that time was I could look anyone in the eye in relation to this matter because I have done nothing wrong.
I will talk more about it. This is in stark contrast to the member for Katherine and the serious allegation of fraud. Up until now, he has not availed himself of the opportunity to tell the House his side of the story ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no allegation of fraud and he should withdraw that epithet or proceed by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: He will try to rewrite history; however, it is there in the letter and the newspaper reports. Until now, the member for Katherine has not availed himself of the opportunity to tell his side of the story. I have said all along I believe there are two sides to this story. All I am asking the member for Katherine to do is come into this House and tell his side of the story.
The allegations we are talking about here were raised by the CLP, and in the NT News, by Mr Camden Smith, currently the chief media advisor to the CLP, who at that time was a journalist with the NT News. In essence, these allegations suggested I attempted to use my position as a member of Legislative Assembly to influence a traffic matter involving my son ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: Say that outside, old boy!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you. Member for Greatorex, when I am speaking to you, stand. Withdraw at the lectern, please.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: As a result of the allegations raised by the CLP and their supporters, police investigated the matter and found it had no substance.
Once again, I call on the member for Katherine to make a public explanation in relation to the serious matters raised against him. Hopefully, he will do so tonight or tomorrow.
Tonight I wish to table another letter from Mr Michael John Rowley, who is still very aggrieved by this matter. I can foreshadow to the House I believe there is more documentation coming in relation to this. Members will recall one receipt was tabled today. There were allegations there is another receipt which has been doctored, bodgied, whatever you want to say. It will be interesting to see if and when that other receipt turns up. However, I am told documentation is forthcoming.
Hopefully, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, will show leadership and encourage the member for Katherine to come into this House and make a personal explanation that satisfactorily addresses the serious issues raised. If the member for Katherine does not, it will appear the allegations are true. Regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, will have no other option but to sack his shadow Treasurer. I table this letter for the benefit of members.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about the petition I lodged earlier in the Legislative Assembly consisting of 262 signatures. This petition represented a feeling in the community of Gillen about a basketball stadium erected in the Centralian Middle School grounds in December 2010. I first came to hear about the construction of the basketball stadium on 6 December.
I was contacted by several residents who were, quite frankly, distressed by this very large construction that had been very quickly erected across the road from their properties. I have to say the residents of Gillen, particularly along the Rosenbaum Street boundary across the road from this structure, generally are encouraging of facilities for youth in town. They are fairly regular citizens, not complainers or whingers; average people. I have no reason to think these people are troublemakers of any kind. They are just average citizens going about their daily lives and, quite suddenly, this structure appeared across the road from their properties.
This structure was built over and above two basketball courts which were there for many years, possibly decades. The residents were used to children using those basketball courts for their enjoyment and recreation. That was never a problem. However, the sudden erection of this basketball stadium has effectively changed their lives. This stadium was built with absolutely no advice given to them at all. They knew nothing about the construction in advance. It was built and they were literally left thinking: ‘My goodness me, what is this? How has this happened? Who built it?’ They knew nothing about it apart from what they could see in front of them.
In addition to not being advised of the intention to build the construction, they were never consulted on what they thought about the building. They were never asked how this might affect their lives, what amenities would be affected by the building, or who would be using it. They were never allowed to contribute to any community consultation or process around the building being erected. This building is a monster. Everyone in Alice Springs has heard about it, from one end of town to the other. Many people have driven specifically to the Centralian Middle School to look at the structure, and most people are quite horrified at the sheer enormity of it. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It is higher than any building within 1 km. The CBD is perhaps 1 km away from it. It towers above all the other buildings in the Centralian Middle School grounds.
The residents had a beautiful view of the West MacDonnell Ranges, now blighted by this huge structure. They thought that was the worst of it; they would not be able to enjoy the scenery they had enjoyed for many years.
One particular resident, a lady who lives right across the road from the structure, came to Australia over 40 years ago. She and her husband built their home and have enjoyed living there for many years. Her husband, in fact, passed away in that house, so she has a very strong attachment to it and was very upset by the sudden erection of the building.
Initially, they thought their view being obstructed was the main problem. Having gone there once after receiving the first phone calls on 6 December, I honestly sympathise with that concern. However, as time has gone on, that is probably the least of their concerns. What has happened since is that people have come to use the basketball stadium and, during the day, by and large, that is not a problem. However, people are using this facility all hours of the day and night. It does not have lighting. It has a gate around it which they have been told cannot be locked, so the school cannot prevent people from using this stadium after hours. People are coming there at night and hanging out. There have been reports of drinking, people sleeping at the basketball stadium and, generally, the residents in the area have observed what they consider to be antisocial behaviour.
This basketball stadium has been an absolute nightmare, particularly for the people living directly across the road from the stadium. Other people in the area feel it is not suitable at that location. Because of the attention it is attracting from people who are using it inappropriately, I say it is causing them problems, misery and dissatisfaction, and they are not happy about it. Two hundred and sixty-two people have signed this petition. The petition specifically asks that the basketball stadium be removed, which was quite extreme.
I consulted with residents in the area. I suggested we could put a petition together, and they gave me the wording. It was on their advice we constructed the petition; these are not my words. Asking to remove such a huge structure worth much money is probably unrealistic to some extent; however, 262 people have signed this petition asking that it be removed. They were not advised of the intention to build the stadium, they were not consulted on how this building and its purpose might affect their lives, that their views would be obstructed, and they object to the noise and antisocial behaviour of people using this facility.
That is an explanation of how this petition has come to the Legislative Assembly. I strongly advocate great consideration be given to how this structure has impacted on the lives of the residents in the area immediately around the Centralian Middle School, and also within a broader reach of the school, because it is a blight on the landscape. I recognise and acknowledge it is a great facility for kids, it is absolutely fantastic, but it has been put in the wrong position.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words tonight about the people who helped me in my trip around Alice a little over two weeks ago.
I arrived in Alice on a Sunday night when it was pretty wet, and I was given a quick introduction to Alice Springs in the wet. Superintendent Michael White from the NT Police took me and my personal advisor, Michelle Nuske, for a ride around town. I am probably very lucky to have Michelle working for me; she was brought up in Alice Springs. She lived at Areyonga for some time and her family still lives in Alice Springs. It gives me an insight into some of the issues in relation to Alice Springs.
We were able to visit some of the haunts of Alice Springs on that night. We discovered that when it is raining, it is pretty quiet in Alice Springs. Two days later on Tuesday, Superintendent Michael White again took us around and we were able to see many of the issues that have been a problem for Alice Springs firsthand. I have spoken about that previously, so I will not go on too much about it.
We met Damien Ryan. I also met Damien Ryan at the public meeting the council had organised, which was an excellent meeting. There were many views, and it was good to hear different views from a range of people. There were many subjects raised - probably more than have been raised in this parliament. It certainly was a good sounding board for some of the issues people are concerned about in Alice Springs.
We spoke to Peter Grigg, General Manager of Tourism Central Australia, about whether antisocial behaviour is affecting tourism.
We spoke to Neil and Julie Ross of Ross Engineering, who gave us an indication of the effect on business in Alice Springs. They had concerns there has been a shift of people away from Alice Springs, and felt unless Aboriginal people were stepping up to the mark - the percentage of Aboriginal people in Alice Springs is increasing and we need to ensure education and job opportunities are taken up by those people so Alice Springs does not become a town relying on welfare - that groups of people will be part of the industrial development of Alice Springs. Julie Ross is also the President of the Chamber of Commerce. It was good to get insight from her as well.
We went to the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation and met Brian Stirling, Barbara Satour, and Karen Little and discussed matters in relation to antisocial behaviour. These are people who are sometimes on the other side of the debate. We forget that although there might be concerns out there, if you keep hammering them time and time again, publicising them, even those people who might have some sympathy with what you are saying feel they are being polarised. That is one of the dangers of continually emphasising the bad side of what is occurring. Even though people running those advertising campaigns or protests may have good intentions, we have to ensure we do not drive people into believing they are the ones you are aiming at and, in the end, polarise some of the community, which creates more divisions.
We spoke to some businesses in the mall, and Lorraine in Adelaide House. After all the years of visiting Alice Springs, I have never been to Adelaide House, a nice little historical venue right in the heart of Alice Springs. Lorraine expressed some of the problems she has with rubbish from people who sit around that area. Sometimes when they are painting there is paint on the building, and because it is a heritage site her concerns are about availability of methylated spirits. That was an interesting aspect we did not know earlier.
We also met people who worked in Don Thomas, the outfitters. We went to see John, the owner of the 24-Hour shop on Gap Road, which is sometimes the centre of interest at night. There had been problems there until the lights were put in Melanka Square, which made a big change to confrontations near the 24-Hour shop.
I met Owen, the late-night operator at the Shell Service Station on Northside - interesting bloke who gives you firsthand some of the problems happening in Alice Springs where the back window of his car was broken with a beer bottle. He lives in The Gap and travels down there at night. He expressed his concerns. In fact, I was there the night before last, and he told me he was working late and a gentlemen from one of the camps who was banned from the shop came in. When he asked him to move out, he was spat upon. Since then, charges have been laid against that man.
We met Andrea Sullivan, Manager of the Alice Springs Memorial Club; Mark Coffey, Executive Director of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is looking after the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; and Brad Puls, Central Regional Manager of the Clontarf Foundation, a very interesting bloke with some good ideas - one of these people who really has the future of Aboriginal youth at heart. I recommend anyone to talk to him about what he is doing.
I met Dave Douglas from Tyre City, a member of Action for Alice. We had a long discussion with him and got some good ideas; understood many of the concerns he had. He was well-balanced in what he was talking about. I met ACPO Frank Curtis, who looks after juvenile diversion. He has a great program mentoring young people. He takes them out bush - I have forgotten the gentleman’s name who owns the small farm they go to on weekends - he tries to put young people back on the road. He told us he has several young blokes working part-time at Woolworths. His biggest problem is not having a vehicle big enough. I ask the government to find him a bus so he can take all 15 blokes out on the weekend. While he has a troop carrier, he cannot do that, and these are the people you need to support.
John Adams from the Alice Springs Youth Hub showed us around the youth hub, which needs much more going for it. We met the ladies who manage the Visitor’s Park, whose names I cannot remember. The visitor accommodation park is an excellent project; however, we have to remember it is only for people who want to stay for two weeks. It is not solving the influx of people from other parts of Central Australia.
I had a long talk with Chris Vaughan from Bojangles. He gave us a different point of view about alcohol and issues in relation to antisocial behaviour. Ann Clifton, a longtime resident of Alice Springs and Santa Teresa, is a great lady. Longtime residents are the people you need to talk to. It is interesting to know her maiden name was Wood, so we get on really well. She is a wise person who knows much about the Central Australian region and has her own views. I have known Amanda St Clair for a long time, especially her family. She is a longtime resident of Alice Springs and runs a conveyancing business. She has some very firm ideas on what should happen. She is also a member of the Action for Alice group. It was good to get her opinion on what is happening.
Tony Bohning, ex-Correctional Services, reiterated the importance of starting up juvenile work camps he used to run at Simpsons Gap and places like that. We are not doing enough for our youth and people like Tony Bohning should be listened to. We should be putting more effort into developing those areas, especially for young kids who do not have a home or are running the streets. Take them out bush, give them a bit of space under the stars, get them working and get them back on track. That area needs looking at for this region.
I thank all the people who took the time to talk with us. I appreciated their hospitality and enjoyed coming to Alice Springs two weeks ago. I enjoy staying at Alice Springs right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Member for Port Darwin, I noted a couple of mice there. You might want to lift your feet.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have never seen a mouse plague in parliament before - there you go. There are many rats in parliaments, but no mice.
Madam Speaker, I rise to my feet quickly tonight. I shall not be using all 10 minutes, and I want to raise an issue I raised with the police last night by way of a telephone call.
Last night, after leaving parliament, I drove through the CBD. One of the astonishing things was that from someone who is now out of town, whilst I know my way around this place pretty well, I was surprised to see the conduct and behaviour we have been talking about all over the CBD. Surprisingly, I did not so much as drive into town without having to ring the police in relation to, at best, a disorderly behaviour - a man standing in the middle of the street punching taxis as they drove past. I called the 131 444 number and waited about five minutes for the call to be answered. It was about six minutes and 30 seconds by the time I hung up the phone; so giving the details of the matter took about a minute-and-a-half. Whilst five minutes does not sound long, it is an interminably long time whilst watching someone commit an offence. I gave my identification to the police. I told them who I was and gave them my contact details. I have heard nothing back.
I raise this issue because I would like to know what happened as a result of police attending that job. There were, clearly, criminal offences being committed. I am more than prepared to give a statutory declaration to the police should they choose to find a taxi driver who wants to proceed with the matter of criminal damage - I believe this person damaged one of the taxis as it went past. If they cannot, I am more than happy to give a statutory declaration regarding the conduct of this gentleman in relation to disorderly behaviour.
I have no idea what happened to this person. I have not been sought out for a statutory declaration or any form of evidence. I will be willing to give evidence against this person, if needs be. I am comfortable I will be able to identify this person in a court. I watched the police arrive, to their credit, a short time after the phone call was made. They located this person and I presume dealt with him. I expect they have his name.
I raise this because I am concerned that the simple Summary Offences Act, the vehicle that controls our behaviour on the streets, is not being policed in this town at the moment. I witnessed any number of kids who should have been moved on, simply idling and lingering about which, by the way, is the legal definition of loitering. Whilst it is not an offence to loiter, it is an offence to fail to cease loitering if moved on.
This parliament has armed police with the capacity to issue notices to people to get them to vacate an area for periods up to 48 hours. Those powers seem not to be used. I do not know whether it is a direction from the higher levels of the police force - whether it is a case the police are too overwhelmed to be able to deal with these large numbers of people - but most of those children I saw last night would have been well below the age of 16 years. That was at about 10.30 or 10.45 last night. Not one of them was under any form of effective control. The great chasm we see between this government’s words in this House and what plays out in the community could not have been starker last night. It is clear the legislative instruments we pass are merely bits of paper with words written on them because their enforcement is not a matter this government seems to concern itself with.
I look forward to the Police minister briefing me as to what occurred last night. My specific questions are: why did it take five minutes for the 131 444 number to be answered? What happened to the matter last night? Why are other aspects of the Summary Offences Act not being effectively policed in this town?
I am concerned enough to raise this issue. I note something else for the record: people who report offences rarely get any form of feedback as to what occurred as a result of their report. I will give you an example. I was assaulted by a gentleman a few months ago because I had the temerity to be in a public place when he took it upon himself to throw a can of liquor at me. It cut my hand slightly when I caught it. Nothing ever came back to me about that. I know the gentleman was arrested, and I thank the police for their efficiency in relation to that matter. I ran a few inquiries and, finally, found out this gentleman had the assault charge pulled, and the matter was simply dealt with by way of disorderly behaviour, for which this person received a $300 fine.
If I had not bothered to find out what was going on, I would never have known. One of the reasons police are being criticised in our community is so often people do not hear the results of the complaints they make. I can add for the record, I am disappointed for the sake of a guilty plea, or some plea bargain, I presume, that the matter of an assault against me was dropped for the convenience of getting a disorderly behaviour charge up.
If there was a good reason for that change of approach, I would like to know about it. No one asked me, and if the experience I had is similar to the experience other people have when they ring the police, then small wonder people are becoming frustrated when speaking to police officers and not getting any feedback. This government, through its capacity, should require the police to, at least in serious cases such as criminal offences - for example, break and enters, assaults, that sort of thing - create a system by which people who make complaints find out what has happened to those complaints.
When I was a police officer I often did it; nowadays it seems to occur less and less. It is a matter of courtesy and would do the police a whole lot of good to have that two-way communication with the public they serve and protect.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Hon Lynette Breuer MP
Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP
Hon Lynette Breuer MP
Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly and member for Giles, the Honourable Lynette Breuer MP, and the Government Whip and member for Torrens, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Araluen Christian School students together with Mr Rupert Croutz and Mrs Annette Uldrich. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Basketball Stadium at
Centralian Middle School
Basketball Stadium at
Centralian Middle School
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 262 petitioners praying that the basketball stadium in the grounds of the Centralian Middle School in Alice Springs be removed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that we wish to express our objection to the basketball stadium erected in the grounds of the Centralian Middle School, Alice Springs in December 2010.
we object to not being advised of the intention to build the stadium;
we object to the height of the building which blocks many residents views of the beautiful MacDonnell Ranges;
we object to the noise and antisocial behaviour of people using the facility at all hours of the day and night.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately remove the basketball stadium.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MOTION
Angela Pamela Uranium Mine –
Opposition to Establishment
Angela Pamela Uranium Mine –
Opposition to Establishment
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly opposes the establishment of a uranium mine at Angela Pamela, 20 km from Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, we are in the sittings of the Alice Springs parliament and this is a very important motion we will be debating today. As well as the issues of crime and antisocial behaviour being real talking points and a genuine concern in this town, the potential of having a uranium mine 20 km away - on this town’s doorstep - is a significant issue for the people of Alice Springs.
Every time I attend parliament in Alice Springs people want to talk about this issue. A minority of people support this mine; however, the vast majority of people I have spoken to over 11 years of coming to Alice Springs as a member of parliament are genuinely and sincerely concerned about and opposed to it.
It is an important time today for everyone in this parliament, particularly the members who represent seats in Alice Springs, to put their position firmly on the record. What we have seen in recent times has been absolutely astounding. The hypocrisy of the opposition’s position on this, and individual members who hold seats in Alice Springs, has been breathtaking in relation to the positions and contrary positions people have held. I am interested to see everyone on their feet today, particularly those who represent electors in Alice Springs.
My government - everyone standing or sitting beside me - has a united position. We oppose a potential uranium mine 20 km from the doorstep of Alice Springs residents. The reason is not because we oppose uranium mining - we do not. We will support uranium mines which can be developed in the Northern Territory and meet all the legal requirements of environmental suitability, and all the occupational health and safety issues that surround uranium mines - all those checks and balances provided for in the approvals process.
As a government we also have a responsibility to take into consideration community attitudes and concerns. Mining companies need a social right and community acceptance to operate as well as meeting all the technical requirements. Over the years it has become clearer to me - as the Chief Minister and previously as a member of parliament and a minister for various portfolio areas - it is not just the green radical fringe that opposes a potential uranium mine 20 km from Alice Springs. It is genuine concern of people in the heartland suburbs.
People who are normally in the middle ground or the conservative side of politics are genuinely concerned for a number of reasons. First, the reputation of the town: people say Alice Springs is not a mining town. The whole culture of the town would change. People would not have chosen to live in Alice Springs if they were coming to a mining town. That is pretty subjective; however, it is clearly held by a number of people. People also have significant concerns about the environmental and potential health issues. I reached the point where, regardless of what the sign said, many people would have said it is not acceptable to have a uranium mine over an aquifer that provides water for the people of Alice Springs. Genuine and good people were concerned about that to the point of: there is uranium elsewhere in the Northern Territory; why do we need a mine that potentially compromises the health of the community? I understand the argument about let the science process that; however, I reached the point where regardless of that people thought 20 km away from their front door was a bridge too far and one they did not want to cross.
The third area that really concerned me, as Chief Minister, was the genuine concerns of people in the tourism industry. People in the tourism industry operating a small business, medium-sized business, also international touring companies that do business in Alice Springs had very real, almost hysterical, concerns that if a uranium mine was approved it would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs. All the reasons people come from around the world to visit Alice Springs would be destroyed by what would occur. The reality - and the opposition members as politicians should understand this - of what would occur if the company moves for approval to a mining lease over that area – is there would be the mother of all campaigns against it.
There would be an international campaign focused by The Greens; that would be the mother of all campaigns against that mine. All sorts of allegations and hysteria would be raised around it which would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs as a tourism destination. The businesses that have developed and evolved over time are virtually unanimous in saying they do not believe they could recover from the intensity of a campaign run against an approval process for this mine. It would destroy the reputation of Alice Springs; it would destroy their businesses. Anyone who understands the economy of Alice Springs understands the critical and central part tourism plays to that economy. Everyone understands the number of businesses that are entirely, or in part, sustained by the tourist dollar being spent in Alice Springs.
From the tourism industry’s point of view, not only the fact Alice Springs could be portrayed as a mining town, it was also terrified of what it knew would occur - the mother of all campaigns. If we thought the campaigns in Kakadu were significant, as a politician I know what would happen with a uranium mine application in Alice Springs.
As Chief Minister, I reached a point - and the Cabinet and the parliamentary team - that it was a really tough decision to make. Everyone knows I am pro-development, pro-industry, and have been all my life. I am a tradesman. I have worked in the mining industry; I have got my hands dirty in the mining industry. I have worked underground; I have worked above ground. I have worked on ships and on the tools. I believe in development, I believe in jobs, I am a supporter of the mining industry and a supporter of industry in general.
It is not that the Chief Minister is a radical hostage to The Greens. It was a very big bridge I had to get across, but a bridge built out of responsibility and a sense of this community genuinely and passionately saying this is a bridge too far for Alice Springs. The turmoil, the debate, the hostility that would be let out of the bottle here, we do not need. Our economy can continue to grow. We do not need this mine to cement the future economy of Alice Springs. We have other arrows in our quiver we can fire to develop the economy. People are not anti-mining in Alice Springs; however, this bridge was a bridge too far for the majority of people to cross.
It was a tough decision. It was an agonising decision to say to the company even though we have granted an exploration lease, even though the Northern Territory government does not have any approvals required in processing an application for a mine because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 leaves those decisions to the Commonwealth government, if it applied for an application to mine, our public position would be that this mine should not go ahead and we would put that position to the Australian government.
That is the position the government has taken. We have said to the company we issued an exploration licence which in no way should be read as a guaranteed automatic approval for a mine will follow. Any legal due diligence a company would run over an application for an exploration licence would clearly show it is a very small step along the way to full-blown acceptance and provision of a mining lease, and any issuing of an exploration lease should not be seen as an indication of a future approval process for a mine.
We took that principled decision, a decision based on many years of hearing what the people of Alice Springs had to say.
I have had doctors and health profession workers saying: ‘I have come to Alice Springs to practice medicine because I have a passionate commitment to Indigenous health and using my skills to improve the lives of Indigenous people. I brought my family here. However, I would have not done that if I was coming to a mining town, particularly a town that mines uranium’. I take all those issues into consideration.
The government made a decision and made the announcement. We met with the company; of course it is not happy - I accept that. It was a pretty tough meeting. At the end of the day, when you are elected as a government and are given a position to lead, you have to lead. The government also advised the company any further work it did on the site is done in the knowledge the current government would oppose any application for a mine. We are putting our cards on the table, giving the company that information to deal with as it wishes. That is the background to the decision made, and there is unanimous support within my government for that decision.
Let us move to the position of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is laughing and rolling up his sleeves. It will be interesting to see his position – he has been very quiet on this issue. Government has taken the principled position. The opposition has taken a political position which has not only been misleading the people of Alice Springs, it lies to the people of Alice Springs. There are several prospective uranium mines in the Territory at various stages of approval that have the government’s in-principle support subject to the strict environmental and other conditions that need to be met. That is now on the record.
Let us look at the CLP position. It is so hopelessly divided - a total lack of leadership. He has been missing in action on this issue and no one would know the position of the Leader of the Opposition. We know his deputy, the member for Goyder, is an absolute rock-solid supporter of uranium mining, and of mining the Angela Pamela deposit. I acknowledge the position of the member for Goyder because for many years she was the CE of the Northern Territory Minerals Council whilst I was minister for Mines. I appreciate the member for Goyder has had a consistent, public position of being a supporter of the uranium industry and of this particular project. I appreciate that position, and acknowledge the passion the member for Goyder has for the mining industry and, to a large part, I share that passion.
The member for Fong Lim has been consistent in his position to support a potential uranium mine at Angela Pamela, and whatever anyone thinks about the member for Fong Lim, he plays the ball very hard. He made his position very clear; he has nailed his colours to the mast and, in a number of leaked e-mails, the member for Fong Lim has implored the party internally to turn its position around from one of opposing a potential mine at Angela Pamela to supporting it. We have two people in the opposition with principled positions who have stuck to their positions, and I acknowledge that.
Let us look at some of the other members of the opposition, particularly those who hold seats in Alice Springs. The member for Greatorex - well, well, well, I thought I had nearly seen it all in politics. I have not only been involved in the rough and tumble for over 20 years in the Northern Territory. When you are in this business you read widely about politics, locally, nationally and internationally; you follow the debate and you follow the ups and downs of people in political life. I thought I had nearly seen it all, but when we had another leak - so dysfunctional and divisive are the relationships in the opposition at the moment - when we received a copy of a leaked e-mail from the member for Greatorex to a person in Cameco about his position which was unknown to the public but certainly known to Cameco, what he was saying publicly - my goodness!
I thought I had seen every political trick in the book; however, he has written a new one with the level of deceit, deception - I will not say lie because this is not a censure debate; in any other forum I would use that word - to his constituents about his position. He has been caught red-handed, hook, line and sinker in being deceptive and misleading to a treacherous capacity to the people who voted for him. There has been treachery in his position. I believe we tabled this in the last sittings; however, I will table it again. Let me read from his e-mail:
Below is a link to a great article in today’s Australian newspaper.
I have photocopied 50 of them and am about to head off and letterbox drop them into those with ‘No U Mine’ signs on the property.
He is saying to Cameco he will get around at night and put information into the letterboxes of the ‘no uranium mine’ people in his electorate. The person from Cameco said: ‘We are putting together a new strategy for 2010 and we will give consideration to your idea. We will let you know as soon as we have more clarity’.
Quite appropriately, Cameco was trying to engage the community and work with a local politician. Here comes the mother of all statements and goes to the great deception from the member for Greatorex. I do not know how he sleeps at night given he has held four different positions so far. I will go to these comments:
- As I mentioned yesterday I believe a sustained radio campaign of 15 second ‘Cameco Fast Facts’ aired on the commercial stations in Alice would be a great way to get …
- … the positive uranium message out to the mums and dads of Alice and those that simply don’t understand the issue but are prepared to be convinced.
He is suggesting a media strategy to the company to get a positive uranium message out to convince the mums and dads. He went on to say:
- Whilst the Greens and ALEC can marshal any number of comrades for letterbox drops and protests, it would be a great way to outmuscle them as they wouldn’t have the financial capacity to compete with an electronic media campaign.
He is being quite disparaging of some genuine community groups and talks about a mining company using its financial resources to out-muscle a community concern. He is saying: use your muscle; flex your muscles; throw some money at this. He went on:
- I do think it’s worth considering and as I said I am happy to help where I can.
He continued:
- This of course could be seen as me colluding with Cameco so it would be fraught with danger …
- … however I can easily introduce you to the sales guys at 8HA and SUN FM who are more than capable of handling and developing any campaign you may decide to do.
Anyhow more food for thought. And just in case you’re wondering, I’m not on the radio station payroll, just keen to see the facts out there in the most effective way.
Cheers. Matt.
We have a politician in Alice Springs who had previously been, and still is, on the public record as opposing any potential uranium mine 20 km away from his constituents in Alice Springs, colluding with the company and suggesting ways it can out-muscle the campaign, the media strategy it should run, and encouraging it to put out a positive message. This is in total contradiction to his commitment to constituents in his electorate. In my time I have never seen anything as deceptive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: ... as this. He deliberately misled the people of Alice Springs. Can you trust the member for Greatorex on this or any other issue again? Could you trust the member for Greatorex when he is telling his constituents he supports this mine and, on the other hand, he is complicit with the company regarding a media strategy to convince and out-muscle people? It will be interesting to hear the member for Greatorex today say whether he stands by his support and commitment to a potential mine with Cameco, or sticks with his stated public position to his constituents of opposing the mine. His constituents deserve to know that.
Let us go to the member for Araluen’s position and her statements on this issue in the recent Araluen by-election. She used her opposition of a potential mine as a key plank in her election campaign. It was, front and centre, part of her election campaign. On the Tuesday before the by-election she ran an advertisement in the Centralian Advocate titled - and I table the advertisement - ‘Where Do The Parties Stand?’ ‘Take a Good Hard Look’. No 1 on the commitments list was to oppose the Angela Pamela uranium mine. It was the Country Liberals first tick - before crime, an action plan for Araluen, a real boot camp, bringing the CCTV monitoring and police back to Alice Springs, reopening the Alice Springs communications centre so calls are answered locally, and an extra 20 police on the beat. The front and centre message delivered to constituents was her total opposition to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. This ad was placed on the Tuesday before the by-election – No 1 commitment: ‘If you elect me, the Country Liberals will oppose this mine’; not No 4 or No 5, but No 1.
She then wrote to every person in the electorate - and I table a copy of a letter issued in the by-election campaign. Along with several other things, very clearly: ‘I am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. I, Robyn Lambley, seeking your vote on Saturday, am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine’. That would have gone as a direct mail-out to 2500 households in Araluen saying: ‘Vote for me on Saturday, I am opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine’. I table that also.
We also had during the campaign a CLP flyer saying: ‘A vote for Labor is still a vote for the mine’. Not only were they saying, only four months ago, they did not support this mine and never would in government, they were also totally deceptive of our position. They campaigned really strongly on this issue. They not only campaigned on a positive for the member for Araluen, they campaigned against our position on it. This was front and centre as part of their campaign.
Now, four months later, where are we? It is very unclear at the moment whether it is the parliamentary wing of the opposition or the faceless shadows in the backrooms of the party who have instructed the hapless Leader of the Opposition to change his position on this. The Leader of the Opposition has been silent since, as we understand it through media commentary, the good old boys and girls of the Central Council, the faceless people in the backrooms of the party not elected by the people of the Northern Territory, instructed this weak and desperate Opposition Leader to overturn his position and support the position of the members for Fong Lim and Goyder.
That is what has happened. They have been instructed by the unelected backroom boys and girls to overturn the Leader of the Opposition’s position on this and totally override the commitments made by the members for Greatorex and Araluen, and front and centre of the absolutely helpless and weak position the Leader of the Opposition has is his deputy.
The Deputy Leader is supposed to be loyal to the leader. You have to be absolutely confident your deputy is rock-solid behind you on every public position you take. It is a pity I do not have those e-mails from the member for Fong Lim; I will get them for another part of the day. We know the Leader of the Opposition is totally at odds with his deputy, not only on this issue, but many others. They decided internally to oppose the position of the leader but, of course, would not say that until after the polls had closed in Araluen.
Earlier this year, it was suggested in the Northern Territory News that the Leader of the Opposition was in the member for Fong Lim’s camp as a potential future leader of the Country Liberal Party. We know the member for Fong Lim probably has four or five votes. He certainly has more than one. We think he has about four or five, and have every reason to believe the member for Goyder is in the member for Fong Lim’s camp, and the Leader of the Opposition is so weak he is unable to do anything about it. He is unable to cast the member for Goyder adrift, send her to the backbench and get someone who is loyal to him. I thank you, Deputy Leader, for providing me with more evidence of this.
The leaks coming from the opposition to us - there is a leak a day at the moment trying to undermine the Leader of the Opposition. This e-mail from the member for Fong Lim, Tuesday, 25 January, to the deputy - this is an e-mail …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: This is an e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition copied to the rest of the parliamentary wing. This is how tight the member for Goyder is with the member for Fong Lim. This comes on the back of an e-mail sent from the Leader of the Opposition to his parliamentary team - his colleagues - at the start of the year saying this is going to be a good year for the Country Liberal Party in the Territory. However, he did not send his best wishes for the New Year to the member for Fong Lim. Who forwarded the e-mail to the member for Fong Lim? The loyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition: ‘Dave, you were missed out; Terry forgot to copy you in’. Forgot to copy him in! The loyal Deputy Leader went to the person she wants to see leading the Country Liberal Party, saying: ‘Dave, you better see this’. Dave replied saying: ‘Kezia, thanks for thinking of me. No one else thinks of me. The Leader of the Opposition does not think of me. I thank you, Deputy Leader, for thinking of me’.
He went on to say - it is a fantastic e-mail, I do not have time to read it all:
- Regrettably, I have to report the picture for our party is not a good one.
It certainly is not.
- In the Palmerston area we seem to be holding our own, probably because of our 100% incumbency and the fact that our leader is based there - but that is where it stops.
- In Darwin itself (particularly in the northern suburbs), in our further flung regions and in the business community, we seem to have vacated the stage!
He then went on to talk about the main reason the opposition has vacated the stage, apart from the Leo Abbott shenanigans, has been the issue of Angela Pamela. It is not highlighted here, but I will find it. He says …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister is quoting from that document; I ask that he table it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, I am happy to table leaked e-mails. Did you not …
Mr ELFERINK: The whole thing, Madam Deputy Speaker. Everything he is quoting from - nothing edited out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Chief Minister, are you prepared to table that document?
Mr HENDERSON: I am prepared to …
Members interjecting.
Madam Deputy SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: I am prepared to table the leaked e-mail, particularly the recent chapter about Terry cowering in a restaurant for six hours. I am trying to find the bit about Angela Pamela, it is in here. I will have someone find it for me.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: We have absolute division; we have absolute deception; we have absolute disloyalty from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in regard to the proposed Angela Pamela uranium mine. This shows the people of the Northern Territory …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The same standing order I referred to earlier: the documents have not been tabled. He said he would table them. He should table those documents, not send them off to be vetted by the Deputy Chief Minister while she removes anything that might embarrass the government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said I will table, when I have concluded my remarks, the copy of the leaked e-mails between the Leader of the Opposition, his parliamentary wing and his disloyal Deputy Leader. We know the member for Fong Lim has challenged once and is marshalling the numbers to challenge again - we have that information; it all comes to us. We will put it all on the public record …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, can we confirm what you are tabling?
Mr HENDERSON: … and trawl through it again. If the member for Port Darwin wants me to keep talking about the internal disloyalty and treachery in the CLP, I am happy to do so.
This goes to the member for Fong Lim’s position. He said: ‘We are a party that believes in the structures put in place to scrutinise development proposals. This was the basis of our criticism of Labor on Arafura Harbour. Why would we then take an exact opposite path in relation to Angela Pamela?’ He said donations from the business community have completely dried up since the weak and helpless Opposition Leader took that position on Angela Pamela, and support in the business community is the tide running out because no one knows what the Country Liberal Party stands for any more under the Leader of the Opposition.
We have members in Alice Springs saying to their constituents the Country Liberals do not, will not, and will never support a uranium mine at Angela Pamela being overridden by the faceless men and women in Central Council who have directed the party to overturn its position, a position supported by the main challenger for the leadership, the member for Fong Lim, supported by the treacherous Deputy Leader of the Opposition, overriding the position taken by the CLP in a by-election campaign four months ago. It shows what a divided, deceptive party the Country Liberal Party is; one that could never be taken seriously on any issue until it cleans this up. It has been a very deceptive state of affairs.
If the member for Araluen is going to say in this debate ‘Despite the letters I sent you and the advertisements I took saying I would not support a uranium mine, I have now been instructed by people who do not live in Alice Springs to have another position’, she should at least stand up and apologise for the deceptive and misleading position she put. I challenge the member for Araluen to write to her constituents and apologise for the deceit and lies proffered during the campaign.
The member for Greatorex needs to do the same. He needs to state his position. He has had four different positions so far, and he needs to explain what he was doing colluding with a company that would seek to mine this, offering advice for a media strategy and suggesting they need to spend big to out-muscle opposition in Alice Springs.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to say whether she is loyal to the leader. Obviously, she is not. She was working with the member for Fong Lim in Central Council to overturn the public position of the Leader of the Opposition and, since all this has unfolded, the Leader of the Opposition has not said: ‘During the by-election campaign I said a Country Liberal Party under my leadership would not support an application to mine Angela Pamela’. Four months later he is so weak he has let Central Council and his parliamentary wing overturn that position and now says: ‘What I said four months ago I do not support now’.
The Leader of the Opposition and members opposite are all over the place on this. The only people with a consistent public position - and I admire them for it - are the members for Goyder and Fong Lim. We know where they stand; they have been consistent. The members from Alice Springs, and the Leader of the Opposition, need to state their position in this debate today. I support the motion.
______________________
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod, and Deputy President of the Litchfield Council, Ms Plaxy Purich.
I also draw your attention to students from Year 4/5D at Bradshaw Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Ms Densley, Ms Pearson and Mrs Tudor.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The documents which were promised to be tabled are currently being pulled apart by the Deputy Chief Minister. I ask that all those documents be tabled so we can see everything the Chief Minister was quoting from. This vetting process, despite the promise of the Chief Minister to put this document on the - pages are being removed from this document.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please.
Mr Elferink: What are they doing? What do they have to hide?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister?
Mr HENDERSON: Come in, member for Port Darwin.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I am speaking. You had your go, sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: We finally have the rest.
Mr HENDERSON: I am happy to keep quoting from these e-mails, member for Port Darwin. Here we have Inspector Clouseau of the CLP - every time he comes out with a great political strategy. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, are you tabling these documents? Table the documents, please.
Mr Elferink: He has made his point. Tell him to put them on the table and get him to sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the documents. I am advising the House which documents I am tabling.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister, please table the documents.
Mr HENDERSON: I table them.
Mr Elferink: All he has to say is: I table the documents. That is the normal process.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: You are allowing him to abuse the processes of this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Chief Minister, I ask you to table the documents, please.
Mr HENDERSON: I table the documents. I am telling you what I am tabling.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He knows how to table a document. He is being cute, and you have given him an instruction.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Chief Minister, are you tabling these documents?
Mr HENDERSON: I am. I am advising the House what I am tabling. What is the point of tabling them without advising what they are?
Mr Elferink: You have given him an instruction. He either obeys that instruction or you throw him out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please.
Mr HENDERSON: I am tabling the documents as requested by the member for Fong Lim, and I am advising the House, and the people in the gallery, which documents I am tabling.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please pause while I seek advice from the Deputy Clerk. Thank you. Order!
The advice I have received is the Chief Minister is in a position to explain the documents he is tabling. Order, please, member for Port Darwin! Thank you. Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Fong Lim to the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Goyder. I also table the leaked e-mail from the President of the Country Liberal Party to the parliamentary wing. It is very interesting reading. I table another leaked and anonymous e-mail from a member of the parliamentary wing to the member for Port Darwin requesting him to cease his political strategy because it is destroying the party. I table the leaked e-mail from the member for Port Darwin to the member for Fong Lim, basically telling him to pull his head in and try a position as an Independent at the next election. I table a leaked e-mail from the disloyal Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the next Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fong Lim. Happy reading! They are absolute gold and part of the political demise of the Leader of the Opposition ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Happy to table them.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just table them, Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The issue is there was a request for the documents to be tabled, which was consented to. However, they were passed to another member and, in full view of the opposition, were being pulled apart. That was in defiance of the instruction accepted by the Chief Minister. That is the issue: there was a tampering with the documents that were asked to be tabled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! As you would be aware, Leader of the Opposition, I was not in the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, I removed a bulldog clip. I am happy to provide the bulldog clip to the Table Office.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Yes, Leader of Government Business?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! For goodness sake, order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, I well remember in this House the former member for Greatorex tabling a document and, in the process of doing so, ripped the bottom off it, saying they were personal notes and other matters he did not want tabled. That is different from a bulldog clip.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, that is enough, thank you!
Dr BURNS: That matter was dealt with and, basically …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, order! Resume your seat, thank you.
Dr Burns: There is nothing out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: It was only a bulldog clip.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Deputy Chief Minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please resume your seats, honourable members.
Unfortunately, I was not here at the time. However, the standard procedure is a minister, depending on the type of documents, does not actually have to table the documents. The Chief Minister indicated he would table the documents, and has tabled them. I do not know whether other documents were taken out, but it is irrelevant because the Chief Minister was happy to table the documents.
Chief Minister, are you still on the call? You have finished speaking. That is probably a good thing.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Order!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have a motion for consideration by the parliament. We have an explanation by the government in bringing it forward; it has gone through its position and explained why it came to the position of opposing the application process and curtailed it with Angela Pamela. It cited issues around tourism, raised concerns within the Territory community - the Centralian community, in particular - and used that as the grounds for bringing this motion forward and justifying the position it made clear during the by-election.
We know exactly what this is about. No one would be under any illusion this is about cheap politics on behalf of a desperate government. That is what this is about. It is a shameful thing when people have spent much time in an effort to ensure issues of genuine concern to the people of Central Australia are being reflected upon that we have this misuse of parliament to score cheap political points.
By using such words as a ‘principled position’ - well crafted, but not a principled position; it is a cheap political position. You can make all the fun you want with the opportunities provided; you have had insights into conversations that occurred in the opposition. Well, that is regretful; nonetheless, we will push on and attend to the things that really matter.
One is hypocrisy. We have a Chief Minister with his smiling face on a media release issued in 2008 - and I am happy to table that – and one line from the release on 20 February 2008 starts with Chief Minister Paul Henderson and the Minister for Mines, Chris Natt - remember him and McArthur River, honourable members on the other side in defiance of Cabinet’s decision? - congratulating the successful application of the joint venture Cameco and Paladin to explore proven uranium deposits in Central Australia. Further down it said there was a record 37 applications received for the Pamela and Angela prospects, and a rigorous selection assessment overseen by independent probity experts, Stantons International was undertaken.
The media release said Cameco Paladin’s licence application would progress through the usual administrative procedures under the Mining Act, which includes an advertising period. That is the point: the fact there was concern in this community about this exploration licence progressing is a fact and well understood. I have spent time in Central Australia. I have listened to local members and residents and there are legitimate concerns. However, the only way to assess and properly respond to legitimate concerns is to allow a process to be concluded.
At the time of the by-election we were reflecting upon the concerns in this community which were legitimate, but those concerns could only be addressed by the completion of a process under the Mining Act as described and endorsed by the Chief Minister. That is the issue - 37 applications. Cutting a process in midstream has wide and far-reaching implications. We have a community with concerns, some ideologically driven, some genuine, because they are uncertain of the facts. Those facts need to be presented so a mature decision on behalf of a fully informed community can be made.
I find it appalling we could have leadership that would cut a process off at the knees to satisfy a short-term opportunity to score a political point. You are short-selling your community. You are not providing the necessary leadership; that is the issue.
There are two things perhaps a little difficult for the Chief Minister to understand; when you have concerns you have an obligation to respond to them and allow the confidence in a process to respond to them. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex has played his part in ensuring that process was going to provide the necessary facts. If the Chief Minister was fair dinkum he would have read that for what it was.
The last line is to ensure all facts are available so at the end of that process a decision can be made. Whether or not you agree with uranium mining you have to have, in proper governance, a process you can have confidence in otherwise you trash the joint. No one will be confident to deal with the Northern Territory. The community is going to be left short-changed and diminished as a result, and will not have the confidence to tackle difficult issues and progress on them.
That is the real issue. The major theme running here is obvious. There would be a temptation, if I were in government, to seize this sort of political opportunity; however, the community would expect you to ensure you attend to the real business and acknowledge a proper process needs to be followed. I support uranium mining. I support a process to ensure the matters of concern around that issue are properly resolved. I would be fully prepared, as I have in the past, to front an angry crowd with an alternative view to my own. If there was a group that wanted to meet, and wanted to protest because the party I represent principally supports uranium mining and it wanted to put their case, I would front it - no problem at all. I would want to take on board its concerns and ensure I understood what it had to say, and I would reassure everyone that there is a process which must be concluded in order for a decision to be made. What that decision will be can only be determined by those who have confidence in that process.
Now, we look at the Chief Minister. The fact is the Chief Minister knows full well what is at play here. The federal government makes this decision. The Chief Minister has cut a process off before it has concluded. This is the same Chief Minister who, when an idea is put on the board in the Top End over the development of Arafura Harbour - a proposal, a proposition, and idea - moved to the position because the members for Fannie Bay and Nightcliff, feeling some heat in their communities, said: ‘Knock it off, cut it off at the knees, do not talk about this any more’. He pulled the idea from consideration before it had been assessed.
Is not the response of a leader to allow an idea to progress and develop? Or is this a man lacking courage who wants only to play to the popular and short-term for political advantage right here right now, and to heck with the leadership required in difficult situations? Clearly, that is the situation. When it comes to Arafura Harbour, for example, allowing an idea with merit to be tested is the necessary and responsible next step. That is what should occur, and would occur under a Country Liberal government. Under a Labor administration, you do not even allow a controversial issue to be considered because it may threaten the political future of the member for Fannie Bay.
When it comes to a development in the Chief Minister’s own electorate of Wanguri, in the midst of a housing crisis when young families are crying out for more space in the market to get a toehold in the marketplace, there comes a proposition around a transport hub to have increased accommodation made available and the wider community supports such an initiative. Some people in the Chief Minister’s electorate voice their concerns. This Chief Minister weighed into the debate, as Chief Minister and as local member, and cut the process off at the knees – no more, we can it – and does not allow the process to be concluded. Is that evidence of a man with courage, conviction or principle? Absolutely not; it is quite the opposite.
Yesterday, we had a group of citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who wanted to make their voices heard. Though it may be uncomfortable, did the Chief Minister at least listen to what they had to say – no! Is that the action of a man of principle, a man of courage, and man who gives honour to the notion of leadership? Absolutely not. Where leadership is required the Chief Minister is absent. When there is an opportunity for politics to be played and distraction from the real issues, the Chief Minister is there front and centre; he seems to enjoy the game of politics.
This is not about politics. This is about how a community navigates through difficult decisions. For this reason, and seeing this motion for what it is, I believe, as my party believes, as fair thinking Territorians would believe, you have to have a process to allow a community to properly weigh the issues before a decision is made.
Consider the consequences of cutting something off at the knees. We have a lack of confidence in this government’s capacity to show courage where required; lack of ability in this government to provide leadership and steer the Territory through difficult times. This is where you end up with the lowest common denominator: make no decision, take no risk, and ensure we make decisions which are popular in the short term. Try raising a family like that; try running a community group making short-term decisions - you will not get very far. That is the leadership required; that is the point.
You can make all the fun you like of the other matters raised; however, most members will see this motion for what it is. The Chief Minister said it was a bridge too far. In order to cross a bridge there has to be a bridge. The Chief Minister has demolished the bridge and that is the issue of certainty; that we have certainty over a process which will allow a consideration of the merits or otherwise.
None of us are saying this is a project without contention. It has, and I have heard that. How we progress with that is the issue. A tremendous problem emerges with the response of the Chief Minister. In fact, it is a deceptive decision because the reality is the position adopted by the Chief Minister, and stated as Chief Minister, is a position that will not change anything. It plays to the short term; it gets him a little pat on the back in the short term. However, it completely trashes an adequate process that would allow a mature decision to be made.
The federal government will be making this decision, not the Chief Minister. To have a process that has not been allowed to conclude is just that, and the Chief Minister has admitted that.
It is important to acknowledge the proponent, Cameco Paladin, had not done an adequate job in responding to the concerns of this community. They could have done much better. That should have been the response. There are those who have an ideological position of opposition to anything to do with uranium. I accept that for what it is. That probably will not change. However, there is another group which needs a proper response to the concerns being generated so we can navigate.
Cameco did an inadequate job and needs to pick up its game. If I were Chief Minister I would say: ‘Pick your game up’ and I would have some skin in the game to ensure we conclude that process. A number in the debate would say: ‘We go through that process, yes. We are so cynical we do not believe there is a genuine process and believe at the end, no matter what happens, the mine will get the tick because, ultimately, we are opposed to uranium mining and the only thing that will satisfy us is no concession or compromise’ - a complete denial of the capacity of this to progress in any form whatsoever.
There will always be that line of debate; however, you cannot be captive to a line of debate ideologically driven - we have to weigh that up. That sector also has the requirement to buy into the argument and recognise they are members of the broader community. Not everyone is going to get their way; we need voices in the debate from both sides of the spectrum. That is the hard part of leadership and is what has not been provided here. I call on Cameco to do a better job than in the past. That is required so there can be a mature process which results in a better decision.
We have a feeding of cynicism and reduction in the capacity of a government to properly respond and provide governance. We have a Chief Minister who has weighed into this debate and rolled over to anything issued from Canberra. We do not hear clear statements of the effect of the carbon tax on the Northern Territory and Central Australia ...
Dr Burns: Where are you on that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: On the mining tax? My positions have been clear. There is selective hearing on the part of government members; however, my positions are clear. A clear position needs to be presented so people understand we should not go down that path without fully understanding the cost to the Northern Territory. Why should the nation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: We will have that debate another time. The Chief Minister has not provided any leadership on those matters; not explained to the community what effect this will have, or taken the opportunity to ensure we amplify the political benefits that may flow from such a debate. We do not have that kind of buy-in; we do not have that kind of leadership from this Chief Minister.
Madam Speaker, we will not support this motion for the reasons outlined. There are concerns, as we acknowledge, for a range of reasons. The only way to adequately respond to those is by having a genuine process and proper engagement, and to provide, in difficult times as the Chief Minister has failed to do, real leadership. Also, to allow the confidence in the mechanisms afforded this community, and any proponent to bring in economic benefits, to minimise environmental risks and social impact, to be properly assessed, weighed and considered by a mature and sensible leader. We do not have that in the Chief Minister. This will not be supported.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear the opposition will not be supporting this motion. That confirms for me the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of the opposition.
This is an important issue for Alice Springs which opposition members from the Top End do not understand, as well as the other issues debated this week.
However, it is total hypocrisy because during the Araluen by-election - and it is here in black and white in the Centralian Advocate of Tuesday, 5 October, prior to polling day, the first box ticked by the Country Liberals was: ‘Oppose the Angela Pamela Uranium Mine’ - before extra police they say they would commit to and before reopening the Alice Springs communication centre. The Leader of the Opposition talked about process. He is clearly trying to muddy the waters, trying to convince the Alice Springs community the opposition does not support it; it does. What we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is total hypocrisy.
I am disappointed, as the Alice Springs community would be, to hear the opposition will not support this motion. As someone who lives here - I have grown up here, lived here all my life, my kids have grown up here - I talk to people on the streets - friends, neighbours, and the average person on the street opposes Angela Pamela 20 km south of Alice Springs. These are not the ordinary people you might think would oppose a mine. These are business people, the average mums and dads, and school kids. Alice Springs’ mums and dads and kids held a ‘pram jam’ in my electorate office one day objecting to the proposed Angela Pamela mine. They told me they had real concerns about a uranium mine going ahead so close to their homes.
The message was reinforced when doorknocking during the Araluen by-election. My colleagues did much doorknocking and got the message loud and clear from the people of Araluen regarding their opposition to the Angela Pamela uranium mine. I am unsure how many opposition members doorknocked and received the same message.
We have heard how the member for Greatorex, the member who is not here at the moment, contributed to this motion …
A member: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you, member for Stuart.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: You are well aware you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, we have heard how the member for Greatorex, the invisible man in Alice Springs, was playing a double game when he pretended to oppose the Angela Pamela mine to gain political ground. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition saying this is all about politics; it is not an important issue for Alice Springs. Shame on the member for Greatorex because he has used it for every political kick he can get. His true colours, yellowcake, have been made very clear since the exposure of his e-mails, showing his secret support for the uranium miners and his offers of assistance in getting their pro-mine messages across to the community.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre said, when the member for Greatorex’s double dealing was exposed, he was going against the views and wishes of the community. How true. The member for Greatorex is going against the views and wishes of the community and his constituency.
In February this year, the Country Liberals said they supported uranium mining - all uranium mining. Where do the Alice Springs representatives stand on this important issue?
Who knows what the member for Braitling thinks. He is laughing about it; yes, it is a joke. He has been remarkably silent, so I am looking forward to his contribution on this motion; I cannot wait ...
Mr Giles interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: Has anything changed for the member for Araluen in the six months since she was elected when it comes to Angela Pamela? Let us remember what the member for Araluen said during her election campaign six short months ago. On 29 September last year, she said: We agree that this mine should not be supported. It should not be supported and that is the Country Liberals’ line. It is too close to town. People are fearful. This message is fairly consistent that people are afraid and very concerned about the implications for their future’.
The views of the Alice Springs community on Angela Pamela have changed. I would be surprised if people in Alice Springs had done a silent backflip on their views about the uranium mine on the outskirts of their town.
Has the member for Araluen done a backflip on her views on Angela Pamela? Again, I cannot wait to hear that. I know she is not here at the moment; I would love to hear it when she comes in …
A member: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, does she think …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I have asked you not to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the comment, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: I withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, does she now think the Angela Pamela mine is okay? That the community does not have a problem with the mine any longer?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the minister might be able to table the documents he is reading from?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, minister. Is it a document you wish to table or are they personal notes?
Mr HAMPTON: Personal notes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Personal notes, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not think the people who oppose the Angela Pamela mine and groups like ALEC, the Families for A Nuclear Free Future, the Alice Springs Angela Pamela collective, local tourism businesses like Wayoutback, or the Public Health Association Australia Northern Territory Branch welcome it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The Public Health Association Australia NT Branch, the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) NT Branch, and all the Alice Springs citizens who have expressed their opposition to Angela Pamela over the years have not changed their minds. In October 2008, more than 300 people in Alice Springs protested against the mine; more than twice the number who protested here yesterday on another important issue.
Over the years I have received hundreds of e-mails, faxes and phone calls from people opposed to the Angela Pamela uranium mine 20 km south of Alice Springs. I recall the 2009 Alice Springs Show, where a contestant called Angela Pamela placed entries into many of the competition categories. She crocheted a yellow tea cosy in an anti-nuclear pattern, baked a plate of biscuits in a similar design, and made a cake with luminous icing. This shows the passion of the people of Alice Springs who oppose the Angela Pamela mine 20 km south of Alice Springs. It shows the effort locals will make to get the message across. We do not want a uranium mine in our township; that is the clear message from the locals in Alice Springs. The people of Alice Springs deserve to know where their local representatives stand on such an important issue …
Madam SPEAKER: I ask whoever’s mobile phone is ringing to turn it off, please. There are no mobile phones allowed in the Chamber, whether it is members or guests. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: I cannot wait for contributions from the Alice Springs members regarding their support or otherwise of the uranium mine going ahead. Madam Speaker, I do not support it.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College Year 9 students with their teachers, Ms Bonney and Mr Boyce. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers? Member for Greatorex.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Here we go. Did you really believe I would shy away from a fight with a bunch of undergraduates like you guys? I mean, dead set. It really gives …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: … a whole new meaning to a word ‘dilettante’ within the Australian Labor Party today. I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it. It is worth putting a few facts on the table. Dirty tricks know no bounds with the Australian Labor Party, and that is exemplified in the Northern Territory Labor Party.
This motion today on Angela Pamela is a sideshow to distract from the real issues facing the Northern Territory - the top of mind issues of the people of Alice Springs and, indeed, the Northern Territory. Everyone in this Chamber knows the real issues facing the people of the Northern Territory. Two hundred people were here yesterday voicing their concerns and old ‘no show’ does just that. He …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw comment.
Mr CONLAN: The Chief Minister, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: … aka ‘no show’ who failed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. The point has been made.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Nevertheless, that is what they are calling him and what he will be forever known as.
This motion is really to deflect from the real issues facing the Northern Territory; to create a sideshow, to take the heat off government and put some heat, focus or pressure back on the opposition. This motion has no impact whatsoever on whether the Angela Pamela exploration will progress into a mine. What this parliament resolves makes not one iota of difference. I know, member for Karama, nothing is going to swing on whether this parliament supports such a motion or opposes it - absolutely nothing. If it did, this could be a whole different debate; however, it does not. The reason it does not make one iota of difference is the final decision will rest with the federal government. The Chief Minister has no understanding of the process …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: … he thinks it is up to him and this parliament. Well, he is wrong. For the benefit of those in the gallery, we can run through some of the legalities. Section 34(3) of the Northern Territory Mining Management Act says:
- Before exercising a power or performing a function under this Part in relation to an Authorisation that relates to uranium or thorium, the Minister:
(a) must consult with the Commonwealth Minister about matters agreed in writing between them relating to mining of uranium or thorium …
If you look at the Commonwealth’s Atomic Energy Act - it is quite long and I will not go through it now; however, section 35 refers to the title of the Crown to prescribed substances in territories of the Commonwealth. It is very clear it makes not one iota of difference whether the Northern Territory supports, passes, dispenses with, or brings in some political argy-bargy motion such as this …
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, put that down!
Mr CONLAN: Obviously, the Chief Minister does not understand the process. All we have to do is look at the desperate attempt by the government to paint me, and other members of the Country Liberals, into a corner to create a sideshow about uranium and who stands for what.
There is no hiding from the e-mail I wrote to Cameco. I wrote it, there is no doubt about it. I went on the record; I made myself available for media interviews all day Friday several weeks ago to explain the situation. I wrote it, and I engaged with Cameco only in the capacity of a local member to provide dialogue between the community and a major multinational mining company. Simple as that! In fact, I would be abrogating my duty as local member if I did not.
What has been overlooked when I talk about Cameco fast facts - we are talking about facts! A fact is a fact - the truth …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, put that down.
Mr CONLAN: How about we have some truths. You are essentially saying to the mining company: ‘You guys are really behind in the argument. You are not winning the community; you are not taking the community with you. You really need to lift your game. If you do not you are going to lose this battle. You are not going to get the community support for this mining project’.
Some in the community will not support this regardless. They will not be convinced; they do not believe in it. That is fine and that is their position. However, there are some who do not know; some who are not aware of the pros and cons of uranium or this particular mine, whatever they may be. Those people deserve to have the facts. Those who are vehemently opposed to it ideologically will arm themselves with enough information and are happy to make a decision and sit with that. There are plenty who do not have this information at hand, and it is up to the mining company that would impose a mine on the people of Alice Springs to win the argument.
The mining company has to win the argument - not the community. The onus rests on the mining company and I told them – I had a number of conversations with Cameco, I make no bones about it - we support mining in the Northern Territory and always have, we support uranium mining in the Northern Territory, we support all sorts of economic development in the Northern Territory. However, in this project, there was a psychological battle with the broader community of Alice Springs and the mining company itself. The company had an enormous amount of work to do to win the argument.
It is worth pointing out this e-mail was written 10 months before the Araluen by-election, so I do not see what the problem is. If it was written after the Araluen by-election this would be a completely different argument. It would be seen as yes, one decision made then secretly colluding, or whatever the language was from the Chief Minister. There was no collusion, no secret squirrel stuff, or skulduggery taking place. It was simply engaging with a multinational mining company to encourage it to embark on serious dialogue with the community of Alice Springs. I do not see anything wrong with that and believe the general community does not see anything wrong with that. I would be abrogating my duty as a local member if I did not do so.
Any backflip has been as a result of the Northern Territory government. We talk about backflips - this is the point for those in the gallery or listening to this broadcast: the government is running this show. The government made this decision. Nothing is going to swing on where the Country Liberals stand in relation to this decision at this point in time …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … this is the Northern Territory government …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: It is okay, I can take it. We have your measure. Nevertheless, this government made the decision.
The member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, made the point about the government’s media release - this is so incredible. The lengths the government will go to are staggering - the hypocrisy - to score political points. For people who are opposed to uranium mining and do not want the mine to go ahead, it is worth hearing this:
- Chief Minister Paul Henderson and Minister for Mines Chris Natt have welcomed the successful application by joint venture Cameco/Paladin to explore proven uranium deposits in Central Australia.
That is the Chief Minister’s own media release. Today he said it would detract from the economy of Alice Springs if the mine went ahead, and with the impact it would have on tourism, we could see millions and millions of dollars not coming into Alice Springs through growth. That flies in the face of what the Chief Minister said in his own media release. He said:
- If the Angela and Pamela prospects live up to their potential, the value could run to the billions - creating years of economic benefit to Central Australia.
Did the Chief Minister not say in the political argy-bargy previously that it is going to detract from the economy of Alice Springs, and it is going to take away millions of dollars that will not flow into this community? He said it! It is staggering; the hypocrisy is beyond belief! He said it was the most amazing thing he has heard in 10 or 15 years of parliament. He must clean the wax out of his ears, because many more amazing things have taken place in this Chamber than this e-mail.
This is a case in point. You have just said: ‘It is really going to affect the economy of Alice Springs. This is why, hand on heart, I did some soul-searching and had to walk away from the project. It is an arbitrary ad hoc process, just like a third world country’. No wonder the government cannot get a project up; he is like a windsock blowing in the wind! Whichever way the wind takes him he will go. He will not stick to any Cabinet solidarity or due process. He says: ‘Oh, it does not feel all that good ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr CONLAN: … I do not like this. A few people have said they do not support it so I am going to walk away from it because it is going to destroy the economy of Alice Springs’. However, he also said:
- If the Angela and Pamela prospects live up to their potential, their value could run to the billions - creating years of economic benefit to Central Australia.
- The Territory’s rich mineral base has seen a surge in applications for exploration licence in recent years, with exploration now injecting more than $100 million into the Territory economy each year, up a massive $80 million since 2001.
There is great concern in the electorate of Greatorex about the Angela Pamela mine - extreme concern about the potential of a uranium mine. I support my constituents 100%. However, I am not going to deprive the Territory of the economic growth it deserves and needs by feeding into some political argy-bargy wedge trying to paint division amongst the Country Liberals to take the heat off the government - create a sideshow - from the real issues facing the Northern Territory.
There are real issues out there, member for Johnston, minister for everything once upon a time, now relegated to the incompetent Leader of Government Business - health failures under your watch. Under Labor’s watch there has been an enormous blowout in elective surgery waiting times - we have some of the worst elective surgery waiting times in the country …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, if you want to go to the lectern.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister, in his address to this motion, spoke upon a raft of issues, none of which had anything to do with the motion before the House. I ask the same courtesy be extended to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you can stay as close as possible to the topic. If you diverge slightly that is not a problem. We are only talking about a short period of irrelevance, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: My point is there are far more pressing issues on the minds of people in Central Australia. Those who have come into the Chamber today thinking this was a substantial debate and would see something on the uranium industry in the Territory, I apologise for wasting your time. This is a complete waste of taxpayers’ time and money and a political wedge, and those with some idea of politics will see it for what it is. For those who do not follow politics and have faith that, as politicians, we try always to do the right thing by you, I apologise, because this is not doing the right thing by you as taxpayers. In fact, this is treating you with contempt. It is an insult to the intelligence of taxpayers of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, there are pressing issues facing Territorians and whether or not this parliament supports an Angela Pamela uranium mine has nothing to do with the big issues - not one iota. People who know the process of the Angela Pamela uranium mine know nothing will swing on whether this parliament supports or opposes this motion.
Let us talk about Labor’s health failures. The member for Johnston presided over one of the worst health departments in the history of the Northern Territory, so much so he was sacked as Health minister. Another one for your bow, member for Johnston. When you retire at the end of this term you can say you held nearly every portfolio in the history of the Westminster system, not because you were good - you were completely hopeless. You were the Bungles everyone claimed you were.
Also, Labor’s failures in child protection. The member for Braitling has been helping people at Blatherskite Park - the Yuendumu situation. There are children at the moment with nowhere to go. Yet, we see the member for Casuarina, who has presided over a deplorable child protection system - you cannot have one guy take over a deplorable child protection system without someone setting it up, and the member for Karama has done that.
Look at Labor’s attack on the Territory lifestyle. Housing is completely out of the range of low- to middle-income earners. Labor’s governance failures …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance, in every sense.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point fairly quickly. It does seem to be pretty irrelevant; come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: I find it extraordinary the Labor government is not interested, and this is my point. It is as if we are encouraging you, willing you, daring you to make a point of order so the people of Central Australia, and all those listening to this broadcast, can see for themselves you are completely bereft of wanting to talk about the real issue. You want to avoid it. Every time we talk about a sensitive issue - real issues such as health, law and order, education - you want to shut parliament down. You want to gag the person speaking. You would rather some argy-bargy ...
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Dr Burns: You are not going to give him an extension!
Mr Conlan: I thought you wanted to hear the rest of it, Bungles!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members if I am speaking no one else should speak. Also, there is to be no reference to members except by their electorate title, ministerial title or other parliamentary title.
Member for Greatorex, before I call you again, there has been a motion for an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw the reference to the minister as ‘Bungles’. Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: To hear you say it, Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to withdraw.
We see members being gagged and shut down, points of order being made - we see it all the time – around the real issues facing the Northern Territory. They are far and wide. This is not a major issue facing the Northern Territory and is not worthy of the $7000 an hour of taxpayers’ money it costs to run parliament - more so when you take it on the road - to debate some frivolous motion to say: ‘We support it; let us see how those guys go’.
Everyone knows the situation; I have made my position perfectly clear. If the residents of Alice Springs, the residents of Greatorex, so vehemently oppose the Angela Pamela uranium mine I will side with them. I have made that very clear without a shadow of a doubt. I will put their case to my parliamentary colleagues in the strongest possible terms. I am not going to deal myself out of the game. I am not going to disappear when it comes to a vote. I am not, all of a sudden, going to be absent when it comes to voting because I cannot make a decision. If we are voting on this, I will be here to vote. I will not be dealing myself out of the game for the sake of some political argy-bargy; there is too much at stake. However, I will not be supporting anything which will cause health and safety concerns to my children, your children, or anyone’s children.
This is personal; I live here. I live within 20 km of this proposed uranium mine. Make no mistake: if it does not meet the most stringent, strictest environmental concerns I will not be supporting it. I suspect no one in this parliament would support it if it proved to be an environmental hazard. That is what the Country Liberals stand for: due process. I am an individual member and, at the same time, a member of shadow cabinet. I have every right to stand up for my constituents and express their views. They are very concerned. However, unlike the Labor Party, I take the concerns of Alice Springs residents very seriously. I am not going to play party political argy-bargy for the sake of economic development. While on one hand I am very concerned about a proposed mine which may not prove to be environmentally safe, on the other, if this mine proves to be environmentally safe and satisfies the community and the constituents of Greatorex, we should have it. Who are we to deprive the Northern Territory of the economic growth it so desperately needs?
That is the position. My shadow colleagues would expect nothing less from me as not only a shadow cabinet colleague, also a local member in the Country Liberals. Unlike the ad hoc, arbitrary approach displayed by the Northern Territory government - the windsock - when something is blowing it is a bit too hard; we better go the way the wind is blowing - the Country Liberals believe in not only solidarity but also due process. This party follows due process, whether it is McArthur River Mine, whether it is …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 67 which allows the member latitude to digress, in relation the remark he just made, I would like to hear his definition of the Country Liberal Party specific …
Mr CONLAN: Sit down. Madam Speaker, tell him to sit down. What an idiot.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it is not a point of order. Minister …
Mr McCarthy: I would like to hear his definition.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, resume your seat.
Mr CONLAN: Good on you. Sit down, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You are not directing business here, member for Greatorex, and I am on my feet.
Mr CONLAN: The member for Barkly has not said much about the law and order issues facing his community of Tennant Creek. Again, he was searching for some relevance in the landscape of the moribund of undergraduates on the other side of the House. That is okay, minister, we expect nothing less.
Individually elected members can have a view on a range of issues, and we have a duty to uphold that to our constituents and I will continue to uphold that to the bitter end. I make no apologies whatsoever for my views on the Angela Pamela uranium mine, because they express the broader views of my constituency. My shadow cabinet colleagues would expect nothing less of me. We are allowed to have different views, and I had an opposing view in the party room. I make no apology for that, and my colleagues have no problem with that. It is a democratic process. The shadow process and the parliamentary wing of the Country Liberals is a democratic process. I will continue to take the views of my constituents to the shadow cabinet and the parliamentary wing. If there are concerns such as these I will put those to my shadow cabinet colleagues, and my parliamentary colleagues, in the strongest possible terms. I make no apologies for that.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I would like those in the gallery to know where their taxpayers’ money is going. Some who live in Greatorex, probably those East Side areas, may have had this flyer placed in their letterbox. That is a flyer from the fifth floor of Parliament House put out by the Australian Labor Party and the Office of the Chief Minister. That is where your taxpayers’ money is going. If anyone has a problem with what I say, or have said in the past, please discuss it with me or, if you really dislike what I said or what I stand for, you can make your decision on polling day next year. I will always be accountable to those people on polling day, 25 August 2012.
We do not need this placed into letterboxes. It is dirty tricks and an attempt to create a sideshow away from the real issue facing Northern Territorians - law and order. Law and order is dominating the landscape of the Northern Territory. I will read through some of the statistics again: in the last five years - since the previous protest here in 2007 - there has been a 47% increase in crime - since the last forums. It was a series of forums which became a summit. It was a gabfest, a talkfest, a summit and a forum - let us hold hands and talk about it some more.
Since then we have had a 47% increase in crime; an 87% increase in crime overall in the last 10 years. There are real issues facing the people of the Northern Territory, not this time-wasting, taxpayer money-wasting matter.
I apologise again to people who have come here today thinking there will be a meaningful debate about uranium, where we are going with uranium, perhaps in the wake of what is happening in Japan. There is much we could talk about in a meaningful way. For those who may not follow the political process too closely, it is an attempt to wedge the opposition. This government is obsessed with the opposition. I have never seen anyone so obsessed with the opposition. All the government does is talk about the opposition. It would be great if you put as much energy into dealing with the real issues as you do talking about the opposition!
The Chief Minister: ‘The opposition does this, the Country Liberals do this. The so and so’s. The Country Liberals did this, said this, say this all the time’. You are obsessed. You have an unhealthy obsession with the Country Liberals which is a worry for the people of the Northern Territory because instead of dealing with the real issues facing the Northern Territory you are obsessed with the Country Liberals. There are hundreds of issues facing people in the Northern Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN: … and you need to deal with them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Larapinta School Year 5/6 class, with teachers Mrs Kerry Adams and Mrs Adi Smith, and also Gillen School class 5/6C, with teacher, Mr Michael Cole and ISA, Mr Steve Thomas. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I oppose this motion put by the Chief Minister; clearly, it is a furphy. It is as described by my colleague the member for Greatorex: all smoke and mirrors and like a windsock.
I pick up, initially, on comments made by the Chief Minister in regard to water concerns which could arise in regard to this project. I quote from the answer by the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources when speaking about the granting of the exploration licence for the Angela Pamela deposit area. He spoke as the minister responsible for mines:
- The explorer must also pay an environmental security bond. I know there was some concern in Alice Springs about the Angela Pamela exploration and water table, but I would like to tell you that the work underlying the Angela and Pamela deposit in Alice Springs is the same as that underlying the Alice Springs Brewer Industrial Estate. It is south of Rowe Creek bore field, and the groundwater system associated with Angela and Pamela is completely separate to the ground water system that supplies Alice Springs with drinking water. There were a number of independent assessments that have confirmed that any incursion activities in Angela and Pamela will not affect the Alice Springs water supply.
For the Chief Minister to now say there are concerns regarding the water supply of Alice Springs is completely at odds with what his mines minister said regarding the granting of this exploration licence.
The Chief Minister also raised issues regarding tourism - no tourist would go to Alice Springs or Central Australia. If that is the case, they would not come to Central Australia because they are more concerned about law and order on the streets than any would-be project. I quote the mines minister when speaking with a newspaper called Green Left Weekly - this is a quote so I am not being disrespectful:
- Vatskalis said the mine would have a relatively small footprint and it is not likely to be visible from any of the major tourist attractions in and around Alice Springs. The presence of the Ranger uranium mine within Kakadu National Park …
- … has not prevented a thriving tourist industry in that region, he said.
For the Chief Minister to say the tourism industry will detrimentally affected by a potential project is not true. The mines minister would also know the number of tourists visiting the Ranger mine in the Jabiru region amounts to thousands and thousands of paying visitors each year. In fact, it is a draw card for some tourists to the area. They go specifically, and this is in addition to the many government people, industry people, teachers and school children who visit that project.
Madam Speaker, what the Chief Minister said in regard to my history and support of this project, and the other project in the Northern Territory, is quite correct. I have always supported this project, its merits and its potential, and that due processes should be followed regardless of where a project is located. That is what this argument is about: the following of due process and allowing the company to have a level playing field when it comes to operating in the Territory; going from an exploration phase through to a mining phase. I will be the first person to state companies can always do better in their operations, regardless of where they are located or what commodity they are looking to mine. Doing better could be by striving for best practice in safety, the environment, socially or communication, and if the companies involved in this project need to do better I have no issue with that. I encourage that and support them in aspiring to achieve best practice.
This government does not have a good track record in following due process. Look at what it did to the proposed Arafura Harbour development. There was no assessment process before it was canned by this government. We also have the proposed new gaol located towards the back of my family’s property, my property and various others, where the government allowed clearing of survey lines and parts of the area before a decision was made by the Development Consent Authority, or the minister’s office, regarding rezoning of the land. Then, of course, we have this situation leading up to the Araluen by-election, where the government again intervened and did not allow due process to be followed.
Regarding minister Hampton’s comments, I strongly encourage the minister receive a full briefing from the mines minister because he states he does not support a mine. Minister, there is no suggestion of a mine. The companies involved in this exploration, as the mines minister is clearly aware, are in their third year of a six-year exploration licence, with the opportunity to have a renewal for two more years, and a renewal for two more years after that - 10 years in total under an exploration licence. Generally, across the Northern Territory with exploration licences, companies take the full 10 years before they move to the next phase or drop the area altogether. I strongly suggest, minister, you receive a briefing. It is not a mine, and if it is a mine there are many approval processes, both at Northern Territory and Commonwealth level, that have to be undertaken before any mining is considered. The project will only then proceed if it is commercially viable, and the company can get through the approval processes, which include social engagement with the communities, which the companies have undertaken.
For members in the gallery and people listening, I want to go back a little in history regarding this project. It is important to highlight the Northern Territory government, including the current mines minister and the previous mines minister, the Chief Minister, have always supported this project and these companies. It was around 2008, from memory, the government lifted a series of reservation from occupation across the Northern Territory. Basically, it was tidying up areas that had been under reservation from occupation, of which the Angela Pamela was one.
The deposit was identified some time before that by a company called Uranertz, and, for members’ benefit, the founding geologist was John Borschoff, Managing Director of Paladin. If anyone knows about the geological potential of this project and the geology of Central Australia, he does. The process following the government’s decision to lift the reservation from occupation, including this - it knew would be attractive to many companies, not only in Australia, also overseas, given the change in uranium prices around the world, and also the fact Labor had finally dumped its nonsensical policy about three mines, two mines, no mines, and allowed the industry to progress on an even playing field.
I compliment the government for its effort to put the land up for tender. It was emphatic it must be a clear, transparent and fair process. The area was advertised and time was given for companies to get their applications in. Some 37 companies applied for the right to explore on this ground. Some in their own right, some with joint ventures; there was Chinese interest in joint ventures in the area. They were assessed very carefully and thoroughly within the Mines department, and short-listed. More information was sought from the companies regarding their commitment to develop the project - not only their ability to take it from the exploration phase through to a mining phase, also their ability to work with stakeholders in and around the Central Australian community.
Following that long process, which was arduous and carefully undertaken - I compliment the minister and the department because what they did was exemplary – the joint venture of Cameco Australia and Paladin had the exploration licence granted to them. However, before they received their exploration licence, and before they could start work on the ground, they were required, under the Mining Act and the Mining Management Act, to put up security bonds, put up environmental bonds, and also put forward their mine management plan which, in itself, is a very rigorous document where the department works with companies to ensure best practice is implemented across the operation regarding an exploration project.
I am aware one of the reasons Cameco Paladin was selected, from my discussions with the industry and, of course, within government in my previous role, was the government believed the company, particularly Cameco, had stayed in the Northern Territory when no other company wanted to. They had been here for 12 years looking for uranium, mostly in Arnhem Land, had committed to the Northern Territory, and knew they could undertake this kind of project. That was one of the reasons, apart from the other reasons mentioned, they were signed off as a company that could get an exploration licence.
I find it incredibly disappointing for the government to say it cannot now support the project. I am sure the mines minister is also disappointed because he has been a strong supporter of the industry, and a strong supporter of these companies and this project. Lack of support from his colleagues, I guess, disappoints him, and it disappoints me with my track record and family background in the mining industry.
We have seen the problems with the McArthur River project and how members of the government did not support it when undertaking its expansion program. We have also seen the Browns project near Batchelor – the government has clearly not wanted that project to go ahead, despite the mines minister and Northern Territory government courting the Chinese to become part of it. That project has stalled and I am unsure of its future.
We have seen in the last six months Arafura Resources take their proposed processing operations to South Australia. It was very disappointing that the Northern Territory government did not do more to find a location for that company in the Territory. The project capital cost is in the vicinity of $750m. The project is going ahead in South Australia; it has major project status from the South Australia government. That project would have employed between 250 and 300 direct employees, and possibly another 200 to 300 indirect employees. My discussions with the company, both recently and previously, were it was and is a major project - up there in its economic contribution, similar to INPEX in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing this government did not do more to keep that company in the Northern Territory. Yes, we will have the mining project but it is the processing, the downstream operations, that we have lost to South Australia. That sent a message to the industry that this government does not work hard enough to secure industrial areas where we can have these development take place.
The other point I raise is how the government has handled this, and how it does not really understand the industry. It does not understand what the decisions have done to our reputation. It created sovereign risk.
Other members may reference this and I will as well. We have taken a battering in the Fraser Institute report. The Fraser Institute is a Canadian economic think-tank and the government relies on their annual report of each year to promote the Northern Territory minerals industry. First, as a country, due to the proposed mining tax. I have no doubt when the next report comes out the Northern Territory jurisdiction will take a battering because of the government’s decision not to support a would-be project, the Angela Pamela deposit. I stress ‘would be’, because it is exploration at this stage. A commitment to an operating project would be some years away.
Also, we have had a previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, not really supportive of the mining industry, particularly the uranium industry. Prior to the 2008 election, she stated there would be no new uranium mines in the Northern Territory if a Labor government was elected. Clearly, she did not know what she was talking about because, as has been articulated by the member for Greatorex, this government does not control the final approval process of the uranium industry or new uranium mines …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Goyder, do you have much more to contribute?
Ms PURICK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you mind if we continued after Question Time?
Ms PURICK: Not at all.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Withdrawal of Disallowance Motion
– Darwin Waterfront By-Laws
Withdrawal of Disallowance Motion
– Darwin Waterfront By-Laws
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion listed on Notice Paper No 88 under Assembly Business relating to the Darwin Waterfront by-laws be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Refer Matter to Committee of Privileges
Refer Matter to Committee of Privileges
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move –
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
the member for Casuarina, Mr Vatskalis, in relation to misleading statements made by him in this House in the February sittings of 2011 in which the minister asserted during Question Time that the Ombudsman ‘supported’ the government’s proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act and;
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The media release the member has issued foreshadows a decision of parliament where he claims the minister has already been referred to Privileges. He would know that is a serious breach of privilege, and I would like to discuss this matter further with you at another time.
Madam SPEAKER: At the end of Question Time, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I presume he is referring to the operation of Standing Order 83. I table a letter from you to me saying you would not allow this matter to proceed through that process of referral, so I am bringing it forward as a motion. This is normal practice …
Dr Burns: You lied in your media release. You lied.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, I ask you to withdraw that, thank you.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
MOTION
Withdrawal of Business from Notice Paper
Withdrawal of Business from Notice Paper
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that Notice No 5 in my name under General Business on today’s Notice Paper in relation to the government’s position on uranium mining be withdrawn as the government is already debating this.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government
Proposed Censure of Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Assembly censure the Chief Minister for his failure to provide leadership and to act with integrity and honesty on a raft of issues including the law and order problems of Alice Springs, misleading the House about his minister abusing office by pressuring Imparja to remove anti-government ads, using his office to attack the Darwin Lord Mayor, and allowing the Minister for Health to mislead the House.
Madam Speaker, this government has not responded to the concerns of the people of the Northern Territory. We have seen deceit become the hallmark. I entered parliament at the same time as Mr Henderson, the now Chief Minister, and I expect more from the office we all seek. I spent time yesterday listening to the people, but there is much more to it than that. Those people have some very real concerns, and they are complex in nature, exceptionally real and deeply disturbing. To have a government and a Chief Minister more preoccupied with deceit and deception to manage and maintain a position and a hold on power is appalling. I cannot allow it to go on.
Some of the things I have seen - as honourable members on either side of this Chamber, members of this community, and people of the Northern Territory have seen and are trying to comprehend - is a government that spins, lies, and deceives. It is happy to turn these things into a glossy promotion to draw attention to itself with its desperate and shallow attempt to hold on to power - which is appalling. I cannot allow them to continue.
Issues need to be responded to properly. The eyes of the nation are focused upon this parliament, upon this community. The Territory government, with its activities over the last 10 years, sees matters like this as needing a response by a public relations campaign. That cannot be allowed to continue. We need honesty and truth when it comes to recognising the challenges we face. That is why Tony Abbott, when responding to this - I find it astonishing the Chief Minister would see a response by a man who has spent time in the Centre, who cares about these matters, calling for a tough love response, a genuine response to a human need, would see this as being a political exercise. It is the response any civilised person would make to another citizen.
There are grave problems in our community …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry to do this. I have been given a copy of a censure motion which has been distributed to members. It seems to be a little different to what you are talking about. I am not trying to embarrass you; could you read the full censure motion so it is on the record.
Mr MILLS: That is fine, Madam Speaker; however, with the Leader of Government Business coming in I was not permitted to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: I am very sorry, but if you would not mind reading it. It is my fault; however, I know everyone has not heard it.
Mr MILLS: I move –
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from censuring the Chief Minister for his failure to provide leadership and to act with integrity and honesty on a raft of issues including the law and order problems in Alice Springs, misleading the House about his minister abusing office by pressuring Imparja to remove anti-government ads, using his office to attack the Darwin Lord Mayor, and allowing the Minister for Health to mislead the House.
These are indicative of the problem we have. It was not so long ago that honourable members would recall this government was placed under immense pressure. It had members who were elected to this parliament and elected to serve the interests of the Labor government abandon ship. They abandoned ship; they lost faith in the party; they lost faith in its purpose and direction. One of those, the member for Arnhem, left and sat on the cross benches. When found that position would expose her beloved Labor Party to great pressure and perhaps lose government, the greater love for the party would be to jump back in bed with the Labor government …
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A correction on the name.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it should be the member for Arafura, not the member for Arnhem. Thank you.
Mr MILLS: Member for Arafura.
Madam Speaker, there are many members who have joined this vocation, this call; to be involved in this House to provide leadership and respond to the concerns of our community. This government ran an election campaign in 2008 and found - shock, horror! - the community expected better. To the surprise of the spin doctors and all the money spent, it came very close to losing government. Not so long after that, members of the Labor organisation started to lose faith in the organisation and the member for Arafura found herself sitting on the cross benches.
However, the most significant event of that time, and the reason that keeps me in this game, are the words from the member for Macdonnell. At the time there was a crisis which resulted in a Chief Minister being Chief Minister in title only – who had no authority - and a Deputy Chief Minister who had the ambition but no capacity or authority to challenge because it would bring the whole enterprise down. Two were running the ship and the others were in orbit covered and smothered by a coterie of spin doctors looking after the image of government, running out rubbish messages which did not address the real issues of concern to Territorians.
They have spent time - or have they not? - listening to people, looking into the faces of people who have real concerns. I will go into that in more detail later. I quote some words that need to be brought back to mind, spoken in a no confidence motion by the member for Macdonnell. It was a revelation; the member discovered Labor had a profound problem with the truth. I quote:
I came to realise the truth was what the government most feared. It feared telling the truth about its finances, about its priorities, about its connections and even about its policies.
- I was startled by what I found at the top of the tree. I had reached the pinnacle of the Territory’s political system and I realised there was nothing good or precious there. I came to see I was in a wildness of spin.
I am the member for Blain. In my electorate, the Melville girl suffered appallingly and died on a lawn. We had a list of ministers vested with the responsibility to care for children who had a greater interest in protecting the political interest and not responding to the needs of those children or one poor girl who died on a lawn in Moulden. It took pressure from the opposition to get the government to respond, and to investigate how it could do better. That is the spin; that is the complete disconnect from reality. A little kid dying on a lawn in a community, in a street, in a suburb, and not being responded to in any coherent or caring manner - that is the concern.
I came to Alice Springs not to put out a media release like the Chief Minister saying he was meeting people to create an impression. I came to Alice Springs to listen to what people were saying. I saw things I have not heard reflected in any of the responses of government and, sadly, the exercise we have in this Chamber does not allow these things to be weighed up properly.
The Chief Minister claims to know nothing about pressure being applied to an organisation responsible for airing advertisements. I can believe the Chief Minister may not have known about that; however, I also believe we have a government with a greater interest in protecting itself than doing the right thing.
While in Alice Springs I ensured I had the opportunity to hear people. One thing that sticks in my mind is while being shown around I found the loved ones of people I was speaking to were dying in extraordinary numbers. My feelings when I lost a loved one - I look into the face of someone I do not know very well and think the feelings would be the same. I went to the hospital with a friend to visit a man I knew at Ngarnka. I remember meeting him and seeing his body covered in scars. I saw friends’ bodies were covered in scars. I inquired as to the reason for the scarring, thinking perhaps it was a cultural or traditional practice. They found it difficult to explain those scars were a result of pain. I found it difficult to understand initially; however, I understood when I listened to them. It was pain that would be relieved by cutting their bodies. When I looked at these handsome young men they were covered in scars. I visited his brother in hospital, who I had worked with briefly in Central Australia. Sadly, his brother – I will not mention his name – the pain he was relieving by cutting himself had become so much he is with us no longer. As a young man he leaves behind children and a wife.
I visited that community with Tony Abbott. That was the time Kevin Rudd announced massive reforms to the health system. It sounded great. However, the day of the announcement I was standing in a clinic in a little community where one young lady found the courage to talk to me and said: ‘I want to talk to you. I want to show you something’. She did not know about the big announcement made in the lead-up to the federal campaign. She did not know the significance of what she was going to show me. I saw old ladies sitting in the scrub under a tree in broken plastic chairs on dialysis, who try to rustle up enough money to put petrol in their car to get into town. When they get into town, they are stuck. This young lady, who had a fierce, wild look in her eye, said: ‘I have to show you something’. We went to the clinic. What she showed me was in the face of this grand announcement that would make a difference. She said: ‘Our clinic is full of dog shit. We cannot keep the dogs out of it. There is a dead animal and we do not have responsibility for the key. We cannot care for our own community. We are not even entrusted with the key and we have raised this concern a number of times, yet we cannot run a clinic, we cannot even be entrusted with the key, nor can we keep the dogs out’.
I saw that was the challenge. Yes, it is easy to put an advertisement on television. It is easy to put things into place before we come to the sittings. It is easy to respond to why a minder on the fifth floor advised police to embarrass the Lord Mayor of Darwin - which has been a line of questioning in a previous sittings. Yes, you can get caught up in that. However, too many of us in this Chamber have seen such things and are trying to comprehend them. How can we respond to this? How can we let it continue with the spin and bull that allows us to occupy this space all this time, and make no difference to a very simple but very challenging and very complex issue in a place called Ngarnka?
Going to the next step, when I arrived here I was introduced to people. I saw them as fellow citizens. Sometimes in this game you can become a little disconnected. I recognise these people are fellow citizens – mothers, fathers, uncles, brothers, sisters. I acknowledge Pastor Basil, who showed me some things. He said: ‘I want to show you a couple of things’. There is the challenge of policy to respond to what we see.
What I am fed up with, and why this Chief Minister deserves censure is because, in 2008, he stood there with ashen face, lips trembling, shocked that the massive campaign of spin with the sole purpose of holding on to power - to heck with the campaign you ran, failing to address the things that concerned ordinary folk. It shocked you that you could possibly have a vote of no confidence from the Territory community when you thought you had an opposition you could treat with contempt, a community you could treat with contempt, and you found yourself in a very vulnerable position. All you could say was, ‘Yes, people have spoken and we will listen’. We see no evidence of that.
When I take tours under the radar, not issuing media releases, one thing that sticks in my mind is electrical cables hanging out of a tree in Alice Springs. Spin will not remove the memory of those electrical cables hanging out a tree not far from this parliament which are indicative of three separate suicide attempts by a young girl. I have a daughter and I want to see policy respond to that in some meaningful way.
Blame games, failure to show, failure to present, failure to address the issue; I want to have a discussion about that. An honourable member said: ‘Let’s have a bipartisan approach’. Well, not on the basis of what we have been offered so far - spin and deceit. We have to be fair dinkum; we have to respond to that which is real. That is the challenge faced by this parliament and members at this time. Make no mistake: everyone has a challenge at some time and I believe we have to respond to this challenge. Yes, we can play the game of politics. We can have the giggling out the back about all the little things we might be able to run in parliament to embarrass someone. Well and good. However, if we fail to respond to the challenges we have seen, we have failed our duty and missed an opportunity.
I bring this censure because these are matters we need to consider. How are we going to operate and respond? Are we going to leave and go somewhere else thinking we scored more points than the other side, and have left an action from a community which stood out the front? You try to categorise them into one spot and say they are trashing the town. You happily run that. You probably have a few characters who think: ‘Oh well, that is it, they are trying to trash the town without asking the honest question, why are they concerned? What are they concerned about? What is the problem and what response should I give to that?’ It will not be easy; however, I cannot allow this to continue any longer with a Chief Minister who increasingly is more comfortable with deceit and spin rather than a genuine response to a very real problem.
Madam Speaker, a challenge: recall the Little Children are Sacred report, and recall the sickness we see in this Labor administration, its preoccupation with self-protection, sitting on that report, masking that response, to manage the politics of it. At about the same time, we had the equine influenza - I find this instructive. We had a government forming its political position on a response to the intervention because of its failure to act. What did it need to respond to? Children’s protection – delayed; hesitated. It shifted ministers whose primary charge was to protect children. Pressure increased, and then came the need for an inquiry - sat on that. The government was embarrassed. It spent its time working its way out of it and developing the lines to get from it. Then it found its cause: ‘Let us argue this along ideological lines; let us not worry about the children, let us attack the intervention along ideological lines’, which then became the exercise. The government probably believes that; however, if you put children who need care in front of us and continue to run those arguments that would be difficult. It is easier to dismiss the children and run a political argument. When I mentioned the equine flu issue we found lightning cooperation; everyone patting each other on the back about sorting out legislation for cross-border agreements; how the federal government could liaise more effectively and efficiently with the Territory government. It was a sight to behold: we could respond so quickly to the care of horses, but could not for children. And it continued.
The reason I bring this is quite clear: matters have given rise to concerns in this community that, in the first instance, have not been respected for what they are. The government has put together nine points which are to be responded to in a sensible way. If we fail to do so, we will increase cynicism and compound the problem which has already beset this community and communities like it across the Northern Territory. There has been a response motivated by genuine concern. There may be faults with it; we need to sit down and sort that out. I am prepared, in the interests of ensuring we can, in the first instance, protect children and families, to find that place to work. I cannot allow, in the run-up to the next Territory election, an expectation we are going to cooperate on the basis we have continued spin, deception, lies, deceit, dishonesty, gloating and arrogance in the face of a very clear problem which requires a very real response.
The Chief Minister should hang his head in shame when it comes to the need for a proper response to a very serious matter. This Chief Minister should be censured for his failure to respond appropriately to the genuine concern of citizens of the Northern Territory, Centralia in particular, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the government will treat this censure with the contempt it deserves. This is the desperate political death throes of the Leader of the Opposition. This is his desperate attempt to make a speech to his own, to say: ‘I want to keep the numbers in the party wing, stick with me. I will be your Leader of the Opposition. I will serve it up to the Chief Minister, stick with me’. He has been a leader missing in action since it was exposed he tried to bribe Leo Abbott, the candidate for Lingiari in the federal election campaign, with a job to not stand. He was overturned; he was rolled by his own party machine. It started when Terry Mills was exposed for that deceit; exposed for the entrapment of Leo Abbott, one of their candidates in the federal election campaign. And when it was exposed by the leaks from the CLP what did Terry Mills do as leader of the party? Did he step up to the plate? No. He went into hiding. He hid from the public for eight days …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Deputy Chief Minister how this is fixing children’s problems in the town camps of Alice Springs?
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: There is not one mention in the censure motion of children in the town camps of Alice Springs. To your disgrace, if you expect us to take this political rubbish and stunt and survival attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, mention the issues he rambled on about and I will address them. I am calling this for what it is: the last death roll of a desperate, divided opposition which does not have a leader because he went missing in action last year and has stayed missing in action.
A picture tells a thousand words. Count the numbers sitting in the opposition in the Chamber this afternoon. A picture tells a thousand words …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is fully aware she is not allowed to refer to absence or otherwise of members in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: Did not name any members.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what was said. Minister, if you can be reminded of that please.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I move on.
The Leader of the Opposition went missing in action for eight days - hid from the media. At no time in the political history or in the democracy of our great nation has a Leader of the Opposition hid from the media for eight days. It is unprecedented; it is unheard of. The member for Blain was the one hiding for eight days to his eternal shame - how embarrassing - in a restaurant and would not come out. He had his staff check to see if the media was still outside. To this day he still has not answered the simple question: did you or did you not try to bribe Leo Abbott? You have dodged, ducked and weaved because you know the truthful answer because the transcript of that conversation was leaked to the media.
The CLP is leaking like a sieve. Why? Because of widespread party disenchantment with the member for Blain. The Litchfield Branch, the Alice Springs Branch, the Katherine Branch and the CLP Central Council all went after his scalp. They said to their respective CLP party wing members: ‘Throw your support behind Dave Tollner, the member for Fong Lim. We want this guy out; he is damaging the CLP in the Territory. He does not stand for core CLP values, our sponsors and donors are leaving us in droves’ …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! How is this dealing with crime in Alice Springs?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Ms LAWRIE: Do not worry, I will get to it. Sometimes, member for Port Darwin, the truth hurts and the truth is being spoken here. The truth does hurt.
They say at CLP Central Council, backed up in e-mails the Chief Minister tabled in parliament today, that their donors are deserting them in droves; the business community does not support the current leadership of the member for Blain.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: Feel free to put them on a warning.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The union thug will scratch that surface; the union thug.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, could you pause for a moment.
Honourable members opposite, there are far too many interjections. I remind of you Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Thank you. Deputy Chief Minister you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was about to refer to the e-mails tabled in parliament today by the Chief Minister at the request of one of the men trying to get the numbers; however, my information from CLP leaks is you will never get the numbers …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin starting talking straightaway because he knew who I would refer to. The e-mail from the CLP President Sue Fraser-Adams essentially said …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … it was tabled in parliament today. I am reading from it.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Could you draw the honourable member to the censure itself and …
Ms Lawrie: It is very broad.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear a point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the subject of the censure was the protection of children and the need for honesty in government. We see a member more preoccupied with the politics of this matter, which reinforces the need for the censure.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. The censure is quite wide-ranging.
Ms LAWRIE: Nowhere in the censure motion are the words ‘the protection of children’. If you had, it would have been good. Nowhere in the censure are the words – this goes to show probably why they do not support you; you cannot get your own censure motion right - nowhere does it go to the protection of children …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I was about to refer to the ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale! I will be putting members on warnings shortly.
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to refer to the e-mail tabled today by the Chief Minister, at the request of the member for Port Darwin, from CLP President, Sue Fraser-Adams, which says:
- If anyone of you thinks they should be the leader instead of Terry, then over the six months go out & raise $1.5 million and have it in the NT Election account by 30 June 2011.
The clock is still ticking on that one, and I dare say a few people are busy gathering their dollars because they know they are going nowhere under the inept leadership – a leader who goes into hiding from the media for eight days, hides in a restaurant for eight hours, and who has been, essentially, missing in action since then to today.
Look at the number of times he has sent the members for Goyder, Port Darwin or Brennan out to do media that anyone who wants to be the Chief Minister ought to be doing - the Leader of the Opposition ought to be doing. No, he is hiding. He does not have, as we know, the support of his full parliamentary wing. We know there has been a challenge. We know there was another muted attempt at a challenge. We know the numbers are still being worked on. We are hearing it will only take one or two to move. That was, I tip, a farewell speech from the member for Blain. That is my tip: a bit of a farewell speech from the member for Blain.
The Leader of the Opposition is censuring because he thinks the Chief Minister is not attending to the raft of law and order problems in Alice Springs. Well, I will go he; that is ridiculous. As Police minister, he has overseen the increase in police operational staff in Alice Springs. He has ensured the government has stepped up to the plate in additional resources for police for Alice Springs: the appointment of the Senior Sergeant position to coordinate the patrols; the establishment of a juvenile detention centre in Alice Springs; and his oversighting Cabinet processes drove through the establishment of safe houses for juveniles to get them off the street at night. He leveraged Commonwealth funding into Alice Springs to provide for lighting in the hot spots - we have the temporary lighting up already, and is working with the Mayor, Damien Ryan, to deliver lighting through the council as a result of the funding he leveraged with the Commonwealth.
He has been a strong advocate and supporter of the establishment of the ANZAC Hill Youth Hub. He has been a strong advocate and supporter of ensuring that, fundamentally, if you want to turn the lives of families around you have to get the kids to school. He has driven, as a former Education minister and as Chief Minister, the reforms in education to get the truancy policy in place; to get the punishment and penalties in place to get kids to school.
He has also ensured that, as a government, we are delivering housing in Alice Springs. We are transforming the town camps of Alice Springs to ensure there is new housing - 85 new houses - as well as 200 refurbished houses to improve the living conditions and lives of people in Alice Springs because, if you do not, your social programs are not going to work. You have to have improved housing - talk to experts around the nation about that. By the end of this year, under his Chief Ministership, we will have delivered 520 additional new beds into Alice Springs. He attended the opening of the short-term accommodation site. As Chief Minister, he has presided over the most comprehensive, bold, and progressive policy of improving the conditions of remote communities and growth towns of the Northern Territory. As Chief Minister, he has driven this through.
I will go to the member for Blain talking about the dire and tragic circumstances he has witnessed. I do not believe there is a parliamentarian in the Territory who would not have seen dire and tragic circumstances of individuals in the Territory. He talked about a suicide. This Labor government has dramatically improved investment into mental health. We have put a suicide prevention position in place, and are funding initiatives to combat suicide in remote communities. Under the CLP that funding did not exist, those positions did not exist – to your eternal shame.
You talked about schools and health clinic infrastructure in remote communities. Under the CLP, there were no secondary schools in remote communities in the Territory - not one. They were not there. As a Labor government, we have funded the introduction and development of schools, have put teachers in, provided teacher housing and, for the first time in the history of the Territory, under Labor, we are seeing Indigenous kids in remote communities achieving Year 12 qualifications. He has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Clontarf program which is delivering real results for Indigenous young men - I will call them young men - across our schools, across the Northern Territory. He has also supported the introduction of the girls program, which our government is funding. To say he is failing in the law and order problems is a political nonsense.
Saying a minister has been abusing his office in relation to Imparja was proven in Question Time today to be a fabrication and fantasy of Adam Giles, the member for Braitling. The Chief Minister made the position very clear: he has publicly spoken out against the advertisements which were run on Imparja which have been trashing Alice Springs. Quite appropriately, the Minister for Central Australia answered in Question Time yesterday, and again today, that he did not pressure, did not bully. He spoke to his family members on the board, his friends on the board, and let them know what he thought about the trashing of Alice Springs, and what he thought about denigrating Indigenous Territorians of Alice Springs – quite appropriately so. That was wrong in your censure motion.
Attacking the Darwin Lord Mayor - our Chief Minister has a constructive working relationship with the Darwin Lord Mayor, and it was not him or his office that attacked the Darwin Lord Mayor. The front page of the NT News article that exposed the police raid on the Lord Mayor’s home was a leak from police, not from the Chief Minister, not from his office, not from the fifth floor. Hence, the Lord Mayor, quite appropriately, lodged a complaint and the police investigated.
It is ridiculous to say the Minister for Health has misled the House. You have made that up; it is a furphy. There is nothing to back it up, it is just four words on a piece of paper; a complete furphy.
The member for Blain, in his speech in the Chamber, misled the House. He said the government was opposed to the intervention. He talked about how the death of Deborah Melville had been ignored by the government, and only after pressure from the opposition did it undertake an inquiry into child protection. You have that one wrong also, and I will take you to the facts of that matter.
After the tragic death of Deborah Melville, which has been the subject of a coronial - read the coronial outcomes if you want to understand what occurred; I was the Minister for Child Protection at the time. I was asking significant questions around the handling of that matter by the agency, and within a small space of time after Deborah’s tragic death, we had a tragic death in Central Australia, perpetrated by one of our mental health clients. I immediately sought and obtained approval from my Cabinet colleagues to undertake a high risk audit of all high risk clients from Child Protection, Mental Health, and Alcohol and other Drugs under Family and Children’s Services by Howard Bath. That is when Howard Bath first started work in the Territory as an independent expert in the field.
Go back to the media of the time; there was no call by the opposition for an inquiry. That pre-dated the good work done by Jodeen Carney in following up on an inquiry. The Chief Minister followed up the Howard Bath high risk audit report with the inquiry into the Little Children are Sacred report undertaken by two independent experts. Yes, the government of the day - not the current Chief Minister - took a long time to consider the recommendations and fund those recommendations. I point out, in stark contrast, the Growing them strong, together child protection inquiry was responded to immediately by this Chief Minister and funded to the tune of $130m. To pretend, in your lame child protection responses in your censure debate where you got the facts wrong, that this Chief Minister sat on an inquiry is completely wrong.
Growing them strong, together, undertaken by Bath and a panel of experts, was responded to immediately by this Chief Minister. He stepped up to the plate and funded child protection to the tune of an additional $130m. He also pointed out consistently that government has a responsibility for the care and protection of children but we cannot do it on our own; it is the responsibility of every single person in the Territory to care for our children. Everyone has to care for our children. We have to change our society and our community to an unacceptable level of tolerance towards neglected children in the Territory. We are funding a system; however, as the Bath inquiry showed, a government-provided system, in and of itself and on its own, will not work. The Little Children are Sacred report said the same.
The Little Children are Sacred report, as those of us around at the time fully understand, led to the intervention by Howard and Brough. That was done without any consultation with the Northern Territory government. However, on the day it was announced by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and his minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, the Chief Minister of the day walked into Question Time and said: ‘We accept the intervention. We commit to working with the federal government’. We have held true to that ever since.
We continue to say - and the Chief Minister said it today in this Chamber to the cloth ears of the member for Blain - the intervention did much good and is continuing to do so. It has made the Commonwealth step up to its funding responsibilities. This government consistently said its top-down approach was wrong. If you want real and effective change, you work from the bottom up with communities and the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The Little Children are Sacred report said that in its recommendations; the Growing them strong, together said that in its recommendations. We, as a government in the Northern Territory, have held true to that view. That is the way we work.
You are wrong to say we were opposed to the intervention. We have consistently been on the public record saying it was top down - the approach was wrong. We are absolutely opposed to the view a Commonwealth person intervenes and oversights in Alice Springs. What arrant nonsense. The letter from Tony Abbott to the Prime Minister has about seven points on things he wants addressed. We are doing six. We do not have an overarching Commonwealth official controlling Alice Springs. We have, through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, a high-level collaborative working relationship with the Commonwealth. We also have positive working relationships with all key Commonwealth ministers and, at our officer-to-officer level, productive and constructive relationships.
The Chief Minister and the Prime Minister call each other and talk through the issues. As Treasurer, I am on the phone to Wayne Swan; we call each other and talk through the issues. Ministers and ministers - go through the entire team. Whether it is the minister for Health, Children, and Resources, whether it is the Minister for Central Australia with his important portfolio of Environment, we are all on the phone. We know our counterparts and are advocating and lobbying - that is the way government is getting results. The Chief Minister is a team player. He lets his ministers strengthen and form strong relationships with Commonwealth ministers. That is how we are getting results. The Minister for Indigenous Development had a series of meetings with minister Macklin, and the counterpart minister Arbib, regarding Indigenous employment opportunities in the Territory.
The results speak for themselves. As Treasurer, I can say we have grown Commonwealth investment in the Territory significantly. Our budget shows we have doubled investment in the Territory by the Commonwealth over the last few years. We have grown the special purpose payments and we have grown the national partnership agreement payments. Thank God we have because, at the same time, the GST pool was reducing. We have, as much as possible, carved off the effects of a declining GST pool as a result of the global financial crisis under the strong leadership of our Chief Minister.
If you genuinely want to ask if our Chief Minister is addressing the real issues and concerns of Territorians, does he have his eye on the ball in policy and resources and important outcomes – yes. Look at the challenge laid down in the censure motion contribution from the member for Blain in the greatest area of need, the bush and our remote communities - the dire need to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We had the greatest expenditure in the Territory’s history in the 2010-11 May budget. We had $1bn going into construction and building in the bush across schools, health clinics, housing, and we are resourcing them with the doctors, nurses and teachers necessary to improve the literary and numeracy outcomes and the health outcomes.
We have reduced the morbidity rate amongst Indigenous Territorians. I could not believe my ears when I heard the member for Blain talk about dialysis. I will tell you your shameful history - you would not even put it into Tennant Creek. Blood on the hands of the CLP when you would not put dialysis into Tennant Creek! Unbelievable! Some of us have been around for a while, guys. Some of us remember the shame of the CLP government which believed it was an Indigenous problem, let them go. Let them die because you would not fund renal dialysis …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: In stark contrast, this government has been rolling out renal facilities across the length and breadth of the Territory, across all of our regional towns, into Alice Springs. We have mobile remote renal dialysis going out and we are saving the lives of Territorians who have to rely on dialysis, in stark contrast to the shameful CLP. Some of us will never forget the way you treated Indigenous Territorians. Let the member for Blain raise dialysis whenever he feels like it.
Health is at the core of what we have improved. Morbidity is turning around. Education is at the core of the reforms the government has been driving. Law and order: we have been increasing our police force year-on-year, giving it legislative tools and powers. We know driving crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory is alcohol-fuelled violence. We have stepped up year-on-year with alcohol management plans, putting in supply measures area on area, and have based our latest reforms of the evidence we have seen working in places like Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy, and the ID system that has been an incredibly useful tool in Alice Springs, with 9009 sales refused in the last year alone - a useful tool in Katherine also. To pretend the Chief Minister is not focused on reducing crime - he is the Police minister – yes, he is.
I have covered all matters raised. I went into the child protection aspects in quite some detail. Bring on that debate any time because I am seriously - $8m was what the CLP funded in child protection - $8m …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am rounding it up. It was $7.8m - I am rounding it up to $8m. The current child protection budget is tracking at about $135m.
When I was Minister for Child Protection it was tracking at around about $35m, and there has been dramatic investment since then. This government has taken it from $7.8m to over $100m, with $130m investment over five years. You cannot protect children if you do not get the pathways right. The Growing them strong, together is about an innovative dual intake system, understanding you have to work with the non-government sector, you need Indigenous organisations at the heart of improving, and that without the communities, without the parents, you are nowhere.
Without taking them away from the harm of grog, changing the domestic violence occurring in the households and the neglect because people want to spend their money on grog - it took a Labor government to continue to pursue the roll-out of quarantining of welfare across the Northern Territory. Minister Macklin stepped up to the plate, she is tough, she is continuing to roll it out, and we have been there supporting every step of the way.
We have mechanisms for quarantining welfare embedded within our alcohol legislation reform that, curiously, it seems the CLP does not want to support. Unbelievable! Grog reform is not going to be the only answer, and we have always tried to, under the tutelage of this Chief Minister, tackle the myriad of responses required through health, education, law and order, housing, Closing the Gap, through targeted and specific-funded programs, whether it is the capital or building the bush we have had to do. Growth towns is the most innovative public Indigenous policy in our nation.
People are starting to take notice of the leadership shown by the Territory in understanding the service delivery model needed to grow the bush, to improve conditions, training, jobs and regional economic development. All that has been driven through the growth towns policy, and we know we have a complex series of policy changes and fine-tuning to grapple with the homelands, or the outstations, and the communities around those growth towns. I am confident in our ability to get through because the Minister for Indigenous Development is working through those policy settings with the Indigenous Advisory Council. It is inclusive. It is not top down; it is inclusive. It is understanding that across the regions of the Territory there is a difference in the vibrancy of some remote communities, some homelands, and some outstations. We understand that.
This censure motion, I am tipping, is a farewell speech from the member for Blain as Leader of the Opposition. It is a farce. I look forward to returning to the motion being debated showing the leader has no leadership and no support because he is backflipping on his own views around the mining of Angela Pamela 20 km from Alice Springs.
My tip is the member for Fong Lim will speak next and it will be his leadership speech. We have heard the farewell speech from the member for Blain, and we will hear the leadership bid speech from the member for Fong Lim. My tip is he will be better at giving his speech than the member for Blain because he is a better politician and performer. The opposition has a small chance if he has the numbers. It has no chance at the moment because a man who hides from the media for eight days - still has not answered the question - and spends eight hours hiding in a restaurant is politically dead in the water. That is what he has been since last year and continues to be to this day.
Our Chief Minister has driven the Territory forward and seen real outcomes in improving literacy, numeracy, health outcomes, improved housing …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and understanding tackling grog will turn around the crime that is unacceptable in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning!
Ms LAWRIE: Clearly, the government does not support the farewell speech motion from the member for Blain.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, goodness me, the member for Karama is indeed visionary. You saw me getting ready to speak and you called it. It is about the only thing you called right in the whole speech. Goodness me, I thought for a second you were about to tear up - a sight we do not often see in this House - the member for Karama, ready to burst into tears. It was almost like a silent plea: ‘Please forgive us, we are doing our best. Please forgive us. Can’t you honestly see all the work we are doing around the place?’ Goodness gracious me, what a pathetic effort!
I have seen it several times. When I was first elected and the member for Johnston was under attack about his bungles in the health system, he virtually threw himself on the floor of parliament and said: ‘Come on, look guys, I am doing the best I can. Health minister is a tough portfolio. Please forgive me, cut me some slack. There are many problems in the system but, really, it is not my fault’. We have just heard the same from the member for Karama. She used to be fiery; would come into parliament making allegations and casting aspersions at people - calling people all sorts of names. This time she comes in and is practically begging for forgiveness. What a sorry state it is.
I agree with this well-worded censure motion. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition: the Chief Minister should be censured because, quite obviously, he is asleep at the wheel. He does not know what he is doing; he has lost all grasp of reality. We had several hundred people out the front protesting, begging the government to do more, begging the government to take notice in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister was too gutless to talk to them. He said something along the lines of: ‘I have agreed to meet a delegation from Action for Alice’, as if all those people were from Action for Alice. They were simply Alice Springs residents, business owners, some people from the bush - a number of people the member for Stuart recently bussed out of town because the government does not like them hanging around Alice Springs.
These guys, I understand, were the same people who went to Adelaide, and it was as if they committed some heinous crime by leaving their community. Mike Brown in South Australia was screaming blue murder that a group of Aborigines from the Territory arrived on his doorstep. Imagine a bunch of homeless white people turning up in Adelaide. Do you think they would get the same attention? Highly unlikely! What was so wrong was these people embarrassed the Northern Territory government by getting on those buses and going to Adelaide. They embarrassed the Northern Territory government by staying at a park just outside Alice Springs rather than going home. That is what happens with those people, they embarrass the government. As a result, the government does everything it can to get them back to Yuendumu. Only time will tell the ramifications of that decision, and I pray there is no violence and people are not injured or attacked when they return. That has been the concern of many who are aware of the plight of these people.
The Chief Minister cannot help but defend himself in the most misguided way. The member for Araluen makes a complaint about crime and law and order in Alice Springs, and the Chief Minister abuses her saying she is somehow inciting antisocial behaviour and crime, and damaging tourism and businesses for outlining the fact crime is occurring. If you extrapolate that idea, it means every victim of crime should do nothing in case they damage Alice Springs businesses or the tourism trade. What a ridiculous line to be taking. Rather than showing real leadership, this Chief Minister would prefer to cower inside the walls of this House than talk to the people of Alice Springs and outline what plans he has for them.
It was interesting to listen to the member for Karama, the Treasurer, talking about what the government has done as a sign of leadership. She talked about the Growing them strong, together report saying it was a sign of leadership; that the government had acted quickly. The government acted so quickly the document had barely been tabled when it said it automatically accepted the 147 recommendations and would commit $130m. What sort of leadership is that? It is like outsourcing leadership to someone else - to Professor Bamblett and Dr Bath for direction because you cannot provide any yourself. It is absolutely pathetic! The Health minister is guilty of that. I am sure he ticked off on those 147 recommendations.
Also, there are recommendations to set up a separate childcare system - we will now have two childcare systems in the Northern Territory. We will have one for Indigenous Territorians and one for non-Indigenous Territorians, as if there is a difference in raising a black kid as opposed to a yellow kid, a brown kid, or a white kid.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The fact …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, order!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, 27 years, here we go. We have the Health minister interjecting …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … saying 27 years of this. I did not see any Four Corners reports in the 27 years of CLP government. No, they are all happening under Labor’s watch. Why? Because you are asleep at the wheel and you do not care.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You outsource responsibility; you do not care.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to put you comments through the Chair, thank you very much.
Dr BURNS: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should be directing his comments through the Chair, and take a deep breath, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, minister; it is always good to see you. You always put a balance to things. The Health minister fires me up because of his indifference to kids; he does not seem to care what goes on. He is quite prepared to outsource responsibility for protecting children to consultants and will blindly accept the 147 recommendations. He is blindly accepting the fact that we need two systems of child protection in the Northern Territory, one for Aboriginal Territorians, one for non-Aboriginal Territorians. He seems to think apartheid works. He wants to see a separate Aboriginal healthcare system as opposed to a mainstream one covering everyone.
Minister, if you are sick you should be able to see a doctor regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. If you are poor you should be able to get government support regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. If you need an education you should be able to go to school regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. And, if you are a child needing protection, you should be protected regardless of whether you are black, white or brindle. We do not need separate systems. We will end up with duplication and wasted money - exactly what is happening under this government. Look at the billions and billions of dollars that has been wasted …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is good to see the member for Fong Lim enlighten us with CLP policy; however, can you ask the member for Fong Lim to direct his comments through you as the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you need to direct your comments through the Chair. Perhaps it might be easier for you if you went to the microphone there.
Mr TOLLNER: It is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker. In past rulings you have insisted I look at you while commenting, so I will make every attempt to maintain my focus on your countenance, if that is okay …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that, member for Fong Lim. We would all appreciate that.
Mr TOLLNER: … and not be distracted by the unruly people on my left because that is what happens. It is interesting that the member for Arafura should point that out. She is not exactly innocent in this whole debate. You will recall when the member for Karama was having her little whinge and beg for forgiveness she said: ‘Oh, we supported the intervention, you know. We got the Little Children are Sacred report going’. The government got the Little Children are Sacred report inquiry happening but when it was handed in, it buried it. The Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, tried to hide it; swept it under the carpet for several weeks and, in fact, the federal Indigenous Affairs minister had to obtain a copy of the Little Children are Sacred report off the web. The Chief Minister did not have the decency to forward a copy of the report to the Prime Minister and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister. She tried to hide it away - it was absolutely appalling. This censure motion talks about honesty; where is the honesty in that action - trying to sweep such an issue under the carpet, trying to hide it away?
What happened when the intervention was announced by the Prime Minister? The member for Karama will have us believe there was dancing on the streets by all Labor members; they thought it was a wonderful thing and wholeheartedly supported it, and the member for Arafura did not go to Sydney and give a speech about the black kids Tampa. She will have us believe none of that happened. The member for Karama will have us believe she was a wholehearted supporter of the intervention.
This government has been lying to the public if it is now trying to convince us …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask you to rule on whether that is suitable language. It is a censure but …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk on that point of order. Member for Fong Lim, the advice I have from the Clerk is we request you withdraw, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, I will withdraw that. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has not been lying, it has been very, very free with the truth and has been trying to convince us black is blue and blue is red. Good on it; it is a master of spin. It is a master in the dark art of political spin, and that has been proven time and time again. Eventually that comes out and people understand it is nothing but a pack of …
Member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly. It is not what it says, it is what it does that matters. This government has not been doing much. This is the most moribund, mendicant, shambolic and pathetic government the Northern Territory has ever seen. It is absolutely appalling. We have a Chief Minister asleep at the wheel, and a government laden with dead-beat ministers quite prepared to mislead and trample over the rights of Territorians with the audacity to attempt to convince us white is black. Goodness me, how appalling.
I received a phone call this morning from a constituent who has driven to Katherine. He informed me there are over 200 potholes between Adelaide River and Pine Creek. This is not a road this government has to fund; all it has to do is the work, hit Canberra with the bill and Canberra pays it. However, we have a road with 200 potholes. I imagine they will blame that on Cyclone Larry, Cyclone Monica or Yasi, or the fact the Commonwealth is slow in giving the government money, or Julia Gillard has other priorities at the moment. It will be anyone’s fault but the government’s that there are over 200 potholes between Adelaide River and Pine Creek.
The member for Karama talked about police, policing, and how much the government has done. It has moved the police call centre from Alice Springs to Darwin. We have the minister for place names - he did not know he was minister for place names; the Speaker did not know there was a minister for place names. There is and when asked to pronounce the names of the streets he is minister for he is void of any information whatsoever. He cannot explain the pronunciation of the streets. Instead he wants to spin a story about how the Place Names Committee works - a very exciting story but nothing to do with the question. Rather appalling. I am at a loss sometimes when I see the names of places. I respect Indigenous culture; however, it is like driving through the streets of Russia trying to understand the pronunciation of some of the places and streets.
The Commander of Palmerston Police Station has recently been moved to Darwin city - not Berrimah headquarters, Darwin city. The commander of most of the eastern Arnhem Land area has also been moved to Darwin city. Not only do we have the Alice Springs call centre now based in Darwin, we have a group of commanders responsible for local policing around the Territory based in Darwin as well. It is no wonder people in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek – minister, you might want to note that one - Katherine, right across the Territory are starting to take note this government is full of BS rather than any fact. It is a shambolic, moribund, mendicant and pathetic government and easily the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
I have great confidence in, and support for, this censure motion. The Chief Minister deserves to be censured. He is asleep at the wheel; he does not know what he is up to. Talk about the political dead - he is a walking corpse waiting for someone to place a couple of pennies on his eyeballs so we can bury him. He has lost control; he has no idea which direction to take the Northern Territory. He stands for nothing and is, basically, a husk of a man waiting for a political burial.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 12
- Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Angela Pamela Uranium Mine –
Opposition to Establishment
Angela Pamela Uranium Mine –
Opposition to Establishment
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments regarding the motion we do not support. The Minister for Central Australia said Alice Springs was not a mining town, which I find extraordinary. Not only does he need a mining regulatory briefing from the mines minister, he needs to look into the history of Alice Springs. It is a regional mining centre, it has been a regional mining centre, notably the Arltunga goldfields. He has obviously overlooked and forgotten that and the contribution they made to the township in Central Australia. Of course, there were the mica fields with the Italians; Harts Range currently; Gem Tree, albeit small but mining operations.
We have the large exploration activity around Central Australia predominantly serviced out of the town; the second-largest gold mine in Australia, the Granites; and associated operations. In fact, during a previous company’s life and ownership of that project the company specifically gave incentives to personnel if they relocated to Alice Springs. We even have Lasseters Casino, named after, some would say, the fictitious Lasseters gold reef - perhaps it is still out there. To claim it is not a mining town is clearly not correct. Perhaps he needs to look at the history of the town where he was born and grew up.
The government tries to make some play about division on our side of the House. It too has division when it comes to the uranium issue and perhaps future uranium issues. In the ALP branch in Alice Springs the vote to support it was as close as seven/six. Six people in the ALP ranks are clearly very supportive of this project going ahead to a mining phase if that is what is undertaken by the companies.
I would be interested to know what conversations the Chief Minister has had with the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, minister Ferguson, because I would hazard a guess minister Ferguson would not be happy with this statement by the Chief Minister, nor with this government not being fully supportive of the uranium industry across the Northern Territory.
The final comment I make is about what this government has done with this project. Apart from playing political football with companies, which is appalling, it is pre-empting the official process. This was a political intervention which has seriously undermined investor confidence in the Northern Territory. When the announcement was made by the Northern Territory government I was contacted by many exploration companies, some with joint venture and financial business deals with Canadian companies in the uranium industry, alarmed at what happened in the Northern Territory, a place where there was a great deal of confidence and business potential. There are still many companies which invest in the Northern Territory; however, it has placed a confidence cloud over us, and that is very regrettable.
In conclusion, it is a sad indictment on the Chief Minister, an appalling motion, and it is not supported.
I will not be supporting the motion. I have withdrawn my motion because the debate we are having would cover the same ground.
There is no doubt there are members of the Alice Springs community who oppose a uranium mine near Alice Springs - that is their right. There is also another group, usually The Greens, which opposes all things nuclear. They are clever in gathering as many other groups as possible into their fold to achieve their goals and, of course, they will use the Japanese nuclear power plant failure to push their argument against any other mines. Regardless of the problems in Japan, nuclear power will continue, so will the need for uranium. There will be those whose voice is hardly heard, and those who support a mine.
The debate is not about nuclear power and the safety of nuclear power generation. That is for another day and not relevant to this debate. This debate is not so much about whether there should be a mine near Alice Springs; it is about the process which would enable a rational decision to be made in relation to whether it should happen.
Under Territory law, a company can explore for a mineral. That is exactly what Cameco did in 2008, and the Chief Minister said at the time:
- This is a huge stride towards potentially billions of dollars worth of economic opportunity and jobs for the Territory.
Today’s approval gives Cameco/Paladin the right to apply to explore the Pamela and Angela uranium prospects.
This is truly a significant day for the future of Alice Springs - the exploration phase alone will inject millions of dollars into the economy, creating jobs for Territorians and business opportunities for sport and supply services to the project.
Two years later, after Cameco went ahead exploring, spending millions of dollars doing so, the Chief Minister said …
A member: $12m.
Mr WOOD: $12m. Two years later the Chief Minister said:
- … the decision to oppose the mine, having previously granted an exploration licence to Cameco, was due to strong community opposition on the project.
‘Labor’s Araluen candidate, Adam Finlay, has also been receiving this feedback very strongly while door knocking in the electorate,’ Mr Henderson said in a statement released on Tuesday. ‘We also acknowledge Alice Springs is a tourism centre and a mine in such close proximity to the town has the very real potential to adversely affect the tourism market and the Alice Springs economy.’
‘I reiterate this decision does not mean the Northern Territory government is opposed to the establishment of new uranium mines elsewhere in the Territory’.
The formal process is for the company to explore and then ask for approval from the federal minister for the Environment through an EIS process. If you want to find out what the EIS process is, look up the website under the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. It talks about what matters are protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. One of those is nuclear reactions, including uranium mines. It says the minister must take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development; the results of the assessment of the impacts of the proposed action, including the relevant recommendation report from the secretary of the federal Environment department; referral documentation; community and stakeholder comments; any other relevant information available on the impacts of the proposed action; and relevant comments from other Australian government and state and Territory government ministers, such as information on social and economic factors.
There is a chart which explains the process: the company would lodge an EIS and the minister would provide either standard or tailored guidelines to the proponent for a draft EIS; there would be preparation of a draft EIS; the minister would approve publication; it would go out for public comment; the EIS would be finalised, taking into account public comments; the proponent then would provide the final EIS to the minister and publish the report; the department would prepare a recommendation report and provide it to the minister; the minister would make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or not approve the proposed action. That is the process we have not gone through.
All those people who opposed or supported the possible mine – I say possible because it was a long way before a mine would even get off the ground – there is some doubt whether Cameco would have done it. Through this process they would have their chance to put forth their views, regardless of how outrageous or reasonable, and have them tested by science and logic. If people believed the water table was to be affected, or dust would affect everyone, that would have to go through a rigorous process to see if the argument was true. If they thought it would affect tourism or have an effect on health or the economy, as the Chief Minister argued, that could be argued through an EIS.
Science, facts, and logic would have to be the basis for whether a mine could go ahead, not noisy protests, theories, ideologies and claims. Unfortunately, none of that happened. The company, which had spent millions of dollars exploring and talking to the people of Alice Springs, was told by the same government that even though the Chief Minister had said this is a huge stride towards potentially billions of dollars worth of economic opportunity and jobs for the Territory, that it would not happen.
Then, a by-election popped up and, hoping to win the seat, the government announced two weeks out that it would not support the mine. Just when you thought things were bad, out of the blue came the CLP, normally pro-mining, and knock me down with a feather, on the same day the ALP made its announcement coming up to the by-election, the CLP said it would not support the mine either. That must have knocked Cameco over with a feather because it issued a media release which, when you read between the lines, shows they were quite upset.
When we talk about jobs, that decision has affected jobs in the Northern Territory because the Angela Pamela project update media release by Cameco said:
- The Cameco Paladin joint venture remains committed to its Angela Uranium Project, the joint venture partners announced today.
It continued:
- … the project will continue with a reduced program and budget for the rest of this year and the first part of 2011 with Cameco continuing as the operator of the project.
It continued:
- However, as the main exploration activity has now ceased, the joint venture will close its shop front office in Alice Springs and operate from its industrial shed in Alice Springs. Cameco will now base its Australian operations in Perth.
‘We were already relocating our Darwin office and administration functions to Perth so it makes sense to rationalise all our exploration activities in one place’, Ms Parks said.
Ms Parks said the joint venture partners would continue to work with the Alice Springs community and that the community reference group meetings and sponsorship programs would continue.
If you read between the lines they were very disappointed and the proof of the pudding is they have moved to an industrial shed.
As well as that, there is statement the member for Goyder referred to from the Minerals Council of Australia. The heading was: ‘NT government’s Angela Pamela decision sends a dangerous message to minerals industry’. It was a statement from Mitch Hooke, Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Council of Australia. It said:
- The Northern Territory government’s surprise announcement that it intends to oppose the development of Angela Pamela uranium deposit adds a new layer of sovereign risk for potential mineral projects in the NT.
A global survey of mining regions by the respected Fraser Institute in August found that the NT had slipped from 12th to 25th place in the list of attractive mining destinations as a result of the divisive mining super tax issue.
The NT rating was lower than Ghana, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana and Mexico.
Ruling out a potential mine before the proper, rigorous project approvals processes - including environmental and social impact assessments - have been followed, will do nothing to rebuild investment confidence in the NT.
Unilaterally ruling out the development of a minerals deposit rather than relying on sound science and proper government review will only serve to increase the NT’s sovereign risk.
The NT government actively encouraged the exploration of the Angela Pamela site. It is disappointing that the Chief Minister is now prepared to rule out development of site while it is still being explored.
The decision sends a dangerous signal to all potential investors in the NT minerals industry.
The Alice Springs News said:
- A Country Liberals insider says the party’s decision to follow the Labor government and oppose the Angela Pamela uranium project near Alice Springs was forced by the actions of member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan.
That is obvious from what he said today. I am unsure who made the decision not to oppose the mine. Was the decision made by the member for Greatorex or was it made by the CLP? It is hard to work out who made the decision to oppose the mine.
The member for Fong Lim said, according to the ABC news, I was opposed to the fact the CLP mimicked the government on the decision. I am completely opposed to it because it sends a dreadful message to our business community saying we are prepared to do and say anything in order to get our person up, including wrecking our economy. Mr Tollner said the normal process should go ahead without putting politics ahead of economic development. Public consultation is part of that process. I am opposed to the CLP policy as well and have no problem saying that.
Later, the Country Liberals issued a new statement supporting uranium mining. However, it was still not clear if it would support the Angela Pamela mine, something I hope will be clarified today. There was also a media release from Matt Conlan which included a statement:
- While ultimately it will be the Commonwealth government that makes the final decision on the Angela Pamela prospect, I will continue to oppose a uranium mine going ahead while it does not have community support.
I understand the member for Greatorex saying that; however, he also said he would support it if the process showed it was safe. The difficulty you have is if the community still does not want it. I suppose that is one of the difficulties of being a local member. However, the matter has to be raised.
I am confused as to where both parties stand on this issue. It seems both had a policy which changed when a by-election arose. The science, obviously, was political science. I believe the debate needed to go through a proper process. The process was run through the media by a well-oiled and well-funded anti-uranium lobby well versed in getting its views publicised. That is not to say there were not people with genuine concerns; however, I have been around long enough to know how things work. Good on those people, but it does not mean they are right. The government should have been able to counteract some of those arguments by using the science from the department of Resources. We sometimes let people argue about something and then let it go. Governments are not willing to put logical, scientific and commonsense responses. They seem to be drowned out or government is not willing to do it.
It should be noted the Arid Lands Environment Centre has used this debate, not because the uranium mine is 20 km from Alice, but as stated in the Alice Springs News, in:
- … welcoming Mr Henderson’s decision, said it would inspire other communities, not just in the Territory, but around Australia, that a campaign of concerted opposition can stop a uranium mine in their area.
This is part of a bigger campaign the government has fallen into hook, line and sinker. The Greens have it by the proverbials when it comes to a similar proposal to Angela Pamela anywhere in the Northern Territory. If you can make enough noise, they believe the government will cave in. If the government thought it was off the hook with Angela Pamela, do not believe it. The government should have put forward rational arguments about mining and not let the green left dominate and control the debate. The northern suburb electorates might have had a say as well.
If it was shown through an EIS this mine would not be detrimental, would the government support it? If the government will not agree with a mine being 20 km out of Alice Springs, what is the limit? Would the government agree to a mine being 25 km, 45 km or 55 km from Alice Springs? If you support mining of uranium, what are the limitations? Tell companies now so they do not spend money on exploration leading nowhere. If iron ore was found 20 km from Alice Springs, is it going to be the same argument, or is this about uranium and a fight by those who have an ideological bent against mining uranium?
The Chief Minister made a statement last night titled ‘Taking Real Action for Alice Springs’. Surely, wealth and job creation is taking real action. If we have urban drift and there are no jobs will Alice Springs become a welfare town? Talking to people recently, a long-term Alice Springs businessman raised the fact that Alice Springs continues to lose business people and their families because of social disorder and, if the percentage of Indigenous people continues to rise, and if many are either on welfare or required to be employed by government, the town will not be wealth creating but will become a service provider dependent on the government.
A mine near Alice Springs may have helped turn that trend around. Who knows? It is unlikely now. By opposing this motion, it does not mean I necessarily support the mine. I support the due process, and do not believe the process has had a fair chance. I will not support a motion that avoids the process, and one based more on political expediency because there was a by-election in Alice Springs at the time.
The Northern Territory government needs to broaden its economy. We are far too dependent on government handouts. We receive the highest percentage of GST of any government in Australia. We cannot claim we want to be a state if we do not develop our economy. Otherwise, we will continue to be a Territory reliant on funds from Canberra and always at their beck and call. We really should reconsider this decision and allow the process. This will send out the wrong message to many people - if they try to establish a uranium mine in the Northern Territory and people make a noise about it the government will, once again, use the same argument it has used in this case and cave in. That will be bad for the mining industry of the Northern Territory.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the government’s motion today opposing the development of Angela Pamela. I reiterate the meetings and contacts I have had with people in Alice Springs, even when I was the minister for Environment. I attended several rallies and was not afraid to represent the government at any. It is important we take into consideration why people come here.
The cleanliness, the beauty of this town is what many people come for. Aboriginal people and non-Indigenous people in this town have said: wiya Angela Pamela, lawa Angela Pamela, itja Angela Pamela. It is a strong message from a group of people in this town who have said ‘no’ in many different languages. We need to keep the beauty of this town to allow us to raise our children in a very clean environment. Sometimes people think activities coming out of Alice are too far left; however, this goes beyond what Alice does.
This is about the future of this town. We should not just be looking at the economic future of this town based on Angela Pamela. As the Chief Minister and other members on this side have said, there is a future for economic development in this town in many other areas, even in the mining industry - not 20 km out of our town. At the end of the day, we are the people born and bred in Central Australia and will die in Central Australia. We do not have anywhere else to go. We cannot be moving out in 20 years time to live in Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. We will not be buried anywhere else except Alice Springs or in our communities.
Town camps are close to where this mine is proposed - like Little Sisters and Karnte and Anthepe. It might be 20 km from the CBD, but it is only 10 km or 11 km from these town camps where Indigenous people live. There are many things to consider when debating this issue - the future of generations to come of all Central Australians - all children born today in Alice Springs. What is the hope and future for these children? As adults, parents, and grandmothers who live in and enjoy this beautiful town, do we really want a mine 20 km from town which will have an effect on our future generations - our grandchildren - growing up in this town?
The Chief Minister - please correct me if I am wrong, Chief Minister – said many people come here because there is no mining 20 km, 30 km or 40 km from this town. Doctors, teachers and social workers come here because of the cleanliness and beauty of the town and because they can go camping anywhere. The area of the proposed mine is absolutely beautiful country. I drive past to go to Titjikala all the time, and know the member for Arafura has been down that track a few times. They are really …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The clock, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Apparently there is a problem with the clock, but you have 16 minutes to go. I will attempt to give you a warning with about one minute left.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have to ensure there are other avenues for economic development in this town. There are many other economic opportunities in the mining industry and the tourism industry. We cannot go around wrecking the environment 20 km out of this beautiful town. Sure, we have our problems in this town; however, we cannot wreck our environment just to have an economic base. What guarantee do we have that most of our young people would be employed in this industry?
We have to ensure the future generation and the future environmental aspects of this town are looked after, which is why I am voting with the government on this motion today.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this motion the government has put forward opposing the establishment of a uranium mine at Angela Pamela, 20km from Alice Springs, is a furphy. There is no mine at the moment, and, as other speakers have pointed out, the Angela Pamela site is an exploration site. It is in the early stages of its exploration phase.
Members have spoken about the uranium mining industry being highly regulated and, as the member for Nelson pointed out, it is a formal process we are talking about today which uranium miners must adhere to with regard to providing scientific evidence and logic about how mining could be conducted at different sites in the Northern Territory. This formal process, as the member for Nelson pointed out, includes environmental impact studies which look at the impact of uranium mining on people’s lives.
The member for Macdonnell talked about how significant uranium mines are, particularly one as close to an urban setting such as Alice Springs; how important this particular mine is, and others will be in the future no doubt, and those in the past to the lives of people living in the area.
I am one of those people; I live in Alice Springs and I have a family; I have a vested interest in the town; I love the town and I share those concerns about the exploration of the Angela Pamela site for uranium mining.
Six months ago, when I was the candidate for Araluen, I had those concerns and was very worried about this mine. As I embarked on my campaign walking around the streets of Araluen for many days leading up to 9 October 2010 by-election, I spoke with many people who raised their concerns about the Angela Pamela uranium exploration going on 23 km outside Alice Springs. People wanted reassurance that (a) it might not go ahead, or (b) if it did go ahead we would, as a Country Liberal government, ensure rigorous studies had been conducted and there would be no harm to their safety.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Put that down please, minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I went about my business of doorknocking and campaigning for the Araluen by-election, as green as I was and green as I still am. On 28 September 2010, the government announced a backflip on its uranium policy and Angela Pamela. In 2008, as other members of the opposition have pointed out, it announced the exploration licence for the Angela Pamela site and spoke highly of what this would mean to the town of Alice Springs; talked it up and made out this was something it supported.
The government backflipped on 28 September and, as the candidate for Araluen, I was quite confused, as were many people in the Alice Springs community. The member for Nelson pointed out it seemed a strange move to make for a government that had, no less than a few years before, spoken of how successful it was in securing this exploration licence for the Cameco Paladin consortium to start exploration at the Angela Pamela site.
That was an interesting position for the candidate for Araluen – me - to be in. I was very concerned about the Angela Pamela mine; worried for my children, worried for the water supply and worried for the future of the town. I was sharing the concerns of my possible future constituents and, as a member of the community, my concerns were very much the same as many other people in the town. The government backflipped and I was placed in a very interesting situation where I did not support the Angela Pamela mine, and I still do not.
The advice I had was the Country Liberals’ policy was we support uranium mining and, indeed we do, across the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about it; however, this one was a curly one …
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … and I am seeing the nod and hearing the ‘yes’ from the mines minister who agrees it is a curly one. I have a story about the mines minister I should share before my time expires; however, I agreed with the Labor candidate for Araluen, Adam Findlay - we were on the same page; we did not support the Angela Pamela mine. It was not so much a case of mimicking as the member for Nelson suggested, it was a case of two residents of Alice Springs competing for the distinguished position of being a member of parliament for the seat of Araluen, and I stand by that commitment today: I do not support the mine.
On 28 September, I was thrust in front of the ABC cameras - I remember it well - and I am on the public record saying: ‘Yes, it is true, I do not support the Angela Pamela exploration site’. However, I support due process, the crux of my concern about the motion today. Due process was dumped by the government for political reasons and, probably in the long term, to the detriment of the government because we are trying to foster a strong and prosperous mining industry in the Northern Territory. We have a prosperous mining industry which we want to improve; we want to have a future relationship with the industry and to dump it had far-reaching implications my colleagues have already listed. Because it was dumped with very little explanation apart from it seemed like a good thing to do on the day, a good way of perhaps capturing a few votes through the by-election, the Northern Territory is now seen as a risky entity by mining companies.
Yes, I was surprised as much as anyone that the government backflipped. We were put in an interesting situation where I had to be honourable to myself and the people I had spoken to. I was halfway through doorknocking the whole electorate. So, it was an interesting change in my approach because, after that point, I was knocking on doors saying: ‘No, I do not support the Angela Pamela mine and I share your concerns’.
I support mining in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia. My family has a strong connection to the mining industry. My sister has been married to a mining engineer for over 20 years and they have lived and worked throughout Australia. I have many close friends who are connected very strongly to the mining industry. As a member of the Country Liberals and, of course, a member of the opposition, I want to support and foster that.
You are right, the government has been correct in its analysis of the situation. The opposition is in favour of uranium mining, and that includes all areas of the Northern Territory. I am in a quirky, tricky situation where I personally oppose the Angela Pamela exploration site, but most of my shadow cabinet colleagues, and the party, do not oppose the Angela Pamela exploration site.
The future of my position on this issue is about maintaining my support to my constituents - the people who voted me in. Seven out of 10 people in the electorate of Araluen voted for me on 9 October. Of those people, who could tell who voted for me because I opposed the Angela Pamela exploration site? However, given that both candidates opposed the Angela Pamela site, it probably neutralised the whole issue in many respects. Perhaps that was a positive thing in the campaign. We were both on an equal footing, so to speak.
The future for me, though, is about due process. If exploration of that site was to continue or be reignited, I would be a strong proponent of ensuring the mining company involved adhered to every single condition or requirement necessary. This is my home, my life, my future, and the life, home, and future of my constituents. For me, it is about safety and quality of life. There is absolutely nothing that will stop me from ensuring 100% that, if any exploration was to continue and any mining lease on that site ever to be considered, those things were absolutely 100% completed to the satisfaction of the community.
That is a long way off. Where we are today is exploration on that site has been suspended for many different reasons, some of which could be rumours I understand. We were told during the by-election that the exploration site may not have been as viable as hoped. Who knows? There was much speculation and talk about why Cameco withdrew fairly quickly from the site and moved on, and not all necessarily about the fact that both the government and the opposition seemed to withdraw support for exploration of the site.
If I am not satisfied the mining company has jumped through every single hoop there is, and there is not a shadow of a doubt this is a safe mine for the people of Alice Springs, I will continue to not support a mine on that site. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, no matter what the consequence is, I will never support a mine on that site if the people of Alice Springs are at stake. That is my position.
I go back to the motion, and I have a few minutes to tell a story. This morning I went to a breakfast. The Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory and Desert Knowledge Australia Outback Business Networks and the Central Australia Mining Services Network invited me to a breakfast meeting on Wednesday, 30 March 2011. That was held this morning. It was a lovely gathering of mining industry people. In attendance at that breakfast was the mines minister, minister Kon Vatskalis, and the minister for Business. It was a non-political affair. Everyone was sharing information. The mines minister gave a short speech updating the group on mining activities within the Northern Territory, and possible opportunities for Alice Springs mining industry people that could be coming up in the future.
Right at the end of that gathering a member of the local branch of the Chamber of Commerce made a comment about the Angela Pamela mine, basically inferring the opposition was not supporting the mining industry. The mines minister and the minister for Business remained absolutely silent. There was not one word mentioned of the fact that at 10 am the government would debating a motion opposing the establishment of a uranium mine at Angela Pamela, 20 km from Alice Springs. That is deceptive and misleading, and if you want to talk about people within the opposition - members of parliament representing their constituents honestly and openly - you do not have much ground to stand on because that was very deceptive and highly hypocritical.
I end my speech today by unequivocally stating I oppose the Angela Pamela mine. I am a member of shadow cabinet and my loyalties are quite confused as to what the future holds. What I am very clear on is if this mine proceeds, or if this exploration proceeds, then I have to be absolutely convinced, and most of my constituents have to be convinced, this mine will be safe for the people of Alice Springs.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that for quite a long time I have had my colours nailed to the mast in relation to this issue. Since being the federal member, I have always maintained a very pro-nuclear, pro-mining and pro-progress stance on these areas. It is no news to people in this Chamber that I supported Australia’s need for a nuclear waste facility, and that Australia had to be pragmatic in finding a location for the nuclear waste facility. Unfortunately, due to a situation in relation to federation, it meant one of the few places a nuclear waste facility could be placed was in the Northern Territory. It is interesting to note there is not a Premier around the country who opposes a nuclear waste facility, but they all, to a man or woman, oppose a facility in their state. Because of the way our Constitution is structured in this country, the Commonwealth was left with very few options as to where to locate a nuclear waste facility.
It is also a given amongst anyone who knows the debate, that a location has to be found by 2014 because we are under a contractual obligation to take nuclear waste back from France, where we send it for reprocessing. Australia has a desperate need to find a location for a nuclear waste facility.
It is interesting when people talk about these things they say: ‘Let us look at the science and let science be the guiding factor’. If these people were true to that idea they would acknowledge science has long decided nuclear waste facilities are safe; that you could practically build a low and intermediate waste storage facility on the side of Mt Vesuvius because it is not a scientific problem anymore, simply an engineering problem, and provided you have the engineering right and spend the money on building the facility correctly, you can build one practically anywhere.
It is crazy in Australia that this facility is coming to the Northern Territory because you could quite easily build one in New South Wales, Queensland or Canberra. There is no problem with that. However, because of a quirk of federation we find ourselves in a situation where government needs to do something. I was quite happy to say: ‘It is a safe industry, science has proven that. We can have it in the Northern Territory providing we receive adequate compensation’.
I travelled overseas to look at nuclear power stations; I looked at nuclear waste facilities, and I stood in an election campaign based on the national nuclear waste repository. As a result, people call me Nuclear Dave these days. It is not something I shy away from. When I was presented with this in relation to the Angela Pamela mine, for me the decision was simple. Providing the process is followed correctly, providing we do everything right, and if that process and those checks and balances are maintained and everything is ticked off, the mine should be able to proceed.
The greatest concern of the members for Araluen, Macdonnell and Greatorex is for the environment, and I agree with them 100%. We should have major concerns about the environment in the Northern Territory. We have some wonderful industries in the Northern Territory: agriculture, tourism, mining, all of which rely on our natural environment. They are totally dependent upon our environment and I have no drama at all with protecting our environment - it is the goose that lays the golden egg. We have to be very stringent with our environmental requirements, which is why we have processes that go through every detail of environmental impact. That is why I am happy to support the process surrounding Angela Pamela, if it ever becomes a mine, because it has to go through such a stringent process.
Uranium mines, Madam Speaker, I am sure you are aware, are not like iron ore mines, coal mines, even gas extraction plants. They are the most regulated, highly-scrutinised mines in the country. In order to get a uranium mine to approval stage and operate it requires a level of scrutiny not applied to any other mine. The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a mine’s answer to a range of different federal institutions other mining does not require. In that regard, I have no problem supporting the concept that Cameco Paladin should be allowed to proceed through that very stringent and rigorous process we have in place for all mines.
What a boon to Alice Springs and Central Australia if it proceeds. Looking around this town is interesting because we are consumed with problems of law and order, many of which are symptoms of unemployment, homelessness and lack of opportunity, and we are, on the other hand, taking away more opportunity or looking for ways to undermine the processes we have put in place as a government and a community. That is totally wrong.
When we talk about hypocrisy and who says what, it is simple to see this motion is aimed at embarrassing several members on the opposition benches. That is all it is about. Let us be honest: tell us why you are running it? The Chief Minister, for a good 90% of his debate, aimed it at division within the ranks of the Country Liberals, which may well appeal to the Machiavellian spinners in the Labor Party …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, all right, we have a French teacher here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair. Order! Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this is aimed at. That is the grubby political game they like to involve themselves in. However, when we talk about hypocrisy and division, let us look at the government side of things. There was a ballot process almost for who would win the right to explore the Angela Pamela lease, and a number of companies were very involved and wanted to do some exploration. When the decision was made as to who would be awarded that opportunity this government was quick to say how many hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent, very close to Alice Springs and how many employment opportunities it would create.
People have tabled media releases the Chief Minister and the mines minister issued at the time saying how wonderful it was. I have to agree; it was a good decision. Eventually, we had to get someone to explore that area; look at it, see if it is feasible to go ahead, and you only find out by going through the process - what a great thing - and the Chief Minister at the time was right. The hypocrisy of the man is he now says the government is a party of due process - what a joke. It completely undermined the process, just as it did with the Arafura Harbour project in Darwin.
The member for Fannie Bay was one of the first to applaud the government for undermining due process as if it was a great badge of honour to wear on his chest. The member for Stuart does the same thing with Angela Pamela. The government undermines due process and he says: ‘Bewdy, this is a win for the people of Alice Springs’. It is not a win; it is a great big loss for all Territorians, not just the people of Alice Springs. It is a great big loss in Darwin when you undermine the due process based around the Arafura Harbour.
I do not believe Arafura Harbour had a hope in hell of getting up through due process. However, there are businessmen who put their money and their livelihoods on the line - who mortgaged their houses to take a risk. The least they should expect is that it is looked at fairly and not have a government stepping in making arbitrary decisions and undermining the whole process. When a government does that it scares off other investors willing to take a risk and put money where their mouth is.
The people behind Cameco Paladin are not big timers; they are not the high rollers of the mining and exploration industry. These are guys who, in many cases, are putting up their own money. They are not gambling the money of other Australians and super funds - some of it is - much of this money is personal investment. When you get up the noses of these people it sends a very clear message, not just to them, but other people who have money to invest and want to seek out opportunity and create jobs and wealth for a local economy - when you undermine that process, you create an element of risk.
This is what Mitch Hooke, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, was talking about when he said this is a great blow for sovereign risk. Who would have thought this bunch of mendicant, shambolic goons could create a level of sovereign risk in Australia which scares off international investors? That is exactly what they have done. They sit here proud of it - smiling away: ‘We have done a great thing’, rather than explain to people there is no certainty this mine will go ahead. There is a very stringent and rigorous process to go through before anyone is going to give them a tick.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when our mines minister, the member for Casuarina, spoke with Martin Ferguson, the federal Resources minister. I have had a slight relationship with Martin Ferguson over the years, long before I entered politics - he was my boss for around 10 years. I entered federal politics and we both served on the Industry and Resources committee for six years, and I got an inkling of the way he thinks. In fact, I am proud to call him a friend. We are on different sides of politics, and there are members on the other side of this Chamber who will not find that unusual because some of them I also call friends. We will not go into that; I will not embarrass them here.
I know Martin Ferguson as good as, or better, than most people on the other side of the federal parliament. I have a rough idea of the way he thinks. At one stage, Martin Ferguson and I sat on the Industry and Resources committee on an inquiry into uranium in Australia. The unanimously supported report was Australia’s Uranium – Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world. If you analyse that, it gives you an idea of the feelings of the committee in relation to uranium mining. It was a very good report unanimously supported by all members of the committee, both Labor and Liberal - and Independents as Bob Katter was also on the committee. Martin Ferguson is one of the most pro-mining, pro-uranium people in the federal parliament, and also the federal Resources minister.
I do not know if there was discussion prior to a decision being made; however, I have a pretty good idea Martin Ferguson would have absolutely horrified with the decision this Labor government has taken. After years and years of fighting the views of the uninformed Luddites with their heads buried in the sand - and I refer to the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as one; she would prey on people’s fears in relation to anything nuclear. Martin Ferguson has spent a long time, as have many other people, saying: ‘Hang on, when electricity was invented people were scared of that’.
Nowadays, we do not think too much of electricity being supplied to most places; in fact, we want it. In years to come it will be the same with nuclear power because the industry will become so safe. It has an incredibly safe record now, and most places will want it regardless of recent events in Japan.
This debate is merely a political stunt. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. It is a political stunt for two reasons: one, it quite rightly will embarrass some people within the CLP. We have aired our dirty laundry in public, and it will give a few of us something to think about in the future. Good on the government for raising that point. Second, it is the most deceitful motion designed to take the focus away from people of the Northern Territory regarding the real issues in Alice Springs. You only have to pick up any newspaper, turn on any radio, watch the news at night - look at The Australian, our national newspaper. When you read about the Northern Territory it is about crime in Alice Springs and law and order. This government has failed; it knows it and is ashamed of it.
The Deputy Chief Minister practically fell down on her knees begging us to recognise some of the achievements of this government. It was one of the most appalling speeches I have heard since the member for Johnston did the same thing several years ago when under the pump on the health issue. You crawl in completely frustrated, at a complete loss, do not know where to go, have no idea, no direction, are fresh out of ideas, shot to pieces and say: ‘Please, we really have done something’. What? Assault statistics are going up, break and enter is going up, and dreadful damning reports come out every few years in relation to child protection.
Everything you do in relation to alcohol punishes the population not the offender. That is exactly what you are doing with your current grog laws - punishing the social drinker rather than the hardened alcoholic. It is all wrong, and that is what this debate is about. That is the level of trickiness this government will go to in order to divert attention from the problems it faces face.
We saw the terrible scene yesterday of people leaving their workplace and business coming here to register concerns, and a shameless Chief Minister hiding inside this building - would not even talk to the crowd for two minutes. Why? He said he does not talk to rabbles. What way is that to talk about the local population, decent hardworking business owners and citizens of Alice Springs? It is appalling. We come here …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired
Mr TOLLNER: I thought I had two minutes to go about one second ago.
Madam SPEAKER: Maybe the clock is wrong. Sorry, you have a minute to go.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time under Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear the Treasurer agree. Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. I am disappointed the Treasurer does not want me here any longer ...
Ms Lawrie: It is scintillating, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: I thought it would be. The truth hurts at times. I imagine you would be in pain at the moment given the fact you have been seen through ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, you have been given an extension, can you come to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, I am talking to the point; this government has lost control of due process. This decision also points out this government is anti-mining and has shown that time and time again. A number of projects have gone interstate and a number of mining companies have left the Northern Territory, most recently Cameco, which moved out of the Territory after spending a long time here. They have upped stumps and left, and who could blame them? They have been shafted - pardon the pun - by this government.
Who could forget McArthur River and its river diversion program? This company spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a mine management plan and environmental impact statements about 5 km of river diversion. This government sat still, asleep at the wheel, waiting for the rock star in Canberra to make a decision - Peter Garrett. No minister went to Canberra and said: ‘This mine is 5% of our gross state product and employs 400 people; this mine is the lifeblood of Borroloola and provides many health services in Borroloola; this mine provides many educational services; this mine is building a local swimming pool’. None of that. This government was quite prepared to sit by and watch the mine close down. Four hundred workers left the Northern Territory because it shut down. The government said: ‘Oh no, they are just veiled threats by the mine; it will not go anywhere’. Well, it shut down. There was no urgency on behalf of this government, or Canberra, to keep the mine open. Instead it listened, the same as here to a minority group, and said: ‘We will take your concerns on board and say nothing; button our lips and see what Mr Garrett has to say’ - someone who has spent most of his life campaigning against all forms of mining.
The government is prepared to say there is huge community opposition in Alice Springs to the Angela Pamela mine. I say to the mines minister: show us the Labor Party polling; show us how many people are opposed to it. I remember the protests the last time we were here. They were in front of this building and there would not have been 50 people. They had some good stunts; a naked bloke in a box and some big signs. The loony left and greenies are pretty good at putting on a show but I do not believe they represent the majority of people in Central Australia - that is outrageous and ridiculous. They are the people this government listens to.
Ultimately, it is not just this government; it is the federal Labor government. I feel for my good friend in Canberra, Martin Ferguson, because he sees his leader, Julia, in bed with Bob Brown from The Greens. Nationally, Labor has embraced the lunatic fringe policies of The Greens, which is why we are getting a carbon tax even though it is going to eventually cost Julia her job. However, she feels …
Madam SPEAKER: Member Fong Lim, I allowed it the first time, but I remind you we refer to members, particularly the Prime Minister, or someone from another House, by their title not their first name. Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not call her Bob Brown’s bitch, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon! I ask you to withdraw that, thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. The Prime Minister is in bed with Bob Brown, metaphorically. The ramifications of that political marriage are long and deep. Who knows what we will see in the Northern Territory: maybe a ban on all cars over four cylinders. We might have heroin injecting rooms in the Northern Territory even though we do not have any heroin addicts. Who knows what we are going to have? We are going to get a tax Australians were promised, before the election, would never happen. We have seen the Prime Minister completely backflip. It has been suggested she lied to the Australian people and is now proceeding with a carbon tax in opposition to what she said before the election and with no mandate from the Australian people.
These are the people Territory Labor answers to. These are the political masters of Territory Labor, so it is no wonder we are seeing such an anti-mining penchant in the Northern Territory. There are not too many mining companies anywhere that would disagree with that statement. I challenge the minister to say what drove him to support such a ridiculous position of the government Cabinet. What an outlandish situation we saw at the Araluen by-election when the government said it would disregard due process and the approvals project and say it was 100% opposed to it. What absolute nonsense. It has cost the Northern Territory and its population much. We have lost jobs, we have lost the respect and confidence of the mining community and, ultimately, it is going to take much work to turn that around. This government will not be able to do it because it refuses to say it stuffed up on its decision.
Our side of parliament has had some disagreements on it; however, the Country Liberals are completely united on the issue. We have received much support and accolades from the mining industry for taking what has been seen to be a fairly tough decision - saying some of us might have it wrong but, at the end of the day, we support the mining industry, due process; and the very stringent controls we place on the environment, but are not going to undermine investment options and opportunities into the future.
Madam Speaker, that is why I oppose this motion. It is a ridiculous motion designed to do two things: (1) to somehow embarrass the opposition; and (2) to take attention away from the government’s major faults in Alice Springs. We have seen the breakdown in so many different areas of governance - too long to list here. I implore all sensible people in this Chamber to oppose this motion.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 12
- Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Mr Conlan
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mrs Lambley
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Ms McCarthy Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
- Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009 - Report to the Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b)
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009 - Report to the Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b)
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009, tabled in the Assembly on 26 November 2009, for the provision of travel and communication entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for the calendar year 2010, with the annual schedule containing government payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense. I also table a schedule of ministers’ phone expenses during the calendar year.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009 - Report to the Legislative Assembly Pursuant to
Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b)
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009 - Report to the Legislative Assembly Pursuant to
Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b)
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Government Business and General Business Notices
Government Business and General Business Notices
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I know it is 5.30 pm and we ordinarily go into General Business; however, as there are a number of government business amendments for introduction, with the agreement of the opposition and the Independents, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
- (a) Government Business, Notices Nos 3 to 6 inclusive being taken as would allow their presentation and deliverance of associated second reading speeches; and
- (b) at the conclusion of the notices being completed above, General Business then proceeding forthwith for a period of three-and-a-half hours, at which time the Assembly then proceed to adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of Government Business, can I just clarify? We need a procedural motion relating to Question Time tomorrow. Is it included in that?
Dr BURNS: I thought I would do that tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: It would only take one minute if there is agreement on the 6 pm.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I have no objection - for the sake of the motions before the House at the moment, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, sorry …
Mr ELFERINK: I indicate our support for the motion. If you would like to put the question we can then deal with the Question Time motion.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, as has been previously agreed, I move - That the Routine of Business, Questions be taken at 6 pm on Thursday, 31 March 2011.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Now we have two questions before the House. We should deal with the first question first.
Madam SPEAKER: We will deal with suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Which one are we voting on, so I am clear?
Madam SPEAKER: This is the suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: The first one, thank you.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Question Time – Thursday 31 March 2011
Madam SPEAKER: I am concerned about Question Time. The member for Port Darwin indicated if you did that now it should take one minute and not be a problem.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to do this tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: No, from a procedural point of view it has to happen.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move - That the Routine of Business, Questions, be taken at 6 pm on Thursday, 31 March 2011.
Motion agreed to.
ALCOHOL REFORM (SUBSTANCE MISUSE ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL FOR TREATMENT COURT) BILL
(Serial 159)
(Serial 159)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
On 26 October 2010, during the October 2010 sittings, I outlined the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package following an announcement of the same on 1 September 2010. On 28 October 2010, I tabled two draft bills which form part of this package of comprehensive alcohol reforms as exposure drafts for public consultation. The two draft bills were the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court Bill, and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill. The tabling of these draft bills was to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduced legislation.
The government conducted extensive consultation on the tabled draft bills and is confident it has public support of the proposed measures in the bills being introduced today. The public consultation on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the draft bills ran until the end of November 2010. It employed a range of strategies to gain feedback on the reforms including: a household survey sent to every home in Darwin and Palmerston; a free call 1800 number; a dedicated website allowing for public comment; targeted consultation with key stakeholders; public forums held in each of the major centres of the Territory; and media coverage and advertisements.
We are all well aware that the cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult, more than four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol per capita consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime - 60% of assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work is alcohol-related. Public feedback received through the consultation indicated strong support for the proposed reforms. The reforms are seen as a genuine attempt to holistically address the needs of people who misuse alcohol and other drugs.
I turn now to the detail of this bill, the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011 or SMART Court bill. This bill provides for the Alcohol Reform and (Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment) Act of 2011. The bill provides that:
the Alcohol Court Act is repealed;
the SMART Court will offer assessment and access to programs for offenders who are misusing substances.
The SMART Court will have the power to make particular orders, including bans and treatment for eligible offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol or other drugs. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate a reduction in offending and antisocial behaviour associated with substance misuse and to facilitate improved health and social outcomes for people whose offending is related to substance misuse. The bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of acts which contain references to the Alcohol Court Act, and also transitional arrangements concerning matters before the Alcohol Court at the time of the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act.
Madam Speaker, as you may be aware, a discussion paper on the Alcohol Court proposing reforms to the Alcohol Court Act was released for comment on 29 October 2009. The discussion paper sought comments on the following issues in relation to the Alcohol Court: confusion concerning Alcohol Court orders; alcohol dependency; applicants for referral; no penalty for prohibition order; entering a plea or expressing an intention to do; deferral of sentencing; failure to appear; provision of information to victims; and reporting of breaches and domestic violence orders. It also sought comments in relation to antisocial behaviour regarding Alcohol Court and infringement notices and Alcohol Court and non-offenders.
In the feedback on the discussion paper it was suggested the Alcohol Court Act should be repealed and a new act developed to provide for both alcohol and drug offenders, giving us many options to deal with these offenders. This would enable poly drug users to be appropriately treated and remove the distinction between alcohol and other drugs. The need for youth to be able to address youth offending involving drugs or alcohol was also raised.
It was determined that new legislation would better provide for the matters raised in the discussion paper and fit within the comprehensive alcohol reforms being undertaken. Thus, the SMART Court bill was developed providing for the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act.
Clause 5 of the SMART Court bill lists the general principles that must be applied in the administration of the act. These principles include that offenders eligible for referral should be identified as early as possible; the process of the court is to be collaborative and non-adversarial; and there should be significant and ongoing monitoring of the progress of offenders who are subject to SMART orders. The system must be one that contains both rewards and sanctions.
Part 2 of the SMART Court bill establishes the SMART Court and provides the defined jurisdiction in which the SMART Court can exercise power as a court of therapeutic justice. The SMART Court bill provides that the jurisdiction of the SMART Court is exercised by a magistrate with the Chief Magistrate to decide which magistrate should exercise jurisdiction of the court. Both adults and youths can be referred to the SMART Court. All matters capable of finalisation in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court can be referred to the SMART Court. An appeal from the SMART Court is to the Supreme Court.
Part 3 of the SMART Court bill provides for referral of offenders to the SMART Court. In order to be referred to the SMART Court, a person must: be charged with a relevant offence; admit guilt or indicate intention to plead guilty; or have been found guilty and not yet been sentenced for the offence. Defendants must either admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty.
Participation in treatment and programs set out in a SMART order forms a part of the sentencing process. Drug courts across Australia require offenders to admit guilt, with treatment programs used as part of the sentencing process. Before referring an offender to the SMART Court, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court must be satisfied the offender must be an eligible offender. That means the offender must appear to have a history of serious substance misuse.
Part 4 of the SMART Court bill provides for the making of a SMART order. An offender must allow information to be given to a court clinician regarding the charges and facts of the relevant offence and any antecedents, as well as other information that will assist the clinician in making an assessment. The court must order the offender to attend clinical assessment and for an assessment report to be made. A SMART order may be made if the offender has been found guilty but not yet sentenced. In addition, the offender must be willing to comply with a SMART order. The court must also be satisfied the offender has a history of serious substance misuse, the misuse contributed to the offending and, if appropriate, for an order to be made. The SMART Court will then, once the defendant has been found guilty, have the option of:
making a SMART order and deferring sentencing for up to 12 months on condition the offender complies with a SMART order;
refusing to make a SMART order and sentencing the offender; or
referring the offender back to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court for sentencing.
Clause 20 enables an order to be made deferring sentencing while treatment is undertaken as part of a SMART order. An order under clause 20 would be made in matters involving less serious offending where it is unlikely an offender will be sentenced to imprisonment.
Clause 21 enables a SMART Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment with the execution of the sentence being suspended while treatment is undertaken as part of the SMART order. An order under clause 21 would be made in matters involving more serious offending where the offender is facing a sentence of imprisonment.
The SMART order, whether made under clause 20 or 21, may include conditions as to: the conduct of the offender; actions to be taken by the offender; consumption, use, purchase or possession of a substance by the offender; courses, programs or activities in which the offender must participate; and testing of the offender for substances. During the course of the SMART order the magistrate monitors the progress of the treatment and sentences or re-sentences the offender on completion of the SMART order.
Part 5 of the SMART Court bill sets out the monitoring process. It also sets out a system of rewards and sanctions.
Clause 25 sets out the rewards that may be conferred and the sanctions that may be imposed by the court when reviewing the progress of an offender on a SMART order. A reward may be conferred or sanction imposed depending on the progress of the offender under the SMART order. An offender who is complying well with the order may be conferred a reward, while a sanction may be imposed on an offender who is not in compliance. Rewards that may be conferred include changes in the frequency of counselling, treatment, or other intervention. They may also include a decrease in supervision.
If an offender contravenes a SMART order a sanction may be imposed. Sanctions include a change of condition to increase the frequency of testing for alcohol or drugs, and the offender be detained for a youth, or imprisoned for an adult, for up to 14 days. When an offender, the subject of a SMART order under clause 20, appears before the court to be sentenced, or if the order is revoked or cancelled, the court must sentence the offender. When an offender, the subject of SMART order under clause 21, appears before the court for reconsideration of the sentence, or if the order is revoked or cancelled, the court must reconsider the sentence and either confirm the sentence or set aside the sentence and make a new sentencing order.
When sentencing an offender, or reconsidering the sentence of an offender, the court must take into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the SMART order, any sanctions imposed during the period the order was enforced, and any other matters considered relevant.
When reconsidering the sentence and imposing a final sentence - unless the order has been revoked or cancelled - sections 78BA and 78BB of the Sentencing Act do not apply. Sections 78BA and 78BB of the Sentencing Act mandate a sentence of imprisonment for certain offences. Allowing the SMART Court to sentence an offender who has completed a SMART order without the constraints of these sanctions will allow this therapeutic court to properly take into account the extent to which the offender has compiled with the SMART order, any sanctions imposed during the period of the order was enforced, and any other matters considered relevant.
The submissions received during the consultations on the exposure drafts SMART Court bill were generally supportive of the draft bill and the objects of the legislation. The inclusion of drugs, and of youth as offenders who can be dealt with by the SMART Court, was supported. The major concern raised by stakeholders was the potential model, as outlined in the bill tabled in the October 2010 sittings, fell short of an effective and best practice therapeutic court. Stakeholders were supportive of a SMART Court model that met the objectives of a therapeutic court.
The majority of submissions regarding the SMART Court supported remodelling the SMART Court bill so that: there is incentive to participate by ensuring sufficient reward for progress and sanctions that can be imposed with failure to comply with orders; there is provision for judicial monitoring of matters before the court so the progress of an offender can be monitored; there is a statement of principles providing clear direction that the SMART Court operates in a collaborative, rather then adversarial manner, to promote the offender’s rehabilitation through consensual decision-making; the sentencing options are clarified to ensure there is an incentive for offenders to participate; and terminology is broad enough so the SMART orders may cover expanded services, if available.
The government considered the suggestions made during consultation and has made amendments, together with amendments of a technical nature, to ensure the effective operation of the SMART Court. Persons who have not committed criminal offences are not within the jurisdiction of the SMART Court. Persons who have alcohol or drug misuse problems, but who have not committed offences, may be referred to the Alcohol and Other Drug Tribunal established in the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ALCOHOL REFORM (PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIME AND SUBSTANCE MISUSE) BILL
(Serial 158)
(Serial 158)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
On 26 October 2010, during the October sittings, I outlined the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package following an announcement of the same on 1 September 2010. On 28 October 2010, I tabled two draft bills which formed part of this package of comprehensive alcohol reforms as exposure drafts for public consultation. The two draft bills were the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, and the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court Bill. The tabling of these draft bills was to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduced legislation.
The government conducted extensive consultation on the tabled draft bills and is confident it has public support of the proposed measures in the bills being introduced today. The public consultation on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the draft bills ran until the end of November 2010. It employed a range of strategies to gain feedback on the reforms including: a household survey sent to every home in Darwin and Palmerston; a free call 1800 number; a dedicated website allowing for public comment; targeted consultation with key stakeholders; public forums held in each of the major centres of the Territory; and media courage and advertisements.
We are all well aware the cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult, more then four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime: 60% of assaults, 67% of domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work are alcohol-related.
The public feedback received through the consultation indicated strong support for the proposed reforms. The reforms are seen as a genuine attempt to holistically address the needs of people who misuse alcohol and other drugs.
I turn now to the detail of the bill currently before the Legislative Assembly, the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011, the PACSM bill.
This bill provides for the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011. The objects of the PACSM bill are to support family and social welfare, and improve the health and wellbeing of people in the Territory by providing a legislative framework for: the prevention of the commission of alcohol-related offences; the prevention of misuse of alcohol or other drugs; the protection of people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs from severe or serious harm because of the misuse; and the protection of people, particularly children, from harm or nuisance resulting from misuse of alcohol or other drugs by others.
The objects of the bill are facilitated by measures for preventing the commission of alcohol-related offences. These measures include:
prohibitions on access to and consumption of alcohol by people who are misusing alcohol and increased availability of intervention aiming to reduce misuse;
compulsory assessment of people reasonably believed to be misusing alcohol or other drugs;
compulsory treatment for the recovery and rehabilitation of people with dependency on alcohol or other drugs;
appropriate intervention for people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs; and
income management for people who are misusing alcohol or other drugs.
The PACSM bill provides for a police-driven administrative banning system allowing police to issue banning alcohol and treatment (BAT) notices.
The bill also establishes the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal (the tribunal) with a power to make orders for the benefit of people who misuse alcohol or other drugs. Part 2 of the PACSM bill sets out provisions relating to BAT notices and alcohol misuse interventions. It enables police to issue a BAT notice to certain people, including those who have not committed an offence but have come to the attention of police for alcohol-related incidents. Police can issue notices to persons who have been:
taken into protective custody three times during a three month period;
given two infringement notices under section 23(1) of the Traffic Act for low-range driving under the influence of alcohol within the previous three years;
charged or summonsed in relation to an alcohol-related offence; or
a defendant in a police-issued Domestic Violence Order (DVO) if police believe the person was affected by alcohol at the time the DVO conduct occurred.
Alcohol-related infringement notices include drinking in a public place which is a dry area, such as within 2 km of a licensed premise. An alcohol-related offence includes drink-driving offences under the Traffic Act where a person is automatically suspended from driving, offences captured by section 19 of the Traffic Act.
Clause 8(1)(b) provides that a BAT notice prohibits the person from purchasing, consuming or possessing alcohol for a three-month period. A BAT notice, therefore, prevents the person from purchasing takeaway alcohol. A breach of the BAT notice can mean police issue a further BAT notice, which results in a longer ban.
Clause 11 provides that for a person charged with an alcohol-related offence or issued with a police DVO, the BAT notice remains in force for three months or until the person appears before a court and an order is made under section 14. The court may make orders to continue the ban or may revoke the ban.
Clause 12 provides that for a person issued with a BAT notice following three alcohol-related infringement notices, or on three protective custody incidents, a first BAT notice remains in force for three months. This means the ban from purchasing alcohol stays in place for three months the first time a person is issued with a BAT notice. This ban can be reduced to one month if the person undertakes certain treatment. Treatment in the bill is referred to as alcohol misuse intervention. Undertaking the treatment is at the election of the banned drinker. The motivation to undertake treatment is so the ban period can be reduced.
A person issued with their first BAT notice is encouraged to undertake treatment such as a brief intervention. A brief intervention facilitates behaviour change through a one-to-one approach. It involves making the most of any opportunity to raise awareness, share knowledge, and get a person thinking about making changes to improve their health; in this case, the person’s consumption of alcohol. Intervention is a part of what health professionals do in primary health care and other health and community settings. As a public health approach, a brief intervention is complemented by group and community strategies to improve health. If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the first BAT notice, it becomes the person’s second BAT notice. Under the second BAT notice the ban is for six months, which can be reduced to a two-month ban if treatment is undertaken.
With the second BAT notice the type of treatment changes. This time, for the ban to be reduced, the banned drinker will be required to undertake treatment such as a short program of brief interventions. If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the second BAT notice, the next notice is a third BAT notice lasting for 12 months. The 12-month period can be reduced to four months if certain treatment is completed. This will be a more intensive treatment such as community-based counselling. If a third BAT notice is received and the banned drinker breaches that notice, or within 12 months is given an alcohol-related infringement notice, or is taken into protective custody for alcohol, police must refer the person to the tribunal. However, police do not have to wait until this point. They can also refer a person to the tribunal at an earlier stage if they have reasonable belief the person is at risk because of substance use.
Part 3 of the PACSM bill provides a mechanism for health providers and others to refer persons with alcohol or other drug problems to the tribunal for appropriate orders to be issued.
Police, health practitioners and family members are referred to as authorised applicants who can refer a person to the tribunal for assessment if they have a reasonable belief that a person is at risk because of the use of a substance. Authorised applicants are defined in clause 5 of the bill. Clause 32 of the bill provides that a person may also voluntarily apply for an order to ban themselves from using a substance. A person who is constantly asked to purchase alcohol by family members or others may wish to apply to the tribunal for an order so they can say: ‘Sorry, I cannot buy alcohol for you. I am banned’.
Once an application is made the tribunal considers the application and makes a decision whether to refer a person believed to be misusing a substance to an appointed substance misuse clinician for an assessment report. The tribunal is empowered to make orders in respect of persons who are misusing alcohol or other drugs, including prohibitions on access and consumption and orders to undertake treatment or other interventions.
With the BAT notices, treatment is optional. If a person wants to have the banning period reduced they need to get treatment but they can choose to stay banned for the entire duration of the BAT notice. However, once a person has been referred to the tribunal, treatment becomes mandatory and the person is required to undertake clinical assessment. If a person does not attend the assessment the tribunal can make what is a called a general alcohol prohibition or GAP order. The GAP order is a ban on consuming and purchasing alcohol which operates for a three-month period or until the person attends the assessment.
As a GAP order is registered on the banned drinker register, the person who is a subject of the order will be prevented from purchasing takeaway alcohol. After three months, if the person has still not attended for the assessment, a further GAP order can be made so the ban continues. Where a person does attend for assessment and is assessed by a clinician as misusing a substance, the tribunal must make a banning alcohol and other drugs treatment order - BADT order. The order prohibits the person from purchasing, possessing or consuming a substance and may also include other prohibitions, requirements or conditions as considered appropriate for the person. For example, the BADT order may include that the person undergo treatment. What the BADT order contains will depend on the clinical assessment. The tribunal can make a BADT order which lasts for up to two years. However, there are mechanisms whereby a person can end up back in front of the tribunal and the BADT order can be extended for a further period following further clinical assessment and a review by the tribunal.
Part 4 of the PACSM bill deals with the establishment of the tribunal. The tribunal is not a court and will not be comprised of judicial officers. It will comprise of (a) a chairperson and deputy chairperson, each of whom must have practised as a legal practitioner for at least five years; (b) at least four other persons each of whom has qualifications or experience suitable for the tribunal functions, and (c) other persons representing the interests of community or area. The tribunal members are to be of both sexes and from diverse backgrounds including members who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders or who demonstrate an understanding of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture.
Part 4 of the bill also sets out the constitution for proceedings and the conduct of proceedings generally. To ensure the best interests of persons who appear before the tribunal, clause 61 provides a person with expertise in general care, health, rehabilitation or treatment of persons misusing a substance can be appointed as an advocate for a person at risk appearing before the tribunal. The functions of the advocate are to represent the best interests of the person at risk and assist the person during a proceeding. Appeals of tribunal decisions are to be made to the local court.
While clause 70 provides it is an offence to publish or broadcast the name of a banned person, this does not apply to a person who reasonably believes it is their duty to give information to another person; for example, a police officer informing a person that another person is banned and should not be supplied with alcohol.
Clause 72 provides supply of alcohol to banned persons is prohibited and may lead to a person who contravenes this provision being issued with a BAT notice under section 9(2)(b). Clause 73 empowers police to require a banned person to submit to a breath test to determine if there is alcohol in the person’s blood. This can only occur if the person is in a public place and the police officer reasonably believes that the person has been consuming alcohol in contravention of their ban. The bill also consequentially amends acts to provide for the objects of the bill.
Clause 80 consequentially amends the Information Act so the information privacy principles under that act do not prevent the tribunal from sharing information with persons such as counsellors, or when referring the person for assessment for income management.
Clause 86 consequentially amends provisions relating to protective custody and the Police Administration Act. The amendment allows police to require a person in protective custody to submit to a breath test or breath analysis, and to take and record the person’s name and other information. This information may only be used for the purpose of the PACSM bill or the SMART Court bill.
The model of administrative bans and a tribunal set out in the PACSM bill is considered as having a good range of options with encouragement through BAT notices, and enforcement through tribunal orders, of treatment considered to be essential to changing people’s drinking behaviours. During consultation on the draft bill, the ability to ban problem drinkers from purchase and consumption of alcohol was positively received by stakeholders. The bans from purchase and consumption of alcohol itself are considered to be a treatment mechanism and provide a motivation for a person to address their consumption of alcohol. Stakeholders were also very supportive of the non-criminalisation of people receiving bans, and to the application of bans and enforcement applying Territory-wide. The framework for the tribunal was also positively received by the health sectors and non-government organisations, including Indigenous organisations.
The tribunal is supported by stakeholders as a mechanism to treat alcohol and drug misuse by non-offenders separate to the criminal system. It is recognised that it provides a channel for families and a range of providers, including health organisations, to refer people who are at risk, or who place others at risk, for assessment for treatment.
The government considered the suggestions made by stakeholders during consultation and consequently made the following changes to the draft PACSM bill tabled in the Legislative Assembly in October 2010: the consequential amendment to the Police Administration Act protective custody provisions so information obtained can only be used for the PACSM or the SMART Court purposes; clarification in clause 8 that police can record grounds for belief that a person is affected by alcohol when issuing banning notices, ensuring police and others can inform persons that other persons are banned to reduce the risk of secondary supply; provisions to allow police to conduct breath analysis; and restructuring the tribunal constitution and conduct of proceedings so there is capacity to operate the tribunal throughout the Northern Territory, more flexibility in the way the tribunal operates, community members may be appointed by the Administrator as members of the tribunal, an advocate may be provided for persons assessed and appearing before the tribunal for orders and authorised applicants refer a person to the tribunal, but the tribunal refers the persons for assessment.
Although the PACSM bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly today has been redrafted and restructured, the policy intent remains the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ALCOHOL REFORM (LIQUOR
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL
(Serial 161)
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL
(Serial 161)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 is part of a package of comprehensive alcohol reform legislation. This bill complements the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011, the SMART Court bill, and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011, the PACSM bill, which have been developed as part of the alcohol reforms announced in October 2010 in this government’s Enough is Enough campaign.
While those bills are aimed at addressing the effects of alcohol abuse in the community and reducing dangerous alcohol consumption, this bill will reform the regulatory regime around the sale of liquor generally, and tighten up offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to children. This bill will assist to make licensees more accountable and provide the community generally with a more effective, efficient, flexible, and transparent regulatory framework.
The amendments proposed in the bill will provide greater clarity for licensees, and improve enforcement in relation to licensee breaches. It will reduce the likelihood of licensees operating irresponsibly and adding to the harm caused by alcohol. Without addressing issues relating to alcohol supply and sale, the reforms implemented under the Enough is Enough campaign would not be as effective.
The bill will introduce a new regulatory framework for liquor licences, one that creates a more flexible, responsive, and modern compliance regime in the Liquor Act. This will be done by addressing gaps and ambiguities in relation to the role of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission. The bill will address problems and inconsistencies in relation to the existing penalty structure under the act. The amendments will also clearly separate the role of the commission from that of the courts on disciplinary matters, and provide flexibility for the commission and the Director of Licensing to use a wider range of enforcement tools, including the imposition of fines, enforceable undertakings, and infringement notices.
The amendments in the bill will allow the commission to more appropriately respond to individual breaches by licensees and, in turn, create a more effective enforcement regime. It will make licensees more accountable while, at the same time, allowing for minor level breaches to be dealt with in a manner which is consistent with the nature of the breach.
As I said, the bill will also tighten up the offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to children by creating new offences relating to the irresponsible supply of alcohol to children and a blanket ban on the supply of alcohol to children in licensed premises.
I now turn to the substance of the amendments in the bill. Currently, the role of the commission in relation to breaches by licensees and its relationship with the court has not been clear or consistent. Licensees have often complained about the lack of clarity as to the role of the courts in relation to licence breaches. Furthermore, the powers and functions of the commission currently under the Liquor Act in relation to licensing misbehaviour are disjointed and difficult to follow. The commission has a range of enforcement options such as suspension or cancellation of licence and variation of licence conditions, but direction on how and when these options can be imposed is scattered throughout the act and can vary depending on the type of breach or the type of application to the commission. In this way, it is very difficult for either licensees or the commission itself to have any real clarity or consistency in relation to enforcement or disciplinary measures.
The bill consolidates all the provisions relating to disciplinary actions that can be taken by the commission for licensing misbehaviour. The bill inserts a whole new Part VII into the Liquor Act specifically headed ‘Enforcement provisions for licences and special licences’. It consolidates all the powers of the commission in relation to licensing misbehaviour into one part of the act and sets out one clear disciplinary process. All offences under the act will still be able to be dealt with by a court; however, the new disciplinary process will clearly indicate the breaches by licensees should, in the main, be dealt with by the commission. It is anticipated that only rarely will a breach by a licensee be dealt with by a court; for example, where a licensee may chose to challenge an infringement notice, or where the court is dealing with a range of other offences committed by the licensee unrelated to the breach of the licence.
New Part VII sets out clearly the grounds on which the commission can take disciplinary action against the licensee. The grounds specified in proposed new section 67(3) include: where the licensee has contravened a provision of the act; the licensee has breached a condition of licence; the licensee has breached an enforceable undertaking; a manager, employer or licensee is not a fit and proper person in relation to the business of the licence; the premises are no longer being used consistent with the activities specified in the licence; the licensee obtained the licence by fraud or misrepresentation; the premises have been used in a manner that has caused disturbance to the neighbourhood or caused disorderly conduct; and the licensee is no longer eligible to hold the licence.
Where a ground has been established, the types of disciplinary action that can then be taken are also set out clearly in new section 67. Disciplinary action can include: giving a formal warning; varying a condition of the licence or adding new conditions; suspending a licence; cancelling a licence; imposing a monetary penalty directing the licensee to take or refrain from specified action; and disqualifying the licensee from holding a licence. The commission will now have the flexibility to impose the most appropriate disciplinary measure for each specific breach.
The power to impose fines is a new form of disciplinary action that the commission will be able to take. It is proposed the maximum fine the commission will be able to impose is 100 penalty units, which currently equates to $13 300, noting that the commission cannot impose a fine in excess of the statutory maximum specified for the relevant offence in the Liquor Act. This means that for a minor breach of a provision, such as a failure to post a notice in accordance with section 107, which is proposed to only have a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, currently $2660, the commission could only impose a maximum 20 penalty unit fine. This is despite the commission having a jurisdiction to impose fines of up to 100 penalty units. The ability to impose relatively higher fines is necessary in a regulatory environment to ensure an adequate deterrent effect for businesses so that they cannot derive any financial advantage from intentional non-compliance.
To clarify, it is not intended that the commission will make any findings of guilt. Its determinations in relation to disciplinary breaches will be made on the balance of probabilities. Fines imposed by the commission under the new regime will be different to fines imposed by a court in relation to a finding of guilt for an offence. A fine imposed by the commission will not result in a criminal record, and it cannot be enforced as a court-imposed fine. If a fine imposed by the commission is not paid within 28 days, or such later date set by the commission, it will become a debt due and payable to the Territory. The debt will be able to be enforced, as with other civil debts, by registering it as a judgment debt in the local court, and enforcing it through civil action, such as a garnishee order or warrants of seizure and sale.
With the increased enforcement options and ability to be able to set financial penalties, it is good policy to enable an appropriate appeal mechanism. Currently, section 56 of the Liquor Act provides that there is no appeal from a decision of the commission in relation to a decision it makes under the act. Therefore, the bill inserts new section 72 into the Liquor Act to provide an express right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a matter of law from decisions made by the commission in relation to disciplinary matters.
The commission’s role will be supported by a more clearly defined and wider formal enforcement role for the Director of Licensing within the Licensing Regulation and Alcohol Strategy Division of the Department of Justice. Currently, all complaints and breaches must go to the commission if any form of punishment or disciplinary action is considered necessary other than those dealt with by the director through education or informal warnings. This means that the commission is often forced to deal with relatively minor matters and first-time matters which can clog up its workload and distract the commission from conducting its core business. The Director of Licensing is best positioned to make the initial decisions on the severity of the breach in the context of each situation and whether it should be dealt with at a lower level or elevated to the commission. This ensures approaches that are commensurate with a level of offending in each given situation.
Accordingly, the bill better defines the Director of Licensing’s role and provides alternative enforcement tools at the lower level to enable a more effective and appropriate response to the whole range of possible licensing breaches. This is achieved in the most part through the new sections 72A and 72B, which provide the Director of Licensing with the ability to enter into an enforceable undertaking with a licensee in relation to a matter the director has a parallel function for under the act.
An enforceable undertaking is where a licensee enters into a written agreement with the director to take, or not take, particular action in relation to contravention of the act, or to prevent a further contravention of the act. If the licensee fails to comply with the undertaking, it is a ground for the director to apply to the commission for disciplinary action. Such processes are available in other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, and have been working well. They are often used as a first stage in the enforcement process and are very effective at addressing minor breaches and encouraging compliance. They are an effective alternative for low-level offences or first-time breaches to more time-consuming and costly court procedures or commission hearings.
It is also proposed that, under the new regulatory framework, the Director of Licensing will be able to issue infringement notices for low-level offences committed in relation to licensed premises under the act. Police officers will still be able to issue infringement notices for other non-licensee-related offences such as offences relating to restricted areas.
Additionally, the prescribed offences and the infringement notice penalty levels will be reviewed in light of the amendments in the bill, noting the infringement notice penalties will be in the range of one to five penalty units. Regulations are being developed to prescribe the offences and penalty levels will be in place prior to commencement. This policy will be supported by the issuing of clear guidelines to assist licensees and inspectors. The issuing of infringement notices will provide an additional enforcement tool for low-level breaches of the act by licensees.
Own motion applications for disciplinary actions and applications as a result of a formal complaint will be made by the director under new section 69. Applications will be made after an appropriate investigation and consideration of whether a lower-level response such as an enforceable undertaking or infringement notice is warranted.
As mentioned already, there are currently problems with the existing penalty structure in the Liquor Act. Section 124 of the act currently provides a common maximum penalty for all offences under the act of $1000 or six months imprisonment. For second and subsequent offences, that penalty is $2000 or 12 months imprisonment. This blanket provision does not assist in identifying the seriousness or otherwise of individual offences.
There are many offences for which imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty, moreover, the monetary penalty levels are now outdated. They are inconsistent with the penalty levels for other similar offences in other jurisdictions and, as already discussed, the current inability of the commission to impose significant monetary penalties also undermines the deterrent effect of the offences to the licensees. Accordingly, the bill proposes to repeal section 124 and identify each individual offence in the act, specifying the maximum penalty for each offence.
The penalty levels have generally been imposed consistently with the current Department of Justice penalty policy position and, as much as possible, are within the midrange of penalty levels in other jurisdictions. The bill is also drafted so that the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory apply to all offences in the bill. Converting all legislation to be consistent with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code is an ongoing project. It is the general policy that when an act is being amended for any reason, the offences in the act should be made Part IIAA-compliant at the same time so that gradually the entire Northern Territory statutory book will be converted.
Another aspect of the existing penalty structure relates to existing section 124AAA. That section provides that the commission may impose an additional penalty over and above the penalty imposed by a court for specific offences. Section 124AAA also prescribes strict periods for suspension for specific breaches. As it is proposed the commission will now have greater flexibility around the taking of enforcement action in relation to disciplinary breaches by licensees, this section is no longer required. However, to avoid two actions being taken in two different fora and ensure that a licensee cannot be punished twice for the same offence, the bill inserts new section 124 to clarify that the commission cannot take disciplinary action if proceedings for an offence have commenced or an infringement notice has been issued in relation to the same act or circumstances.
Similarly, an infringement notice cannot be issued or court proceedings commenced in relation to a contravention of the act if the commission has already taken disciplinary action for the contravention. However, these limitations will not apply if the infringement notice is withdrawn or the proceedings discontinued.
As I have discussed, part of the aim of the bill is to clarify the role of the commission in relation to breaches committed by licensees. On the other hand, it is proposed to also clarify the role of the courts to deal with serious unlicensed breaches. As new Part VII of the act clearly provides that disciplinary action can only apply to licensees, any enforcement action against non-licensees must be by proceedings in court. This applies whether the offence is one committed by an employee on licensed premises or whether it is an offence such as bringing alcohol into a general restricted area or selling liquor without a licence.
In relation to this latter offence, the bill clearly identifies this as the most serious offence in the act. The proposed maximum penalty proposed for sale without a licence is 250 penalty units, $33 250, or 12 months imprisonment. The inclusion of imprisonment as a possible penalty indicates the serious nature of the offence and that it can only be dealt with by a court. The maximum penalties in other jurisdictions are similar. For example, the maximum penalty in Queensland is $50 000 for a first offence. The maximum penalty in Victoria is $28 880 plus two years imprisonment; and in both the ACT and New South Wales the maximum penalty is 100 penalty units and 12 months imprisonment.
Additionally, the proposed maximum penalties for breaches of offences relating to general or special restricted areas are also being increased significantly in recognition of the potential harm that can occur to the community as a result of these types of offences. For lower level offences, such as possessing or consuming liquor in a restricted area, the penalty will be 100 penalty units. For more serious offences, such as grog running that involves selling alcohol in a general restricted area, it is proposed to increase the penalty in line with the offence of selling without a licence; that is, 250 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.
To assist licensees and law enforcement a definition of ‘drunk’ is being inserted into the act at section 7. Currently, under section 102 of the act, licensees and their staff commit an offence if they serve or supply liquor directly to an intoxicated person. There is no clear definition of intoxication in the act. This creates uncertainty for licensees and employees, and is the cause of regular complaints by licensees and other stakeholders. It is proposed to include a new definition of intoxication and change the terminology to ‘drunk’. The use of the term ‘intoxication’ has been confusing for many, and a person is technically intoxicated once they have any alcohol in their system. The term ‘drunk’ is a much better understood and accepted term. A new section 7 will articulate what is meant by ‘drunk’ by clarifying that a person is considered to be drunk if their behaviour is noticeably impaired and it is reasonable, in the circumstances, to believe the impairment results from consumption of liquor. A similar definition of drunk applies in the Liquor Control Act of 1988 of Western Australia, and in the definition of intoxication in New South Wales and Victorian legislation.
Another issue around intoxication in section 102 puts the onus on the licensee to prove that the person is not intoxicated. The existing reverse onus in relation to the question of whether a person is intoxicated or drunk will be removed. Most other jurisdictions do not have a reverse onus provision. Additionally, as the penalty for this offence is to be significantly increased to 100 penalty units to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to be more consistent with other jurisdictions, providing a reverse onus provision is no longer appropriate.
The other main area of reform is in relation to the sale and supply of alcohol to children. Currently, the only offence relating to the supply of alcohol to children is in relation to the supply of alcohol on licensed premises. There is no existing offence applying to the general community, and to encourage a more responsible attitude to alcohol across the whole community in relation to young people.
The bill now inserts section 106C that creates an offence for anyone to irresponsibly supply alcohol to a child - it will always be an offence to sell alcohol to a child under section 106CA - in line with the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as Queensland and Tasmania. This offence will take into account such things as whether the child or adult is drunk, the age of the child, whether food has been consumed, and whether there is adequate supervision. It is proposed that new section 106C will be supplemented by new section 106CA that creates a blanket prohibition on the supply or consumption of alcohol to or by children on licensed premises. This provision will replace the existing section 106C that allows for the sale or supply of alcohol to minors where the minor is accompanied by their parent, guardian or spouse who is over 18 years and the alcohol is sold in conjunction with a meal.
This policy position is consistent with the move in other jurisdictions across Australia, including Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. To address concerns raised by industry, section 106CA includes appropriate defences, for example, where the licensee or an employee sighted an apparently valid ID showing the child to be an adult, or where the licensee took reasonable steps to avoid the offence occurring. This second point will address a situation when an adult buys a bottle of wine for a group of adults and provides the child with a glass of wine in the situation where the licensee would not be expected to be aware of the situation.
The bill also contains various consequential amendments required to the Liquor Act as a result of the PACSM bill. Most noticeable is the inclusion of new section 106BB. This offence is based on the existing sections 106BA to 106BD which relate to the use of false identification by children. Proposed new section 106BB will duplicate these provisions to also apply to any person using false identification when purchasing takeaway liquor. This approach is required Territory-wide now as the identification system will be rolled out across the Northern Territory so all sales of takeaway liquor will require identification. This will support the liquor reforms under the PACSM bill that will provide for banning notices to be issued.
Amendments to the Liquor Regulations have also been included consequential to the roll-out of the identification system Territory-wide. Further amendments will also be required to the Liquor Regulations to support the new regulatory framework. This will include prescribing processes around the making of enforceable undertakings, and the technical aspects relating to the commission’s procedures for conducting disciplinary hearings.
In summing up, there is growing concern about the misuse of alcohol by children. The tightening up of offences and introduction of a blanket ban will send a clear message to the general public and licensees that irresponsible supply of alcohol to children is not to be tolerated. Furthermore, there is a clear public interest in ensuring the holders of liquor licences operate in an accountable manner. The current penalty levels are not sufficiently high so as to act as a deterrent, and there is a growing concern that the commission is unable to respond in a flexible, tailored, and transparent manner to breaches by licensees. There is also a growing concern about the impact that irresponsible licensees and illegal sales are having on the general community. All these concerns are being addressed in the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I add that most licensees in the NT liquor industry are generally compliant. The purpose of this legislation is not to suggest there has been any significant increase in the numbers of licensees breaching their obligations, but the aim is to modernise the regulatory framework and improve compliance outcomes. The effect of this new framework will not be to see more cancellations or suspensions of licences or generally more disciplinary action at the serious end of the scale, but to see more low-level compliance action that will prevent the escalation of conduct to serious breaches.
Having said that, when a serious breach does occur under the new framework, the commission will be much better placed to respond to it effectively. In modernising the existing regulatory framework, this bill will reinforce to the community and to licensees what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Nowhere is this more important than in relation to the offence of sale of liquor without a licence.
This bill, by significantly increasing the penalty level to be the highest in the Liquor Act, sends a clear message that this type of behaviour that undermines and has the most deleterious effect on the regulatory system is absolutely unacceptable. Overall, this bill will benefit both licensees and the community generally by creating a regulatory framework that can more effectively and transparently respond to misconduct by licensees, whether the misconduct is one of a serious or minor nature.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Deferral of Government Business
Deferral of Government Business
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have discussed with the shadow Leader of Government Business and Opposition Whip that I will be deferring the introduction of my bill until tomorrow. That has been agreed, so we can get on with the General Business Day. I will introduce my bill on the reform of the Audit Act tomorrow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
General Business
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 6.28 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and general business will now have precedence over government business for the next three-and-a-half hours.
MOTION
Alice Springs - Police Task Force to Combat Lawlessness and Antisocial Behaviour
Alice Springs - Police Task Force to Combat Lawlessness and Antisocial Behaviour
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Northern Territory government direct the Commissioner of Police to –
(a) immediately deploy a task force of police in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour; and
That part of the motion is to ensure we do not see a repeat of what we have seen in Central Australia, particularly over the last few months, but on a regular basis every summer - the hotter the summer the hotter the hot spots.
That is in preparation - as it says in the motion, emerging or known law and order issues. Through you Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the Chief Minister how long the police deployed here over the last three or four weeks after numerous pleas from the opposition this summer to put more police on the beat in Alice Springs to address the chronic law and order problem we have been facing and are well aware of, will remain here? I ask the Chief Minister - through you Madam Deputy Speaker - this because there are strong rumours those police will be leaving on Friday, if not Saturday. Can the Chief Minister confirm or deny when the up to 18 police placed on the beat in Alice Springs to address law and order issues - and I might say it is giving the town some breathing space, we make no bones about it - extra police does work; it gives the community some breathing space. I ask the Chief Minister how long they will be here for. The rumours are they are leaving on Friday or Saturday, although we have further rumours from people in the know - it is a small town - that they might stick around for the Prime Minister’s impending visit to Central Australia.
We need a permanent police presence. The Chief Minister told the Centralian Advocate on 14 March that police are now on top of the law and order problem. Chief Minister, I can read you some of these headlines, as I have done in previous speeches; they are compelling reading: 14 March, unlawful entries in Alice Springs; 15 March, stabbing in Alice Springs; a tourist assaulted in Alice Springs on 22 March, and the very next day a sexual assault. On the same day we had the tragic story of a two-year-old assaulted in Alice Springs, and on Friday, 25 March, a witness was sought for an assault in Alice Springs. In 10 days we have had unlawful entries, a stabbing, a tourist assaulted, a sexual assault, an unprovoked bashing, and a shocking case of child abuse. It is terrible; it is appalling to read it out time and time again. It feels like we are being hysterical, but this is what has happened. These are police media releases.
The question is if we are on top of law and order why are these things happening so regularly in the space of just 10 days? If we are getting on top of law and order with the added police presence why not leave the police here?
What are the indicators? The Chief Minister said, hand on heart, that police will remain here as long as required. That is fine; however, it is wriggle-room language. What is the indicator to suggest they are not required any longer? All of a sudden there are X numbers of assaults, or assaults have dropped by Y amount, or over the course of this quarter we have seen a drop of 500? Is that the indicator the commissioner, and you as Chief Minister and Police minister, work out? You are in government; can you please explain to the opposition and the people of Central Australia what the benchmark is?
We see police suddenly disappear from the streets of Alice Springs, streets across the Northern Territory, and the government says they were not required. They were there for the time required according to operational matters. I would like to know what indicators the government uses to satisfy that requirement because it is quite unsatisfactory for the people of Central Australia. It is like a cloak and dagger thing behind the scenes - we do not need police there because we have met the statistic. Everything is based on statistics rather than real life situations. The people of Alice Springs and people across the Northern Territory require this effort from their government - they are not just a statistic; they are living and breathing people in this community.
As stated in the political argy-bargy motion that wasted five or six hours’ time today so the government could make a point, this is personal to me. I live here, I want to raise my family here. I intend to stay here; I do not want to go anywhere. However, people are leaving and people are very concerned. The government needs to understand people are leaving in droves. The minister for Central Australia, whether he wants to admit it or not, knows it. He walks the streets of Alice Springs and knows many people in Alice Springs. People tell me they cannot believe people are leaving – they are thinking about leaving – it is a sad situation indeed.
I would like to know the indicators that police are not longer required. I would like the Chief Minister to put that to the people of Alice Springs and see if they are satisfied because in the space of 10 days do I have to go through the unlawful entries, assaults and robberies again? That is one every two days, yet the Chief Minister said we are on top of crime - on top of the law and order problem as quoted in the Centralian Advocate. My concern is if an assault or robbery every second day over the space of 10 days indicates he is on top of something, God only knows what the indicator is to suggest police are no longer required. Are 10 assaults in two weeks enough to suggest we are on top of things and police are no longer required? I hope you can join the dots, Chief Minister, and understand my point. It is an important point very relevant to the situation unfolding in Central Australia.
I want to run through some of the statistics around the law and order situation facing Central Australia. It is relevant to the motion to develop the argument and make the point about more police in Central Australia and the response group we are calling for if we understand why we have reached this point. The government likes to say: ‘You have no policies; you just shout and scream. It is not just about police’. The opposition understands it is not just about police. I do not know how many times we have to make that point; however, it is as if it falls on deaf ears. I suggested yesterday that the government is tilting at windmills and it seems that is all it can do - feign an imaginary enemy. There is a raft of measures that needs to be put in place. This is one measure that is working. The community of Alice Springs is starting to feel more comfortable about things because we have extra police. There are now 18 or so police officers on the streets.
To demonstrate why we have reached this point it is worth looking at some of those crime statistics - the government’s own crime statistics. They are not the Country Liberals’ - we do not have the resources to map out every assault, break-in, robbery, crime against the person, or murder that occurs across the Northern Territory. A department does that and the information is freely available. This is the government’s own crime statistics: Alice Springs, since 2004-05, has had a 450% increase in robbery – in only six or seven years it has gone up by 450%. General assaults are up by 87%; sexual assault, sadly, is up by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft by 97%; and property damage is up by 71%. Those figures paint a pretty bleak picture of where we have come in the last six to seven years, let alone the last 10 years.
We all understand there are problems in our community that government cannot fix. People have to take responsibility, but government also has a fundamental responsibility to protect its residents, townships and its communities. We believe this government has failed in that fundamental responsibility. It is not just me who believes it and is trying to make a point and convince everyone - I am onto something here so back me. The Alice Springs community is demonstrating - whether it is several hundred people here yesterday, talkback radio calls on local radio stations, business people compelled to form a group the government does not like, nevertheless, they had to form their own group and fund television campaigns to get the government’s attention, to plead with the government to do something about it. This is not an imaginary battle I have concocted to lash at the government. This is a very real problem and it has been for a long time. Those crime statistics paint a bleak picture of where we are and I have, on a number of occasions over the last few days, and previously, and my predecessors while in opposition have, offered a raft of policies and amendments to bills, or motions about ways to improve our community.
The government wants to portray the Country Liberals as a policy-free zone. It is not the case, and if it looked at itself it would see that. That is part of the argy-bargy we see when the galleries are full and the cameras are on us - government likes to paint us into a corner.
I am staggered at the amount of time the government spends criticising the opposition. It is a great lesson for the opposition, if we become government one day, of how not to do things. The obsession the government has with the Country Liberals is almost unhealthy. There are serious community issues yet a quick look through the speeches - the Hansard on the table – shows the motions, the questions and the dorothy dixers over the last few days. Count the number of times the words Country Liberals, the CLP, or opposition appear - it is quite frightening. The obsession the government has with the opposition is unhealthy and counter-productive to what is occurring in the community.
I have already run through Labor’s health and education failures and we have seen the revolving door of ministers. However, this is law and order and is the top-of-mind issue for people of Central Australia and across the Northern Territory. We have offered up numerous policies, have taken numerous policies to the election, introduced numerous bills on General Business Days, numerous amendments to government bills and many motions on general business days over the term of this and previous parliaments. The Country Liberals are ready to put a platform forward to deal with the real issues of the Northern Territory. This government has had 10 years to do it and, in Central Australia, it has failed.
Looking at 100 years of the Northern Territory - has anyone considered we have only been a Territory for 80 years? - it is 100 years of the Top End How do you think Centralians feel? We are celebrating, with great fanfare, 100 years of the Northern Territory but Central Australia was its own jurisdiction from 1927 to 1931. It is really 80 years of being a Territory and 100 years of the Northern Territory. People scratch their heads and say: ‘Crikey, the government cannot even get that right. How can we trust it to look after our best interests?’
It is very disappointing. A range of issues need to be addressed - there are many problems. We hear there are no silver bullets; there is one shot in the locker. We are well aware of that. Some of these problems are more complex; however, when it comes to securing Alice Springs and giving the community breathing space, allowing the residents to get on with their lives and walk across the street without fear of being abused or assaulted - which is happening on a regular basis - this goes a long way to restoring confidence and improving the psychology of the community. If only you had done this 10 years ago.
We have seen a huge swing towards the Coalition in New South Wales in seats no one would have dreamed of winning let alone contesting. Places like Bathurst have had a 30%-plus swing and Campbelltown went to the Liberal Party by a huge amount. Barry O’Farrell has a great opportunity to shore up that seat and gain the confidence of the people. I hope he does; if not he will have wasted an opportunity to consolidate those seats. He can deliver for those people and say: ‘We have never won a seat here’. Have the Country Liberals ever won Nhulunbuy? I do not think so. Has the CLP won Nhulunbuy, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Elferink: Possibly when there were no Labor candidates.
Mr CONLAN: Either way, it has been a long time so you could draw a parallel there. The member for Nhulunbuy is sitting on an enormous margin. It would take a mammoth effort for any other party to defeat the sitting Labor member for Nhulunbuy. If you did it, you would not waste the opportunity, you would consolidate. This is what has happened in Central Australia.
The Labor Party has never won a seat in Central Australia because it has never seized the opportunity. We had two government ministers based in Alice Springs when the former member for Macdonnell was a member of the ALP, and both opportunities were lost. If there was ever a chance for Labor to win the confidence of the people of Alice Springs it has been the last 10 years. People are happy to go with your policies if they see some progress or positive results. You say: ‘It only takes seven seconds to swipe your ID’, however …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It might only take seven seconds to swipe your ID, but are we really seeing serious inroads with the alcohol management plan - a massive decrease in behaviour as a result of alcohol-fueled violence? People are not seeing that. There is evidence across the town that we are not seeing inroads or positive results. There are some results. If you shut down the takeaway until 2 pm some people will not purchase alcohol, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. However, when you map this out on a graph you are only seeing small spikes, up or down, not a massive decrease in takeaway alcohol.
The government is not using the figures properly - not counting takeaway alcohol bought through wine clubs. A very easy estimate - talk to any of the operators who import wine from interstate - is anywhere between 10 000 to 15 000 litres of pure alcohol is coming into Alice Springs through wine clubs. You will see a drop in takeaway bottle shop sales but that is offset with over-the-bar sales, and some of those figures are incredible.
This has been a missed opportunity for Labor. Many people could not care less which way it goes. They are not too hell-bent, not losing any sleep, over whether it is a CLP or a Labor government. We care about this, it is our job. Many people could not care less. They want the sun to come up, their kids to go to school safely, receive a decent education, ride their bikes home from school, dad go to work, mum maybe go to work and live in a happy, healthy society such as Alice Springs - a nice, small country town. What a beautiful place, one of the most iconic parts of Australia and one of the most important parts of Australia.
People who live here commit to it, love it, and resent what is happening to their community as a result of failed government policies. If the government put the right policies in place, and we were seeing positive results, people would not care less. They would be happy with a Labor member for Greatorex. However, people seem to be voting for the Country Liberals in spades because the opposition is listening and echoing their thoughts and concerns.
The Chief Minister continues to blame everyone else for the problems. He blames television commercials, journalists and talkback radio saying we cannot attract nurses because of bad publicity. That publicity is as a result of what is taking place on the ground. If you stop that you would not receive bad publicity and be able to attract nurses, doctors and teachers to the community.
People resent the continual lip service from the Labor government - glossy brochures and no results. We are told there are results but people are saying: ‘Have I missed something? Where have I been? Have I been asleep for 20 years? Have I stepped into the twilight zone?’ We are told there are results through glossy brochures, parliamentary speeches, media releases and interviews with government ministers, particularly the Chief Minister.
We see glossy brochures protecting our community. These are just some placed in letterboxes over the last 24 months or so: Protecting the Territory; Building Alice Springs - making it the greatest place in the world; this is an older one - New Police for Alice; Ministers Here to Listen; Alice Achievers. That would have been 2006, maybe 2007, because Clare Martin’s head is on the newsletter. In the September 2010 Alice Springs Newsletter: New Programs …; Land Growth for Alice Springs - another problem. The government has turned off 75 or 76 blocks in 10 years with another 39 at Mt Johns Valley. That is about 110 blocks turned off in Alice Springs in 10 years – 110 new homes - 10 new homes a year. Ask a real estate agent - ring from down south and say: ‘I want to move to Alice, can you give me a house and land package?’ ‘Sorry mate, I do not have any. There are none’. There are no house and land packages available in Central Australia - none in Alice Springs. There are some in Tennant Creek which the Country Liberals started many years ago. This government has done nothing with land release, which is choking the system.
This motion could say ‘more police and more land’ because they go hand-in-hand. If you are going to grow the town you need law and order, but we also need affordable housing for low- to middle-income earners. We are not seeing that; it is the top end of town only at this stage. We need land growth for Alice Springs. Apparently land growth is occurring, but no one - waiters, checkout staff at Coles or Woolies …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, member for Drysdale. People cannot find accommodation. There is plenty of work but restaurants are struggling to find waiters because there is nowhere for people to live.
I do not know how a first- or second-year apprentice in Alice Springs would go. For a young married guy with a couple of kids - a new baby - it is nearly impossible to get into the housing market let alone rent. We are looking at $350 a week for a two-bedroom unit somewhere - $400 a week - more. Two-bedroom units in Gillen have ludicrous prices - $320 000 to $340 000. That is about average, let alone a house.
We see newsletters in our letterboxes saying more land growth for Central Australia; protecting the town and making our streets safer; budget 2008 - $40m increase through the street safer plan; a $9.3m two year safer streets plan; and more for Central Australians schools. However, the government has done nothing and missed an opportunity.
The Chief Minister will read these achievements; he will lump them together and it will sound impressive. Keep an ear out because there will be a double-up on a few. But, what is the outcome? The outcome is to make the streets safer. The government is constantly saying it will make the streets safer, is doing its best, and is releasing more land. It would be great to say you have released land, you have made the streets safer because you have put more police on, everyone is walking around saying Hallelujah, you are on top of the alcohol problem; you have managed to curtail alcohol abuse in Alice Springs. You constantly talk about what you going to do without any real results.
This is what people are faced with. The latest one has been in the newspaper from the Northern Territory government: ‘We all love Alice Springs. We want it to be a great place where we can work, live, and raise a family; however, there is no denying we have some social problems. We have work to do’. The government has run out of time and lost the confidence of Alice Springs residents - and not because it is a Labor government. That is the point I want to make. There might be a bit of that now; however, you had an opportunity because mum and dad and Joe average are not too worried about it. They want a nice life; they want to get on with life and raise their kids in a safe and secure environment. They want Alice Springs to be a great place where they can live, work, and raise a family.
The Chief Minister said yesterday he wants to bring Alice Springs back to the great place it once was. That was an admission from the Chief Minister that he has dropped the ball: it is not the great place it once was. By virtue of that he is taking responsibility - he has dropped the ball and has not done enough to keep it a great place.
That brings me back to the motion - there is much to do in Alice Springs. We talk about land release, education, alcohol issues - you cannot talk about law and order without alcohol issues. However, there are several questions for the Chief Minister. How long are these police going to stay? People are very cynical about it. They are grateful on one hand, cynical on the other. Are they going to disappear? Are they here because the parliamentary road show has rolled into town? What are the indicators to suggest they will no longer be required? He said they will stay as long as required. Any Central Australian, any person who has lived here for any amount of time will say they are required permanently.
We have more police per capita than just about any jurisdiction - we have 1400 or so police officers in the Northern Territory per 200 000. New South Wales has five million people and 14 000 police officers. It is weighted very heavily in favour of police per head of population in the Northern Territory because we have some serious law and order issues. That does not mean we do not need more. Considering the social issues in Alice Springs, and some of the welfare issues in the communities, we need to be ready for what will unfold over the next few years.
Urban drift is happening and is very real. People are welcome to come to Alice Springs - everyone should be welcome to Alice Springs. However, we need a law and order presence because we cannot head into chaos, which is what seems to be happening on the streets. Residents have lost confidence, the government has lost control, and people are extremely worried and taking drastic measures. By that I mean leaving town.
Alice will not continue to grow and become a great place. It will be very difficult to get Alice Springs back if we do not address this situation and maintain the presence. It is not good enough; the 10 to 15 assaults we have seen over a week or two - the 47% spike in crime, the 450% increase in robberies - all those crime stats from your department. It will not be tolerated. It is not acceptable and people need to know that.
The way things have evolved recently suggests the best way to deal with this is a strong police presence on the streets of Central Australia. Therefore, a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duties police officers able to respond across the Territory is very important. It could be a great tool and resource to keep on top of problems when they flare up.
As for immediately deploying a task force in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour, that is what the government has done in the last four weeks. The question is: how long will this group of 18 police stay, and what are the indicators to suggest they will not be required any longer?
Alice Springs is desperate for some leadership on this, and the Chief Minister and his government have a responsibility to provide ratepayers, taxpayers, children, Aboriginals, non-Aboriginals, whoever it is in our diverse multicultural society, the mums and dads, every living, breathing human being in Central Australia, the right to feel their government is taking responsibility for law and order. This government has let them down. This is perhaps the Chief Minister’s last chance to do something about it, because if he fails them now and the police disappear, and we are back to this next year, God knows what will happen.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, in addressing the motion the member for Greatorex spoke to we could almost support it except it requires the Northern Territory government to direct the Commissioner of Police. It would be illegal for us to do so. Under the separation of powers the Police Commissioner is the authorised person to make decisions regarding where police should be deployed.
Regarding the rest of the motion, from when the notice was given some weeks ago in Darwin, police have deployed additional officers to address the issues in Alice Springs with significant success.
Moving to how long extra police will stay in Alice Springs, as I have said ad nauseum in this House over the last two days, and as Assistant Commissioner Mark Payne said to a meeting of community groups and other people recently, police will maintain the presence as long as required.
The next question was what circumstances determine how long that will be? I take advice from the Police Commissioner on that; however, some issues taken into account - there is no simple magic formula; you cannot deploy police based on formula - go to the number of unresolved matters police may have on their books at any one time. A significant number of unresolved matters and cases have been cleared up as a result of the additional resources. The number of property offences being committed on a daily basis has been significantly reduced. The intelligence police have regarding repeat property offenders - anyone who understands the profiling of crime and property offenders recognises there is a small hardcore of repeat property offenders and whilst they are incarcerated in the big house the crime rate goes down; when they are let out, the crime rate goes up again. Depending on whether these individuals are out of business or in business, also provides police intelligence regarding deployment of police resources.
Another issue making a difference to people on the street being a problem goes to lighting in public places. That lighting is in place now and will stay until permanent lighting is in place. It has made a significant difference to the police workload.
All those issues are taken into account by the Police Commissioner when making decisions on where resources are deployed across the Northern Territory. I will give some figures on the impact of additional police and the number of cases resolved, and people now on bail or on remand who are serial nuisance offenders in Alice Springs. Operation Roland, run over the last three weeks, has seen more than 60 arrests and almost 1000 protective custody apprehensions. Many of those arrests would have led to people being put on significant bail conditions; now legislation has gone through this House making it an offence to breach bail.
We have seen 1500 litres of liquor tipped out, and the lighting in public places has meant drinking occurring there is not happening at the moment - not in those public places anyway. Regarding people causing trouble associated with that, almost 100 people have been taken home or to safe places. The government is implementing safe houses in Alice Springs for police to take young people to who are out on the streets at night.
Genuinely, member for Greatorex, there is no simple formula around the deployment of police resources, but many things are being taken into account regarding the issues this town faced. I have said for the last few weeks now - unacceptable in January and February. Police made admissions in public forums I attended in Alice Springs that the wave got ahead of them and they now have things more significantly under control. I cannot say as Police minister - if the member for Greatorex was ever Police minister in a government - that no one will be assaulted again in Alice Springs, that a tourist will never be assaulted again, that the awful tragedy of the baby being thrown to the ground is never going to happen again. We do not live in a perfect world. People who commit those offences need the full weight of the law thrown at them, and that is what we attempt to do. To suggest I, as Chief Minister, should be able to say: ‘Tourists will never again be attacked in Alice Springs’ - well, tourists should never be attacked anywhere. We have incidents of tourists being attacked all around the world. It does not only happen in Alice Springs. Police, on their own admission, let the wave get ahead of them, on their own volition deployed additional resources, and the advice I have been given by the Police Commissioner is things are much better now and they will maintain additional resources as long as required.
I go to the next point in the member’s motion calling on the government to form a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duties officers to respond across the Territory to emerging law and order issues. That response group is already in place: the TRG - tactical response group. The Police Commissioner deploys those resources whenever needed across the Northern Territory. There are now three very capable police planes to deploy officers very quickly across the Northern Territory.
I accept the sentiment in the motion from the member for Greatorex. The government cannot accept the motion and will be voting against it. The motion calls on the government to direct the Commissioner of Police and that would be illegal for the government to do so. There is the issue, under the Westminster system, of the separation of powers and police make operational decisions. Heaven help we ever reached a position where politicians were making decisions on operational police matters - corruption would take a grip in the Northern Territory. As Police minister, I have confidence in our Police Commissioner to make those decisions. No Police minister or government would ever say all crime would be eliminated and people not be assaulted.
Regarding the appalling numbers the member for Greatorex mentioned in his statistics - the tragedy of the bleak picture he painted - most of the violence he was talking about is Indigenous on Indigenous, related to alcohol, and the tragedy of the cycle of alcohol abuse. That is why my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, introduced in this House earlier this evening the toughest alcohol laws the Territory has ever seen to make a significant and real impact on that violence. If the member for Greatorex is genuinely concerned about seeing domestic violence and assault rates reduced, to see sexual assaults reduced in Alice Springs, he will support the government’s legislation when it is debated in Darwin in a few weeks time.
Madam Speaker, we are very close to supporting this motion but cannot because it asks the government to direct the Commissioner of Police and that would be illegal.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will do my best not to speak for too long. The Chief Minister, the minister for Police in the Northern Territory, failed yesterday to talk with and listen to some 300 business people, victims of crime of failed delivery from his failed government. It is a sad indictment. The fact that the Police minister, who should have stood tall and explained to the people who had come to see him, hear from him and be reassured by him, failed to speak to them yesterday is a national embarrassment.
The fact the Minister for Central Australia - and the people who came to this parliament yesterday to protest are from the Central Australian region - failed to speak to, listen to, or be seen in front of these people to explain himself is a sad indictment of his failure.
The statistics are scary and, when properly interpreted, horrendous. They demonstrate 10 years where this Labor government has not only failed Alice Springs, but failed the Territory. It is a national embarrassment that this Labor government, after 10 years, has so badly failed the Northern Territory people.
As the member for Greatorex pointed out, the government had a great opportunity to cement and hold the Territory; to demonstrate to the people of the Territory how good it could be. All we have seen is rhetoric, talk, spin, splashing of money with no real outcome, and some of the worst crime rates in the history of the Territory - a national embarrassment. The fact the Chief Minister would not front the crowds that had come in a peaceful manner yesterday is a national disgrace.
The figures the member for Greatorex used to indicate Alice has felt the brunt of this 10-year failed Labor government are horrendous: an increase of 450% in robbery; assaults by 87%; sexual assaults by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft by 97%; and property damage by 71%. These are greater than many of our increases in land prices, which have been bad enough under this 10-year failed Labor government.
The figures are scary because they are not about a patch of dirt; they are about the effect on the citizens of the Territory the government represents. It is a national embarrassment but this government continues its rhetoric and its spin.
When dorothy dixers are used to puff up failed ministers to spin a lighter subject it is an embarrassment. The fact you could conceivably try to spin your way past an increase of 185% on commercial break-ins is disgusting. Business people, their employees, and without doubt some government employees, stood in front of parliament yesterday to say they have had enough; they have been punished by this government enough, and the members responsible refused to talk to them.
Consequences are not to be seen under a 10-year failed Labor government. We have had children grow up in families where discipline and consequences for bad behaviour have been demonstrated. Under this failed Labor government we see a lack of consequence and we see more and more bad behaviour by people who have not had consequences applied to them.
The application of law and order is about a consequence. How you moderate that consequence is another debate. There has been a material decay in the fabric of society because of this 10-year failed Labor government. We see it almost acceptable to swear at law officers and assault law officers under this 10-year failed government. What standard does that set? If the kids who walk the street see people getting away with swearing at police, having a go at police and no consequence, it is disgusting; a national blight.
The fact that the federal government, under this 10-year failed Labor government, has seen fit to impose itself on this 10-year failed Labor government several times is an indication that it has failed. The fact we have had many reports of abused children, children dying under ministers’ control and care, ministers moved and shuffled within the ranks to avoid the consequences of their bad and poor behaviour is a national disgrace. We saw the Police minister only 10 minutes ago abrogate his responsibilities and say: ‘I have no control; I cannot direct the police to do anything at all. I have no influence on them’.
Yet, during Question Time, we heard the Minister for Central Australia and the Chief Minister indicate they merely spoke with Imparja, although it was enough for the board members of Imparja, an incorporated body, to feel they had been influenced. The minister feels he cannot speak to the commissioner enough to assist people achieve better results on the ground. He is the minister for Police, unlike the Minister for Central Australia, who thinks he might be the minister for Imparja, giving him the right to dictate to them what they should and should not do when criticising this failed 10-year Labor government.
The minister for Police has some influence, one would hope; some ability to help the people he is elected to represent get past this blight on our history. Ten years of failed Labor government will go down in history, not remembered for its glory days, but for the time commercial break-ins went up 185%, robberies up 450%, assaults 87% - and it goes on. It is not something I appreciate talking about; it is a national shame. It is a national shame the Chief Minister did not have the strength to stand before 300 people.
We have heard many discussions about alcohol and its influence on violence. Yes, you are right; alcohol has a major impact on assaults, bad behaviour, and crime. It has a major impact on road deaths. Yet, when members from this side of parliament tried to introduce tougher drink-driving laws to mirror those of grog runners into communities where their vehicles can be seized, or people who take too many barramundi from the rivers can have their vehicles and boats seized - when 50% of road deaths in the Northern Territory are related to alcohol, you do not want to take cars from repetitive drink-drivers. Somehow, you feel that is not as criminal or as bad as other behaviour related to alcohol. If you were serious, if you were not a mere joke, perhaps you would have come back with a slightly modified version because alcohol and drink-driving are serious - they cause deaths. If you were serious, if you were a good government, but you are a failed government.
It comes down to consequences. If this Chief Minister was true to himself he would have read some of the 2008 Country Liberal Party media releases, some of the policies. He may have even introduced them into this Chamber and unpacked them for people. Perhaps he could have critiqued some. It would have clearly demonstrated there were very strong Country Liberals’ policies dealing with antisocial behaviour and repetitive drunkenness very similar to some of the policies you have rolled out recently. These policies were in the 2008 election campaign.
Our drunks policy was launched by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Terry Mills, under the Palmerston water tower with me as candidate for Drysdale. Whilst we stood there I was able to point out the results of violence related to alcohol - a person I had repeatedly placed into protective custody for drunkenness had been murdered not 5 m behind where we stood. There is a consequence for repeat bad behaviour and there needs to be serious reform.
Our policies, on the Internet for those who wish to read them, set out a real process; a life-changing process which makes a difference to people. It is not about a prohibition form; it is about rehabilitation and consequences. Those policies extend into our prisons for better and appropriate reform, a new era one could say, but they are serious and have been there since 2008. It is disingenuous of the Chief Minister to say the opposition has no policy on these issues. We have very strong and very good policies I am proud of.
The member for Port Darwin addressed a crowd in front of this parliament recently, as did the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain. They are not the Chief Minister or Minister for Central Australia, but they had the ticker to stand before people and answer questions. It is his responsibility, as Chief Minister and Police minister, to ensure the safety of people of the Territory. That is his job. If he does not want the job give it up; resign as the Police minister and Chief Minister - give it up so we can fix these abhorrent problems. If you are not good enough to be the minister, not strong enough to stand in front of people, give it up and move aside, because there are people who care about where they come from like the members for Greatorex, Araluen and Braitling - all strong Centralians who believe in this lovely desert country we are in today.
Member for Barkly, you need to fix your roads because there is probably a problem getting police on your roads at the moment. The member for Barkly laughs - the reality is our highways are down to one lane in many areas which poses a safety risk for people. He has to take his role seriously.
Madam Speaker, the member for Greatorex put forward some wise thoughts. A response group made up of 20 able-bodied people - a rapid response vehicle - is a very wise move. It is about being flexible with the forces you have and adapting to growing trends. I recall when I was Officer-in-Charge of the Kintore Police Station having some minor troubles - 150 people rioting in front of me, a small problem - and being the only police officer for over three hours, I could have done with a rapid response team. Perhaps I could have done with a plane to bring in some extra officers to help that night because we have a wide red and brown land which is very isolated at times. The need to be flexible with our troops, the need to support our public, to support victims better is even more paramount today with this 10-year failed Labor government.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his support in this motion. The Chief Minister gave a definite answer about how long the police would stay. To save going over old ground about the problems facing Central Australia and running through the crime statistics and failed policies of the government - in fact, the interesting point made by the Chief Minister about supporting the alcohol bills before the House which no doubt will be debated next sittings. It will be interesting. We will read those with interest.
The Country Liberals understand the effects of alcohol in our community. We are very concerned about it and have put forward a raft of policies to address it. The Chief Minister says if the member for Greatorex is really concerned about this he will support the bills before the House. This has been the wedge again today - the opposition will support the alcohol bills because if not it means it does not care and is not interested in reforming the way alcohol is consumed and supplied in the Northern Territory. We will see what is in those bills.
I have a sneaking suspicion it means if you are in the privacy of your own home and your 17-year-old son wants to have a glass of wine with you it will be against the law. Is that what this means? We will have to duck, hide under the table, and sneak a little one for 17-year-old Johnny, because it will be against the law to share a glass of wine, maybe even a light beer, with your 17-year-old child. If that is what is contained in these bills I do not like your chances that the opposition will be on board. Off the top of my head, I do not like that idea very much. That will be before the House in the May sittings I assume.
The Chief Minister said today in response to this motion he could almost support it if it did not have the words ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. Let us test the Chief Minister and see how true to his word he is. We have seen him say one thing and do another. He said he would front the crowd yesterday and he did not ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: He said he was going to get on top of law and order yet he has not. He has brought the town to where it is now. He said in this House – I understand with the logistics of being here that we cannot get a rush copy of Hansard - it is probably too soon anyway considering it was only 20 minutes to a half-hour ago. He said: ‘I could almost support the motion put forward by the member for Greatorex if it did not have direct the Commissioner of Police’. The motion, for those in the gallery, says: That the Northern Territory government direct the Commissioner of Police to immediately deploy a task force, etcetera. Part (b) says: form a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general police officers. The Chief Minister said he could almost support that if it did not have ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’ and explained the separation of powers etcetera. Let us remove ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. I seek leave to move an amendment to this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to seek leave, you just move the amendment.
Mr CONLAN: I move an amendment to the bill standing in the name of Mr Conlan, member for Greatorex, that the motion be amended by omitting the words: ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’.
Madam SPEAKER: You may keep speaking to the motion.
Mr CONLAN: The Chief Minister said he would almost support the original motion if it did not have the words ‘direct the Commissioner of Police’. I now seek support of this motion from the House which now reads: That the Northern Territory government:
- (a) immediately deploy a task force of police in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour; and
- (b) the Northern Territory government form a response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duties police officers able to respond across the Territory to emerging or known law and order issues.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have heard what the member for Greatorex has had to say. Apart from the principle of amending things on the floor of parliament without prior negotiation - the opposition is well aware of government’s position on that - we are open to changes; however, there has to be prior negotiation - that is the first thing. Second, what is being put forward by the member for Greatorex is mutually exclusive because the Northern Territory government cannot direct police resources that way without directing the Police Commissioner - that is within the Police Administration Act. What you are proposing, member for Greatorex, cannot be done without a direction to the Commissioner of Police. That is why we will be opposing this amendment.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I reject out of hand what the member for Johnston has said in relation to an attempt to negotiate. The member for Johnston well knows, and it is borderline misleading this House and the people of the Northern Territory, when he says we have to negotiate these things. That is precisely what happened. Indeed, as a result of a conversation with the member for Johnston he went to find the Chief Minister in an effort to negotiate these things because this side of the House took the Chief Minister at his word. That is not an unusual thing to do when people make promises. However, this Chief Minister has twice in two days made a promise to people and not kept it.
Yesterday, Mr Geoff Booth was advised by one of the Chief Minister’s advisors that the Chief Minister was going to address the crowd. Did he front? No, he did not. He said something, sent an instruction out the front and changed his mind on the fly. Now, we hear a similar offer from the Chief Minister, and he does not have the courtesy to come back into this House and negotiate …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you please withdraw that, thank you?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I withdraw, Madam Speaker. He does not have the courtesy to engage in negotiations with the member for Greatorex when the member for Greatorex did nothing more sinister than take the Chief Minister at his word. It is a hallmark of how this government and this Chief Minister operate. This is acceptance of an offer the Chief Minister made to the member for Greatorex when trying to introduce this motion.
As for his incapacity to direct police – nonsense! My understanding of the Police Administration Act is if a direction is given it has to be given in writing. Well, guess what? The last time I checked this motion it was written. Stick it in with a covering letter and send it to the Commissioner of Police - he will figure it out; he is a big boy. He has been policing for a while. I understand it is within his capacity to read the English language. This dodging and weaving and talking about the separation of powers - nonsense! Government sets the policy of the day. It even goes so far as to make directions as to how those policies are brought to bear by the public service which serves the people of the Northern Territory. That is how the system works.
Every time this government does not want to do something it claims there is some mystical aspect to the separation of powers that in some way keeps it utterly dislocated from the public service which serves it. In its imagination, the public service does not receive direction from the government of the day at all; it is simply the figurehead of the CEOs who determine what they want to do. That is just nonsense! That is a puerile and facile defence, and I do not accept it.
It is not beyond this parliament to accept the offer made by this Chief Minister. These are not outrageous requests being put to members of this House by the member for Greatorex. This churlish business of making a promise and then, on the fly, refusing to keep it, is just not acceptable. Moreover, it ill-behoves the Leader of Government Business to suggest no attempt at negotiation was made, when a very genuine attempt of negotiation as to the wording of this amendment was made and rejected out of hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers to the amendment? Then I will put the amendment first. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
- Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being an equality of votes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 the question is therefore resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived accordingly.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
- Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being an equality of votes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 the question is therefore resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association – Land Tenure Structure
Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association – Land Tenure Structure
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Northern Territory government:
1. applaud the members of Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association in its attempted moves to change its land tenure structure seeking to utilise the land for residential development for all Centralians and massage any financial returns for social advancement of children and seniors residents;
3. funds the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association sufficient resources to enable the association to employ an officer to facilitate the development of a land development plan for the area known as Larapinta Valley Town Camp; and
4. promotes these opportunities to other town camps and Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory and actively encourages similar models in other locations across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I start by saying this is not an antagonistic model against Tangentyere town camps in the Northern Territory. This is designed to be a positive motion and a positive debate responding to the needs and requests of the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association.
I understand there is much debate about town camps in the Central Australia, Territory and Australian media. In recent times many people have spoken against town camps calling them many different things, including former Administrator Ted Egan, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda. I am not here to talk about the state of town camps, apartheid, segregation or anything like that.
I am here to lobby on behalf of the people of the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association who approached me seeking alternate models for the future of their town camp. I recognise the CEO of Tangentyere, Walter Shaw, in the gallery tonight, and no doubt what I am moving probably does not fit well with his organisation. However, with due respect, this is not against Tangentyere, this is for the people who approached me.
Much debate happens in this parliament about Indigenous policy, the future of the Northern Territory and how we can make improvements. Having worked in the industry for a number of years before parliamentary service, and since my election to parliament, I have taken a keen interest in Indigenous affairs and my shadow portfolio is Indigenous Development.
I see Indigenous affairs as a life cycle issue. It is a system of government on its own with health, education, employment, corrections - a whole number of portfolio areas where intervention needs to occur to rectify things and move forward. It is a moving beast. It will always need reforming policy because people always change, times grow, cultures evolve and develop - there will always be need for reform.
Having worked in private housing, property management for New South Wales public housing, and working for ATSIC in the housing and infrastructure area, I have a fair knowledge of housing. I would not say I am an expert, but I have a fair knowledge and interest in it. I believe in economic development as a way forward. I have spoken in the Chamber on many occasions about the need for land tenure reform and an economic approach to how we do things.
I was critical yesterday of SIHIP money being spent in the town camps - $100m in town camps to build 64 new dwellings and some civil works - 43 three-bedroom houses and 21 four-bedroom buildings or two-by-two duplexes. That is not the best value for money. There would have been enormous potential to use that $100m to leverage the private sector to gain full development of quite a number of town camps. I understand not all would be suitable but, for quite a number of town camps - the civil side, the subdivision, the servicing, the headworks, construction of houses – could be moved to a private ownership model supplying high levels of additional housing to town.
Let me explain my understanding of the housing model. This concept is reflected across the Territory and Australia, and many people in Alice Springs say there is not enough housing and we need more temporary housing. I am not convinced of that. I will not say I disbelieve it; I am not convinced. We need housing at all tiers of the housing spectrum – the highly expensive level, the medium level, the low-level entry housing, temporary accommodation, refuges, and caravan parks with camping sites. People need the opportunity to move through that spectrum of housing supply. If people have the opportunity to move out of temporary accommodation and into either public housing or private housing rental that is a market in itself. People at medium-level affordability of private sector housing would be another part of the market. Sometimes the solution to solving a crisis in housing is having the private sector build houses at the upper level so people can pathway through the spectrum of housing creating vacancies in all areas.
At Yeperenye Hostel on Larapinta Drive - a hostel designed for an intake of up to three months - people have been staying for five or six years because they have no opportunity to move into the private sector or public housing because the public housing waiting list is so long. People become trapped in that level of poverty in the low market of housing.
If we are going to move forward with the growth town model put forward by the government, which I support in principal, there needs to be a private sector created in housing, part of which is land tenure reform. It is not about stealing land, it is about moving forward in a new framework about how we see these things.
I have spoken about the opportunities for town camps in Alice Springs to move from the peppercorn leasehold arrangement with the Territory government through the 40-year lease with the EDTL - I understand the model, putting aside the legalistic frameworks - to a fully subdivided private sector model. Whether that is a 99-year lease, freehold, or otherwise, is still open for debate; I am not really fazed either way on the two models. However, that is an opportunity to open access of land to Central Australia and, in particular, we can recognise the people who have been living in those houses for a period of time. For the government to, through some mandated negotiated process, recognise tenure provides availability for people to have part ownership, to a large degree, of that house in a home ownership model.
It is recognising there have been a number of issues over a long period of time since settlement, and people are living in those town camps for any number of reasons. People have not always had the opportunities of education and jobs, and have found themselves living in town camps because they have moved, or any other reason. There is an opportunity, in moving to a private sector model where we remove an apartheid separatist approach, to create availability of land, increase the housing supply and create a wealth sector with security of tenure for residents in these locations. It is not just town camps. This is the model we have to move to in communities. I have spoken about that at length.
Lhere Artepe, the native title body of Alice Springs under the chairmanship of Brian Stirling and the leadership of Darryl Pearce, the Chief Executive Officer, has moved to a similar path with some town camps in Alice Springs or community living areas, for want of a better term. That is a positive approach people are moving towards. I congratulate Lhere Artepe, Darryl Pearce, and Brian Stirling - all members of Lhere Artepe. That is a first step. While I do not believe it is the end game it is very close, and definitely a large step in moving forward.
My conversations about this, publicly and privately, somehow found their way to members of Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association and their executive. I was visited in my office about six months ago by members of the association who said: ‘Adam, can you explain this model?’ I sat down in my boardroom with, I think, three members of the association committee and explained it. They were very keen. They asked me to go to the town camp to have a chat. All committee members were invited, although not everyone turned up. About eight or nine people from the committee attended. I explained it, and I have been back twice to explain it.
The committee, generally coordinated through William Lane, has asked me to draw up a picture of what this might look like in some Utopian society. I cannot do that; I am not an architect or a designer. I have put him onto someone who may be able to do that free of charge with no obligation at all. He has been meeting with other people in town to develop plans about what it might look like so we can show people the concept and design. I do not know the delivery time frame.
I spoke to William Lane this afternoon about this debate tonight, and asked if he minded if I shared the correspondence that has taken place. He said he did not have a problem with that. I note the letter sent by the President of Larapinta Valley town camp, Daniel Forrester - Daniel has not given me authority to publish this letter in full, so I will not table it and I will not read the whole letter out. However, I will read some parts of the letter. I will ad lib a little here; I will not speak verbatim: ‘The Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association is writing to you seeking your endorsement and political support for a progressive economic model of housing on our town camp in an effort to promote home ownership and land development to secure our future independence’.
This letter was dated 23 October 2010 so, obviously, it was more than six months ago I spoke to them. The letter says: ‘Specifically, we are seeking to turn our lease area into a normal private sector suburb in the township of Alice Springs. Our association believes this model will remove us from the perils of welfare and government subsistence and provide the economic opportunities and freedoms that all Australians enjoy’.
That is a very positive approach and a good lead in for the association to move forward. The letter talks about a number of things they are interested in. One in particular is about home ownership, and it relates to concepts I believe in. It says they would like the opportunity of a gifted part of the property on the premise - regarding the length of tenure, which I mentioned before - how long people have previously lived in those places. It spoke about Larapinta Valley town camp being prime real estate - 90.61 ha in the middle of the Alice Springs Town Council boundaries - and in a prime position in front of the MacDonnell Ranges just near Gillen. It is just past Araluen Christian School, for those who might not know the area. It spoke about a minimal amount of land being used for sacred sites, and a small amount of infrastructure utilising a portion of that land. The author of this letter, on behalf of the association, thinks it is a prime opportunity.
The vision, as spelt out in this letter and briefed by me, speaks about a commercial joint venture with a private sector developer giving the association an opportunity to develop an economic base which would contribute to an education fund to support children receiving a proper education, many of the children being sent interstate for school; the development of an aged-care program with elderly members of the community having access to private sector aged-care type services; a funeral trust so money could be put away for a funeral; an investment and development trust, which I will come back to in a moment; and an opportunity for funds to be put aside for return to country.
The investment and development trust idea was that additional money could earn interest and help fund the other programs. Also, if the opportunity arose through the presentation of a development model, a shopping centre complex could be built that the trust would own and would seek to garner incomes through renting out the properties.
It continues: ‘You should know that our association has met, developed and discussed this proposal with Mr Adam Giles, Northern Territory member for Braitling and shadow Indigenous affairs minister, and I would encourage your office and department to work in a bipartisan manner to assist us achieve our goals’.
I will talk you through the response provided to that letter, received on 11 November, from the federal Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, thanking them for the letter and saying the Commonwealth and Territory governments were committed to increasing opportunities for home ownership for Indigenous people in Alice Springs town camps. It talked about some of the redevelopment works occurring with SIHIP. The letter said:
- While the land tenure issues progresses, the upgrading and construction of houses will continue. Any improvements to existing houses will not preclude private ownership of houses in the future.
It also said the minister understands staff from the Alice Springs Transformation Plan have discussed the issue already, and will continue to keep them informed of further developments and discussions. It also provided a contact officer.
The federal government seem to be somewhat receptive. I encouraged representatives of the association to talk to the Northern Territory government and brief the federal member for Lingiari about the matter, who I understand has since had a meeting with the association about the desire of these people. There will be many detractors who think it is not a good idea – they will think it is a land grab. The motivation behind this is anything but a land grab; this is an opportunity to set up an economic base. I have had conversations with the CEO of Tangentyere and believe this is an positive opportunity for Tangentyere to move into that development model if it wishes to do so.
I recognise this type of proposal is somewhat of a paradigm shift in a person’s thinking of town camp redevelopment or the readjustment of land tenure, or Indigenous home ownership or housing in Australia. It is something many people are calling for in a negative way; however this is something we should warmly embrace. There has been much debate yesterday and today about Imparja being an independent board of Indigenous Australians who are moving down that self-determination model. This model came about by these people approaching me. They wanted to do this; they believe it is a good idea. More and more people are coming forward as they start to embrace the economic paradigm, which is the future for Indigenous Australians. As a parliament, we should warmly embrace this proposal. The words of the motion are not rock solid - anything is fluid. To embrace it and move forward would be a positive step.
I recently had a briefing from the minister’s office on Indigenous policy in general. I asked whether the minister had been briefed on this proposal and was advised the minister had been. I understand the government is supportive of this proposal so I hope the minister is responsive to progressing this.
The reason the motion was written this way is because the Larapinta Valley Town Camp Housing Association, as relayed to me, does not have the resources to financially drive it. It would like support from the Northern Territory government, in principle, to move forward with negotiations. Not a be-all and end-all - to progress anything like this needs a project manager. It is not my job; my job is to provide ideas, advice and help progress this.
I recognise the motion says to provide resources and help employ a project officer. I am not always a big supporter of project officers per se. Quite often it is not the best money spent. In this regard, with good terms of reference and sound guidance on how to move forward with this model if the government were to support it, money would be well spent; either that or supporting provision of a public sector employee from somewhere who would be directed to help drive this process forward. That would be good. Heaven knows - it could go nowhere. It may get to any number of hurdles, and the association and its members pull the pin. What the government can learn from the process for Northern Territory community living areas, town camps and growth towns would provide valuable information on how to progress these things in the future.
Going through the maze of leases and legal battles about how this would work and how native title might fit into different scenarios would be good learning - it has not been tried before. I stand to be corrected by the minister. We could see positive advantages for this. The opportunity to have money set aside for kids to go interstate for education is a positive thing - not all kids; for some kids it is a positive thing. Letting these people self-determine and move to the direction they want to is a positive step.
I will not talk any more as I want to hear from the minister and anyone else who wants to contribute to the debate.
I confirm this is not an attack on Tangentyere; it is not an attack on the town camps. It is a moving forward - not a Julia Gillard move forward, a moving forward opportunity for town camps to break the paradigm in Indigenous affairs of the current model of housing. It is also an opportunity to start breaking that life cycle in Indigenous affairs, particularly around housing. I look forward to other comments.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing forward this motion and acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the CE of Tangentyere Council, Mr Walter Shaw, and Barb Shaw, a resident of the town camps in Alice Springs and a very strong advocate for town campers.
I have no dispute with what the member for Braitling said regarding the motivation of this motion. My own experience is that I began my life in a Territory Housing dwelling, and still live there some 20-odd years later, obviously having to go down the path of home ownership. It is a journey I have had to take on a personal level; I applaud home ownership and am a very strong advocate of it.
The Northern Territory government fully supports the aspirations of town camp residents for home ownership. It is a key aim of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. I acknowledge the members for Braitling and Araluen have both had briefings on the transformation plan, and the member for Braitling touched on the home ownership issue in that briefing.
This government is committed to creating opportunities for people living in town camps, and the commitment is reflected in the home ownership section of the Town Camp Subleases, section 13.
Mechanisms to enable individuals in town camps to purchase their homes are being investigated in conjunction with the Executive Director of Township Leasing, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. As the member for Braitling rightly pointed out, there are many complex technical, legal and legislative issues which need to be addressed to enable a pathway to home ownership for town campers. He touched on some of those complex issues, including looking at extinguishing native title if and where it exists, and possible compensation issues; questions around converting underlying Crown lease tenure; legislative prohibition on the subdivision of a special purpose lease, the need to amend head lease purposes; and to decide whether to subdivide or not. They are complex issues and much work needs to be done to open the doors of opportunity for town campers.
To assist in addressing these issues, a working group involving the heads of relevant NT government agencies has been set up under the transformation plan to progress arrangements to enable home ownership on town camps to become a reality. This working party meets monthly, and is currently developing a paper which fully outlines the legal issues and some of the complex issues I have outlined.
The member for Braitling, quite rightly, pointed to a great model we are seeing unfold in Alice Springs with the residents of Ilpiye-Ilpiye town camp. Ilpiye-Ilpiye town camp is one where residents are looking forward to a future of owning their own homes. I visited Ilpiye-Ilpiye with the federal minister at the time of the announcement of their land tenure, and sat down under the bower shed with residents and looked at the concept designs they have for subdividing Ilpiye-Ilpiye. At the very forefront of their minds is seeing their children and grandchildren being able to buy their own homes in a new subdivision on their own land.
Ilpiye-Ilpiye was converted to freehold land to facilitate future home ownership at the instigation of the residents. Consultants are working with the Ilpiye-Ilpiye residents and stakeholders on developing a master plan. I saw an earlier version of the concept plan, and also a financial model and risk assessment to guide future strategic planning, housing, and urban design features of this estate under the new tenure arrangements.
The three-stage master plan will incorporate the housing and infrastructure works already committed through SIHIP, and identify development options for the next 10 to 30 years. Consultation is ongoing with the residents around housing designs, home ownership and estate management options for the Ilpiye-Ilpiye community.
Further meetings are planned with the Alice Springs Town Council and the Northern Territory government on civil works scoping, approvals, and statutory requirements. As you can see, the NT and Australian governments are well-progressed in enabling home ownership on Alice Springs town camps with the very first one being at Ilpiye-Ilpiye. The process of making available housing lots for home ownership is a reasonably involved exercise and requires the Northern Territory government to work with a number of stakeholders to find the most appropriate pathway, and one that is supported by the residents is very important.
I say: ‘Well done’ to the member of Braitling. He raised this with me previously regarding the opportunities he saw for this land at Larapinta. As he said, the residents at Larapinta Valley approached him. I congratulate those residents who are looking at that model and thinking broadly and creatively about home ownership.
Unfortunately, unlike Ilpiye-Ilpiye, the Larapinta Valley community and housing associations are divided over the model being put forward by one sector of the community. By no way am I having a shot at anyone here; however, I table a letter also. I have asked Walter if I can table it on behalf of the residents who have signed it. I also received a copy of the letter from Daniel Forrester, but I will table the one from the other concerned residents of Larapinta Valley town camp.
I quickly touch on some of the issues they have raised. They feel they have not been adequately consulted over this model. They feel strongly regarding their land; about wanting to see sacred sites protected, and also the safety and future of their children - very similar concerns to the letter from the other residents. There is some common ground. In community discussions about how they should develop and move forward with this model, they raised some issues. So, I am happy to table that from those residents.
Regarding the Larapinta model, I have also read the letter from them and acknowledge some of the issues the member for Braitling has touched on. One of the things they are looking at - and I applaud them for it - is an education fund. Wanting to see the best schooling possible for their children is very much applauded. I had the opportunity to go to boarding school and gain a very good education - I can see the benefits of that. I congratulate them on that vision they have for their children.
The model for Larapinta the member for Braitling talked about involves amending the special purpose lease to allow a 99-year lease over existing housing, and the housing association entering into a commercial arrangement with a developer over the remaining lease. That is a concern expressed in the letter I have just tabled. The letter is signed by 33 people stating they are also residents of Larapinta Valley town camp. It was sent to the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs and the federal member for Lingiari in December 2010 stating they did not want to support the views expressed in the letter from the housing association.
I applaud this; however, it is a very complex issue and there is still much work to be done in consulting with the broader community of Larapinta. I was happy to speak to the member for Araluen, the local member, and she spoke to Mervyn Rubuntja this afternoon. I am keen to see what the member for Araluen thinks about these models. I do not doubt the motivations of the people and the motivations of this motion brought forward by the member for Braitling. However, given the complex nature, particularly around land tenure, and there is still division and people feel they are not being included in this, is reason to say we do not support the motion in its current form.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. It does not surprise me - maybe it does a little - I thought the government might have been slightly responsive. For those people who wanted to drive some change in Larapinta Valley town camp it is unfortunate. There are people who are not fully on board, but that is part of the process of consultation and driving change. That is something you, as Minister for Central Australia and someone who has a vested interest in this, could have been part of. It is quite unfortunate, but onwards and upwards.
When I worked in the public service 10 years ago we had a slogan: ‘We do not have problems, we have solutions’, and this is an opportunity to drive some reform forward. It does not mean everything will work. It does not mean you will necessarily reach the end gain. However, you can still move one foot forward and support people who want to drive change in Indigenous affairs, Aboriginal people themselves - you have to embrace that. No matter who wanted the change, it reaffirms to me the real commitment government has to policy reform in this area.
It is going to be a long and continued battle to get reforms in the Northern Territory. We are the last frontier in Australia. We are the worst performers in Indigenous affairs, and any time you have an opportunity to embrace economic policy reform for Aboriginal people, you should take it, especially when you have people on both sides of the Chamber who want to help. I have not heard anything from government in the last two days to drive forward any positive policy reform to help Aboriginal kids in the Territory, or Alice Springs in particular.
The Chief Minister spoke about pouring more grog down people’s throats and all this argy-bargy about alcohol and whether you support prohibition or not. I have not heard anything about children’s futures. I have not heard any positive steps about where jobs may be created or how a kid might be able to get a positive start in life. I am not necessarily disappointed for myself that you have not embraced this. I am disappointed that people stuck their neck on the line and tried to get some change, and I am disappointed for those kids who might have been able to get some money. At the end of the day it is a long road; they might have been able to get some money to send them interstate to receive a good education so they could come back and have jobs like you. It is very upsetting.
People say self-determination, as a policy, has failed. I do not believe that. Yes, there have been some problems - there are always road bumps, always hiccups, but whenever a blackfella has a go he is always dragged back to the bottom. I am not going to go over old ground about the Imparja board – it is independent. This is the same thing - a similar vein. These people want to have a go and drive change.
There is no economy in any Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. You have been here for 10 years; we were in for 27 years prior to that. We can go back as many years as we want. We have to start somewhere. The growth town approach is creating 20 welfare towns until someone - you are in power; I cannot do it, because I would do it. I am an action man and believe in change. However, until someone on your side gets some gusto - some guts - and does something, there is no industry in any of the growth towns - not one industry.
We had a debate today about uranium and the government has tried to wedge us. I did not talk on this issue, but the member for Nelson had a fantastic debate; he made a wonderful contribution. He spoke about the business aspect of Alice Springs dying and moving towards a service town.
We do not have an industry any longer. We have retail and a little tourism, but we are welfare driven. Alice Springs is being turned into a really large growth town. We need industry. I am not advocating for or against the uranium mine - we need industry. Communities need industry. The opportunity for Larapinta Valley town camp to help start a construction industry would have been good because we do not have that in town because of the small number of houses being built on the small amount of land that is subdivided.
I feel for those people who stuck their neck out. I have no doubt they will be persecuted by the Labor machine for many years to come. I feel for the men and women who would have benefited. I feel for the kids who might have had a better chance in life and a better opportunity for a future. However, it is the Labor way.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
- Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Failure by Northern Territory and Federal Governments to Address Crime and Antisocial Behaviour in Alice Springs
Failure by Northern Territory and Federal Governments to Address Crime and Antisocial Behaviour in Alice Springs
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
That this parliament condemn –
- (a) the Northern Territory and Australian governments for their failures to present short-, medium- and long-term strategies to the problems being faced by businesses and residents of Alice Springs as a result of the increasing crime and antisocial behaviour across the town; and
(b) the Minister for Central Australia for failing to provide leadership for Central Australia on these issues.
Madam Speaker, we have just seen a perfect example of failure to provide leadership. I am not going to bang on about all the issues in town; about windows being broken, grog being stolen and women being raped. I will not talk about that.
I will start by talking about part (b) of the motion regarding leadership. Many times hard decisions are made. There has been much negative comment about the intervention in the Northern Territory by a small sector of people who are anti-grog reform, anti-quarantining and anti-intervention.
A fortnight ago tonight, at the request of the ambulance service, I had the opportunity to be an observer in the back of an ambulance. I sat in the back of the ambulance and travelled from depot to location and then to the hospital. Travelling with the paramedics was a fantastic opportunity to see their skill level, their professionalism and their interaction with the police, who are always in an intense situation at a highly professional level. The service provided by staff of the emergency department at the Alice Springs Hospital was fantastic. Everyone seems to get on. I do not know how they do it, but they do. It was really good.
The shift I observed went from 6 pm until midnight. No sooner had it started, probably about 6.20 pm, the first call came in, a Code 1. The police were helping a lady in Eastside - not a town camp, but in Eastside - I will not say exactly where. We turned up in the ambulance, lights a’blazing, to find two officers outside a block of public housing flats with a lady on the ground, blood coming out of her head. They had attempted to put a bandage over her head to stop the bleeding. We parked the ambulance and went over to this lady. I stood back as an observer but saw what was going on. The ambulance officers tried to apply bandages in a better way. The lady was able to talk, in definite pain, and described what had happened. She had been beaten with either a tomahawk or a nulla nulla across the head. It split her head open, blood coming out everywhere - brains. He then proceeded, according to her, to beat her with some sort of metal grate.
We hear about domestic violence and about people, women in particular, being beaten up. In this instance, the bloke who beat this woman was a non-Aboriginal person - a white man - and they were both in some sort of drunken rage. It does not sound too different to other graphic stories we have heard before. Sitting in the back of the ambulance while the ambulance officer was working on this woman as we raced off to the emergency department of the hospital put it into perspective a little. You really start to grasp how bad life is for some people, because this was not a one-off event. This was a quiet night - the quietest night they had had in a long time. When you see the beatings people get - that was the first and the worst of the night I saw, albeit not the only one - it puts into perspective the need to continue to drive reform in the Northern Territory. There is no way any woman should be beaten to within an inch of her life. It was truly devastating and something that really touched me.
When we look at the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report Australia-wide, and look at Indigenous disadvantage in relation to Indigenous expenditure - I will quote from the Indigenous expenditure report and some comments I have received from Helen Hughes, from the Centre for Independent Studies. That report shows in 2008-09, the Australian government spent an estimated $22bn on Indigenous Australians: $17bn on Indigenous Australians accessing mainstream services and $5bn on specifically Indigenous programs. That works out to an average of $40 000 per Indigenous Australian per year compared with $18 000 per non-Indigenous Australian. If you think of a family of four – mum, dad and two kids - that is $160 000 a year spent by the Australian government on Indigenous Australians - on those four people in the family.
Those figures conceal - and I am using some of the words of Helen and Mark Hughes from the CIS - the scale of Indigenous expenditure because 60% of Indigenous Australians live, work or are part of major cities and regional towns and 60% of the Indigenous population equates to around 330 000. These are approximate figures. Many of these people access the same government services as other Australians - they pay taxes. When you look at $40 000 for Indigenous Australian versus $18 000 for non-Indigenous, then re-categorise and say if 60% of the population of about 330 000 fall into the mainstream category the figures start to change dramatically, because that leaves about 215 000 Indigenous Australians on welfare. This relates to this motion, Madam Speaker - I am bringing it back.
That relates to about 215 000 Indigenous Australians dependent on welfare. Most of those 215 000 Indigenous Australians on welfare also live in major cities and regional towns. The remainder, 75 000, live in very remote communities. The average government expenditure on welfare-dependent Indigenous Australians is about $75 000 per head, or $300 000 for a family of four, per annum. If it is mum and dad and four kids - many Indigenous families have high numbers of children. That works out to be about $450 000 per year government is spending on people.
Those figures do not tell the real story, because urban welfare-dependent Indigenous Australians access similar services to non-Indigenous welfare recipients. Most Indigenous funding is supposed to go to the 75 000 Indigenous Australians in remote communities. Government expenditure allocated at 75 000 Indigenous Australians equates to an estimated $100 000 per person, or around $400 000 per family of four, if you count the parents and the kids equally with mum and dad and two kids. It is very interesting to look at some of this. If you have a man and woman and four kids living in remote Northern Territory both on welfare, it is quite easy to assume about $600 000 is being spent by government in some way, shape or form on those people. Whether it is bureaucrats, consultants, or renting of buildings to run the Aboriginal affairs department, the estimated cost is about $100 000 per person, or $600 000 for a family of six, per annum.
You have to equate that as ridiculous money, and think back to when people were advocating for a treaty. I never supported a treaty, however, the idea of giving someone $600 000 and saying: Go away, never come back’, is not a bad idea. ‘Do not come back to government’; or, ‘Here is $600 000, buy yourself a house in the leafy suburbs of Melbourne or Sydney’. Even in Alice Springs, $600 000 should still get you a three-bedroom house.
When you look at that you ask yourself what has gone wrong. We are spending, if it is true - I believe my figures to be true, in consultation with CIS - about $100 000 per person, or $600 000 for a family of six. You start asking why the NAPLAN results are so bad; why school attendance rates are so bad. How come no one seems to be working, or own their own home? We are spending $600 000 a year on a family of six - $100 000 per year per person - barely anyone is going to school - I am generalising - barely anyone is working, barely anyone is in employment or training, or barely anyone is buying their own house. People are relying on welfare and public housing. It seems we have the whole system wrong.
We have just debated the opportunities for people to progress to a home ownership model in a town camp in Alice Springs, something to provide real economic reform. That debate was not just about home ownership, private rental, or even public housing on that town camp or community living area. There has to be opportunities. We have to start thinking about land tenure in the Northern Territory, land trusts and how it all works, then put that into perspective with the big bureaucracy in Canberra and the debates we continue to have.
I mentioned self-determination earlier tonight. Look at the child protection system, the Little Children are Sacred report, where we heard horrifying sexual accounts of children in the Northern Territory, and cast your mind back to that great, big, white hope, Gough Whitlam, when he handed that dirt over to Mr Lingiari in the west of the Territory around the same time people had walked off their jobs in the cattle industry. Everything seemed to go downhill from there.
There have been some successes; the member for Stuart is a good example of someone who has an education and a solid job. There are exceptions and not everything is doom and gloom. However, when you have schools with 40% attendance and unemployment rates well over 50% to 60% in some locations, huge numbers of people on CDEP and chronic alcoholics, that lady who had her brains hanging out in the back of the ambulance, we have to think over the last 30 or 40 years we have got Aboriginal policy completely wrong.
Then you have to ask: how do we fix this? Is this just some big behemoth? Six hundred thousand dollars per year - 10 years is $6m dollars spent on a family of six. That is $6m dollars of taxpayers’ dollars. There has to be some accountability in this argument. What are the results of all this failure? The results are what we see on the streets of Alice Springs and the failure to address the issues: the people who break into Club Eastside as it is now called; the people who get into the Rock Bar and take the UDL or pre-mix drinks; the man who beats up his wife with a nulla nulla or a tomahawk and a metal grate. This is the result and what we are grappling with.
People like me who are passionate about this industry and these issues talk about it on a national and international stage at times, or locally, or come here with a reformist approach for town camps and get knocked on the head. Who are we kidding? We are fiddling around the edges. You cannot point to one thing. The real issue is the left have controlled Aboriginal affairs for 30 or 40 years. The left controlled it tonight. We had an opportunity for a progressive economic approach to a situation in Alice Springs. The left controlled debate on everything. The federal minister for Indigenous Affairs is from the left; the member for Lingiari is from the left. I would like to see someone like Martin Ferguson - strange bedfellow, member for Fong Lim - take over and start driving reform because that is what we need. Bring back Gary Johns; he talks sense.
For the last 30 or 40 years the policies have failed the Northern Territory. Unless you are going to start tinkering around the edges on a whole range of issues, there will not be fundamental change and there will not be corrections to the systems in Alice Springs. You will kill the town. It may be a slow and painful death, and it may take years to recuperate. However, if you are not prepared to make those small changes - someone needs to come in with a big spatula and flip the industry upside down; throw all the policy out and start again. Say this is a failure; we have had a couple of wins here and there but it has failed; it is broken.
Look at how many public servants work in the industry of Indigenous affairs. They thrive off it; there are experts everywhere. When you go to an Indigenous affairs meeting there are more bureaucrats than Indigenous people.
Sidetracking for a moment, when you attend a meeting in the communities they are always held in the middle of the day so no one can work and the kids leave school to go to the meetings.
The way some things work is fundamentally crazy. It is interesting to go through the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report and see exactly where the money has been spent. Most of the money goes to social and welfare programs, a fair amount to education, and a fair amount to health. Nothing goes to Indigenous economic participation, labour and employment.
I do not want to read the report incorrectly - I am sure I have it right. Figure 5 from the overview of the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report looks at part (c), economic participation, where $6300 per year is spent - I am happy to be corrected if I have wrong - $6300 per person per year on direct social security payment, and $1800 per year on labour and employment costs. We are spending more than three times the amount on social security rather than employment. When you go through the report you see the money skewed towards social services rather than the economic approach. That is the difference between the left and the right.
If we want to see fundamental changes in Alice Springs that support this motion condemning the Territory and Australian governments for their failure to present short-, medium- and long-term strategies, we have to effect short-, medium- and long-term policy reform. There has to be tinkering around the edges for a policy context of reform and implementation, or flip the thing upside down and say you have failed for 30 or 40 years. You have failed; you have it wrong. It is nothing personal; you have it completely wrong. You have to flip it on its head because that is exactly what has happened.
How do you move forward from this? I cannot lead this debate from opposition sitting in Alice Springs, a small regional town of Australia. You have to be in government. It has to be three or fourfold. I have called, on many occasions, for the Minister for Central Australia to be sacked - he should be; he has not done his job. I do not say that as a snide remark or a nasty comment. He has not done his job. Sure, I play football with him, I have a beer with him, I have a chat with him. However, in an environment when you are charged with powers under the Crown to make reform for the people, that is what you are there to do. It is not just to receive a salary; not just to be elected. He is not the only person to blame; he should not shoulder all the responsibility, but you have to lead.
The same can be said, but much more, for the member for Lingiari who has been here for 25 years. The seat of Lingiari looks after all the Northern Territory and the islands except for Darwin. That is where the biggest policy failure has been. That is where the left has controlled the industry for the last 25 years under his term of engagement. I stood against him on the economic approach of getting people off the dole and into jobs. I had my butt kicked in certain areas, as the member for Johnston likes to remind me. I am sure the members for Johnston and Casuarina would agree that this is part of the solution to economic reform - get people off the dole, get them working, and develop industries in the growth towns.
Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, has been the biggest failure in this whole debate. The 30 to 40 years of policy failure in the Northern Territory in Indigenous affairs has been exacerbated by his reluctance to lead and his position being on the left rather than the right. If we had people developing jobs things would happen.
I spoke in this Chamber yesterday about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Minister for Central Australia spoke about it in the most recent debate. What does it transform? It is just $150m being spent. What is $150m between friends? Yes, we have a few programs, and I have nothing against those employees in those programs. Yes, we have more money for administration, more money for buildings, and more money for a CEO. That money goes towards the $600 000 per annum for that family of six. The $100m being spent on the town camp redevelopment for 64 new buildings - 43 three-bedroom and 21 four-bedroom and the two-by-two duplexes goes into the mix. There are about 23 Indigenous people working on that town camp redevelopment. I have met and helped quite a number of them. However, $100m for 23 short-term jobs is pretty good money, considering they are paid award wages. That is all counted as Aboriginal money; it is all part of the mix. This report reflects the 2008-09 year so, as the increased spend from the intervention comes forward, we will see the $40 000 average for all Indigenous Australians change.
I will hark a little on the Closing the Gap statement. This is when there was a 17- or 19-year life expectancy gap under the Howard government, but, when the Rudd government took over it become a nine- to 11-year gap. It must have made changes overnight or had really good accounting methods. Either way, the federal government talked about improvements in the gap. The gap relates to what I spoke about earlier: how the money is disbursed. More money is spent in the bush than in the big cities where more people work and have access to mainstream services, and so forth.
The gap might appear to be more of a level playing field, but it is much closer in Sydney and Melbourne. In Sydney, where you have the biggest Indigenous population in Australia, the urban areas have the gap closed the most. However, in rural and remote areas such as the Northern Territory, the gap is enormous. So, it is fruitless talking about closing the gap in the Northern Territory.
I will come to an end. I have not banged on about Alice Springs because I look at things in a holistic manner. It is not just about saying: ‘People are breaking in’. Yes, I know people are breaking in and need to be taken off the streets. It is also about providing solutions so they do not break in next time, and the next person does not break in, and the next.
If we want to get things happening in town, get people working, get them off the dole and give them responsibility. With free housing, free health, free education, free grog money, why do anything else? Pay me to drink - I will go home and drink. I like Jack Daniels and lemonade. You have to run reform.
Part (b) of this motion condemns the Minister for Central Australia for failing to provide leadership. Why not also condemn the member for Lingiari for his 25-year tenure of failure to lead in the Northern Territory, and his absolute abject failure in developing any economy in the Northern Territory. There is not one in any of the growth towns, and there are no private sector jobs in communities in the bush.
Something fundamentally needs to change and, if this government is not going to do it, wait until the Country Liberals get into government. It will wait until we have a Country Liberals member for Lingiari to drive reform. We will not be popular; people will not be happy, but in the long run, when kids are getting an education, when people have a career, and when you do not have to sit in the back of an ambulance and watch someone’s brains being spilled over a blanket, you might feel positive about it.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the member’s motion but, first of all, I compliment the member and commend him. He went out with the ambulance crew and saw firsthand the terrible things going on in Alice Springs and, indeed, across the Territory. Who could not help but be moved and sobered by what you saw and experienced that night, member for Braitling.
Apart from the political bits at the beginning and end in your offering, you made a very thoughtful contribution. In essence - and I am not trying to verbal you - you are raising large question marks about Indigenous expenditure, its effectiveness, and its lack of effectiveness over the past 40 years, if I recall correctly what you said. You may have even mentioned a longer time frame.
This is a very important issue which needs to be debated - taxpayers’ money is precious. Over the years we have seen many wasteful episodes, not just in Indigenous affairs, but elsewhere. You and I have debated at length SIHIP, and we will continue to debate that program. It will be spoken about, written about and analysed for many years to come.
If I could quote from the book, King Brown Country - I am not here tonight to talk about the subject of King Brown Country - the subject meaning the person - this book is very important in that it is a window into Indigenous policy in Australia, and the failures of Indigenous policy in the past 40 years within this country. I will read what Russell Skelton says at the end of his book:
- I did not set out to write a definitive history of Papunya. I did not immerse myself in the community as an anthropologist might and write from the perspective of those who live there. My approach was that of a foreign correspondent shocked by what I had encountered in what was then an unfamiliar land and who then tried to make sense of it. Inevitably, my focus fell on the swirling social and political forces that shape community politics and public policies. The more I researched, the more Papunya became a metaphor for all that has gone wrong with Indigenous policy since the 1970s, but that was overtaken by a massive ground shift in Indigenous policy, the Northern Territory emergency Intervention.
I agree with what Russell Skelton had to say in this book, and I agree with the member for Braitling in general terms on this issue, because there have been waves of failures in policies over the years in Indigenous affairs. Where I might disagree a little with the member for Braitling is when he talked about the predominance of the left in Indigenous affairs.
I recall Malcolm Fraser was very instrumental. Gough Whitlam, from memory, and I might stand corrected here, introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which was subsequently passed by the Fraser government. Indeed, Malcolm Fraser is seen by many on the right as being a lefty and an apologist for those sorts of policies within Aboriginal affairs.
Over many years, from both sides of politics, people of goodwill have endeavoured to improve the lot and welfare of Indigenous people, and everyone in this Chamber would share that as an aim, from both sides of politics. There has been a mixture of federal Indigenous Affairs ministers over the years - and I will not mention the lesser lights. However, Fred Chaney stands out as someone with integrity, someone with the best interests of Indigenous people at heart, and is seen with much respect in Indigenous affairs.
These good intentions, unfortunately, have not been matched with results. We look at Indigenous communities, the ones I travel to - like the member for Blain, I have been out and about for a long time. I have seen what the member for Blain talked about. I have not lived it, but I have certainly seen it, and have pondered on it. Some of the things I have seen, heard and experienced have had a deep effect on me. There have also been many people over many years who have dedicated their lives - people in health clinics, nurses, remote nurses who have been on the ground, some of them, for over 30 years when a doctor would not even go near the place.
It was not like it is now, and it is still very hard to get doctors on remote communities, but the nurses did it. Nurses saw people into the world and saw people out of the world. Over many years there have been dedicated teachers trying to improve the lives of Indigenous people. I guess administrators get a bad name. I can name quite a few administrators over many years who have tried their best, from Harry Giese to a whole range of people.
As the member for Braitling said, unfortunately there has been some dead weight in the saddlebags for some time. I know one particular officer who was in the Native Affairs Branch, in DAA and then ATSIC. The locals used to call him - I will not say his first name because he is probably known to people in this Chamber – Mr Furniture. He was part of the furniture in Native Affairs and the names kept changing but Mr Furniture was there and he, in their view, did not do much.
We see the exemplification of that now with some aspects of the intervention and people have pointed to the fact that an incredible number of Commonwealth public servants have come to the Territory as a result of the intervention. Jokingly, some people refer to the Thursday night direct flight between Darwin and Canberra as ‘the intervention express’. I am not convinced, good people that they may be, that an army of public servants from Canberra is going to turn around the situation for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
I suggest at another level, as I have in this House before, what we are seeing in the Northern Territory for Indigenous people, and for towns like Alice Springs, is profound social change. We have talked about the urban drift, a feature for decades. The urban drift in the last three to four years has become an absolute flood - a torrent.
When I first came to the Territory over 30 years ago and lived in Maningrida it was a big event for Indigenous people to go to Darwin. It was a really big event and not many people went to Darwin unless it was for medical reasons, or occasionally a sporting trip. That all changed with changes in the social security system. I agree in many aspects with the member for Braitling, that we need to look at the social security system because it has fuelled many of the problems we see now.
Underlying that, and one thing I have always been convinced about and where we are at one, is economies in those remote communities; about real jobs and the value of real work for Indigenous people, particularly, young people. That gives direction in life and meaning to life, and makes people feel good about themselves and the fact they are giving back to their community.
Many times I have seen the cycle of councils and organisations functioning and then suddenly, for whatever reason, it all falls flat on its face. Whether the cycle of funding is withdrawn, the CEO leaves, or there is trouble in the town, everything seems to fall into a heap. I have shared the disappointment of Indigenous people on remote communities when things were humming and going really well and then fall in a heap. I can understand how people become disheartened.
I return to the theme of profound social change which I have mentioned in the House before. I was interested to hear the member for Nelson talk about it in the same terms recently, likening it to the Industrial Revolution in Europe where there was a flood of people from the rural areas into the towns, into squalor, disease, alcoholism, violence and the wretchedness of that. The member for Nelson did not talk about the smoking ruins of post-war Europe; the wretchedness of alcoholism that occurred until those countries got back on their feet.
We are seeing profound social change with Indigenous people. I do not pretend to understand it fully, member for Braitling, but I recognise it and acknowledge the first person I had heard talking about it was Professor John Mathews from the Menzies school. I listened hard because this profound social change which was occurring struck a chord with me. As politicians and as a community, we have to ensure we put the best policies in place to address this issue.
Mal Brough brought the intervention, and I do not disagree - the system needed profound change and a great big shake up. In a number of ways the intervention has been very beneficial to the Northern Territory and a number of communities. However, the one thing I have always seen in policies and Indigenous people has been a two-edged sword. There are negatives. The urban drift that has accompanied it - the member for Fong Lim thinks it is a desirable thing; it is not desirable the way it has occurred, and the people of Alice Springs do not appreciate it. It is not desirable to have people living in the conditions they are.
We are endeavouring to build houses in remote communities although it may not be as efficient or effective as the member for Braitling would want. We are, as a government, endeavouring to lift the bar in achievement in education, and I will be introducing a bill into this House tomorrow around attendance - a very difficult issue but we must try.
One thing I have learnt about the intervention, whilst it had positive effects, it has also had a massive disengaging effect with people feeling completely powerless and disengaged. That is not a healthy thing and we have to work hard to engage people again.
The second intervention Tony Abbott is proposing is not the way to go because a second intervention in Alice Springs is really a mop-up of the deleterious effects of the first intervention. As Skelton pointed out, there has been wave upon wave of policy, often well-intentioned; however, there is always an effect with these policies. I acknowledge it would be difficult with our education and alcohol policies because people always find a way around these things. They are ingenious, but we have to have a go and work with people to achieve that.
You mentioned the 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report, member for Braitling, a very important issue. It is produced by the Council of Australian Governments to gain some clarity around Indigenous expenditure throughout Australia. What I latch onto is in 2008-09, expenditure related to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory was $2.16bn, or 53.9% of general government expenditure. In comparison, Indigenous people comprised about 30.4% of the Territory’s population. We are spending nearly 54% of government expenditure on approximately 31% of the population. That is because these people are sick - they have multiple illnesses. When they are admitted to hospital they are likely to have many co-existing illnesses that require more attention.
We have a dispersed population and there are many reasons for that. I am not pretending, on a per capita basis, the Northern Territory spends the highest of all Australian jurisdictions. We are up there in our expenditure per capita by comparison, and in the Territory the expenditure on Indigenous people was 2.7 times higher than non-Indigenous people. Western Australia is 3.4; South Australia is 3.3; and Victoria is 2.9.
I can also say to the member for Braitling - and I am more than happy to table this attachment giving a breakdown of the expenditure - the share for Indigenous people in early childhood development, education and training within the Northern Territory is 52.5%. As you pointed out - it is a fair question, member for Braitling – a large amount of money. Where are the results? That is also a question, as minister, I am asking. That is why, as Education minister, I am embarking on a course in relation to equality in teaching agenda. That is why we are investing in a literacy and numeracy task force across the Northern Territory to lift literacy and numeracy scores, and why we are investing in early childhood. We want kids, particularly Indigenous kids, to be school ready. At present, they are not school ready.
The early childhood index indicates Indigenous kids, particularly those in remote parts of the Northern Territory, are not on a level footing with kids of the same age elsewhere in the Northern Territory if they are non-Indigenous kids, or elsewhere in Australia. That comes back to what you alluded to - the home environment where these kids are not being exposed to reading or writing. Those challenges that occur before kids go to school are not occurring so we have to build that capacity in Indigenous communities and, moreover, in Indigenous families because it comes back to the family. There are challenges and you were right to highlight them. They are very important challenges.
Turning to your motion, you ask parliament to condemn the Northern Territory and Australian governments for their failure to present short-, medium- and long-term strategies for the problems being faced by businesses and residents of Alice Springs as a result of the increasing crime and antisocial behaviour across the town.
I reject that part, member for Braitling. This government does have short-, medium- and longer-term strategies which include Closing the Gap and our engagement over a whole range of areas within Indigenous families and communities. We are more than supportive of businesses and residents in Alice Springs. There seems to be an idea that, as a Cabinet, we sit around and think of ways to torture Alice Springs residents - that is definitely not so – and we hate Alice Springs and Alice Springs residents. I assure you that is not so. As part of our Cabinet discussions, Alice Springs is front and centre.
The government wants to do the right thing by Alice Springs. It knows it will probably never win a seat in Alice Springs - it is not about that. It is about doing the right thing by Alice Springs and working with Alice Springs to solve the problems, which commenced when Clare Martin was Chief Minister. She was a great advocate for Alice Springs, spending in Alice Springs, and spending in the Central Australian region. Our current Chief Minister has exactly the same view.
We are doing our best, member for Braitling. You may think that best is not good enough. The challenge for you, if you form government and become part of government and part of Cabinet, is to solve these issues. It is pretty good when you are in opposition - it is easy to pick holes. It is harder when you have to take responsibility and steward your resources and efforts in the most effective way you can. That is a challenge you might have to rise to some time in the future, member for Braitling.
You also want to condemn the Minister for Central Australia for failing to provide leadership for Central Australia on these issues. The Minister for Central Australia is a very strong advocate for Alice Springs and Central Australia, as was his predecessor - his predecessor bar a couple - Peter Toyne. Peter Toyne was a passionate advocate for Alice. I can tell you coming into budget Cabinet, we would all say: ‘Oh well, here comes Toyney again’, and Toyney would get what Toyney wanted for Central Australia. The same exists with the member for Stuart: he is a very strong advocate for Central Australia.
To some degree, apart from the issues you raised regarding the Indigenous economic review, many of the issues you alluded to have been covered in debate in this House over the last day or so. In that context, government will not be supporting your motion. However, I place on the record that the broader policy and historical issues you raised in this House tonight are crucial. They are issues that successive governments, no matter what political colour, will have to wrestle with.
As Housing minister, I have laid it on the record time and time again, and I will again: in relation to Indigenous housing, and the arrears in Indigenous housing - because many of these problems go back to housing - arrears are so large it is going to take several decades to turn the tide, not only in the number of houses, but the long journey for people to understand tenancies and sustaining a tenancy, understand how to look after a house, and their responsibilities as tenants. This is a long journey and it will not be done in a few years. It is going to take decades, and it is going to take successive governments, whether it is Territory governments of whatever colour, or Commonwealth governments of whatever colour.
I will close on a conversation you have heard before, my conversation with Mal Brough at Mutitjulu at the opening of the police post. Mal Brough said he did not want intergenerational change. He wanted change over a couple of years and he was going to get that. I wished him well and told him what I told this House: over the years there have been many good people of goodwill from both sides of politics; many good people have been service providers in Indigenous communities and have applied themselves to the same issues Mal Brough was applying himself to. I said: ‘Mal, if the answers were easy it all would have been solved years ago’. The answers ain’t that easy, unfortunately.
We can simplify it, we can make it into a flat earth; however, it is not a flat earth. There are complexities. At one level it seems incredibly simple. All the cab drivers in Sydney have a solution to it. They will say: ‘You come from the Northern Territory, this is the solution’. There are flat earth solutions, but the longer we are here the more we recognise the challenges exemplified in Russell Skelton’s book, which I commend. I am not talking about the person the subject of this book; I am talking about what the book says about successive waves of policy and successive waves of administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks and say again that the government will not be supporting this motion.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that General Business will conclude at 10 pm.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was disappointed to learn from the minister that the government will not be supporting this motion. I am not surprised; condemning itself is not something government would agree too.
I thank the member for Braitling for introducing this motion, and for speaking on it the way he did. I join with the minister in congratulating and thanking the member for Braitling for the marvellous presentation he gave. He is obviously a person who feels deeply about these issues and has the interest of Indigenous Territorians, in particular, at heart.
I also thank the minister for the seriousness with which he treated the member for Braitling’s comments. You meet people in politics from all sides who grow into a job and, whilst my colleague, the member for Braitling, talked about the left and the right, I have been around long enough and studied enough to understand that some of the things that the minister said are right.
I am no fan of Gough Whitlam or the policies he imposed on Australia, and believe he is the cause of many of the ills we suffer today. No less responsible, though, were people like Malcolm Fraser and his Indigenous Affairs Minister, Ian Viner. I also have some great concerns with Fred Chaney, all of whom were on the Liberal side of politics.
On the other side of politics those magical luminaries Gary Johns and John Reeves - now a QC in the Federal Court - brought real rigour and promoted good debate in the area. It is not a matter of the left and the right; it is a matter of those who are practical and those who are not. The minister was right when he said the answers are not easy. The decisions are not easy, either, minister. In politics, anyone who makes decisions will naturally offend people, and people prepared to make decisions in the area of Indigenous affairs are constantly ridiculed and criticised - in most recent times Mal Brough and John Howard for the intervention. They were blasted right across the country for making those decisions.
The intervention is something I supported almost fully. There were aspects of the intervention I had concerns with which I spoke about this week. However, all in all, it was a brave move to call the emergency intervention into the Northern Territory. Mal Brough, and to some extent John Howard, paid the price for having the courage of their convictions and doing what many of us thought was the right thing.
I agree with the member for Braitling on a whole range of issues. We need to turn the tin upside down, throw the contents out and start from scratch because there is so much in the area of Indigenous affairs that is wrong. I have had a crusade over a number of years in relation to the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act - not that I have any grave concern about Aboriginal people owning land; it should be encouraged and there should be more of it. However, the way that act was imposed on the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth - I notice our Minister for Statehood is quite prepared to talk about the Commonwealth imposing restraints on euthanasia, imposing a nuclear waste facility on us, but rarely talks about the injustice done to the Northern Territory by the imposition of the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act. That is one of the great areas where the Commonwealth has absolutely, utterly, overstepped the mark.
We hear present and previous Labor Premiers all around the country talking about how wonderful the Aboriginal Lands Right (Northern Territory) Act is, but none of them will have a bar of it in their own state because it is too inhibiting and does not allow government, in so many ways, to act for what is in the best interest ultimately of all members of the public and, in particular, in many cases, Indigenous people.
That has been the case in the Northern Territory, and I know the hardships ministers of this government, and other governments, have had in determining locations for schools, police stations and health clinics because there is a new plethora of bureaucracy you have to negotiate with in order to do those things on Aboriginal land. It is very difficult to build a road, a school or a house you are not going to own, or even have a say in where that house, school or road will be located.
As a minister, every time you fail in that area people say you are failing as a government, you are failing as a minister. The reality is the underlying legislation and land tenure virtually prevents ministers and governments from doing many of the things we take for granted in normal society.
I was disappointed when, around 2003, the then Chief Minister was offered by the Commonwealth Indigenous Affairs minister, Philip Ruddock - another good Indigenous Affairs minister - patriation of the Land Rights Act, which meant the Territory government would have control over Territory Aboriginal land. For some completely unknown reason the Chief Minister refused to go there.
It is similar with the Statehood committee. The minute someone raises the issue of Aboriginal land suddenly the shutters come down, the barriers go up, and no one wants to talk about it like it is some sacred cow we cannot go near. All bets should be off, and we should reassess all these things because if we are ever going to deliver services to the bush it is crucial government has the ability to acquire land to build roads, schools, hospitals and all those things for the public good. With the current Land Rights Act that is very difficult and sometimes almost impossible.
I spoke earlier this week about alcohol restrictions of the Northern Territory intervention and I have a problem with that. I have a problem with the way government is operating as well. It is punishing the whole community for the misdeeds of a few, and whilst we have a few more than other parts of the country, ultimately, we are penalising decent human beings trying to go through their daily business by putting restrictions on them. In remote communities we need highly regulated and policed wet canteens where, if people want to have a social drink, they can. Similarly, in the towns and cities, if people want to have a social drink they should be encouraged to drink in a regulated place like a pub or a hotel. What should be discouraged is people going to the nearest Woolies, Coles, or corner store to purchase as much liquor as you can squeeze in the boot of your car, or carry under your arms, and head down to a local park where families want to take their kids, drink all day long and terrorise the neighbourhood. That needs to be stopped.
The minister mentioned the problems of housing. We need a complete rethink on this. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars building houses across the Territory which anyone will tell you will only last a few months and will be wrecked; it will be vandalised, demolished and pulled down. We are creating more expense building public houses. We are not seeing any subsidy or encouragement for people to get into home ownership. We have the First Home Owner Grant available around the Territory for first homeowners, although the thresholds make most out of the reach of first homeowners. However, there is something for mainstream people. For Indigenous people in remote communities, particularly ones who are looking at putting long-term leases on townships, there should be an incentive to buy a house.
For instance, if a house is going to cost $0.5m to build in a remote community, why is the government not putting up an incentive of $250 000 or $300 000 to enable a remote Indigenous person to buy their own home? The ongoing cost and maintenance then becomes the responsibility of that Indigenous person. For a little more than half the cost, government still gets a house on the ground. As Noel Pearson said, if you have to pay off a home and look after a home, you tend to have more respect for that home. Noel Pearson tells a story of his father, who built a house out of corrugated iron and fibro. He said it was nothing to look at but, as far as his father was concerned, it was his castle and he looked after it and treated it accordingly. He was very strict on people who wrecked it, painted the walls, or tried to ruin the toilets, or whatever. Clearly, continuing to build houses for people who are hell-bent on destroying them is an unstainable policy.
The minister said urban drift is not a desirable situation and I understand why he says that. We do not have facilities in urban centres to look after these people. Goodness me, we cannot even find accommodation for full-time workers. The chances of finding accommodation for people coming in from the bush looking for better education opportunities for their children, better employment opportunities, or better access to health facilities, is practically non-existent. To suggest people should continue to live in these hellholes in remote areas is completely wrong. I ask every member of parliament: who wants to live in one of these remote communities? Who, honestly, deep down in their heart, wants to live in one of these places? They are the ultimate hellhole in many cases. I love camping, but if you think I would enjoy living at Port Keats, you have another think coming …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Borroloola is a nice place and there is some good fishing. Tiwi Islands is a good place too with some good fishing. However, most of these communities are ghettos.
In my own electorate there is the community of Bagot. I could not imagine wanting to live in a place like that. I could not imagine wanting all of that filth and degradation around me; people who have no interest in caring for their house. I watched the 7.30 Report the other night on what goes on in those places. You think, my God, how do people do it? There has to be a much better way, and encouraging private home ownership makes far more sense than continuing the welfare cycle of providing free housing for everyone.
Profound social change is occurring. Certainly, in the last few years there has been a real change, particularly in Indigenous organisations around the Territory. In the Top End, the Katherine area, and some of the East Arnhem areas there are calls for new land councils. Aboriginal people are saying: ‘We want an economic future, we want economic development. We do not want to be tied down in these communities. We understand we need to find work and employment’. The problem with many remote communities in the Northern Territory is there is no economic base, and probably never will be.
The only answer is to encourage people to move to where there are jobs because, without a job, it is very hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, give your children a decent education, ensure you have proper health, have food on the table and have a balanced diet, and a reason for living. Without a job, it is abundantly easy get on the grog ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, the minister for Indigenous affairs is laughing at the fact you think it is not reasonable Indigenous people have a job. For God’s sakes, you are part of the problem ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It is embarrassing, and if there is ever a reason why this motion should be passed, you are part of it ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am quite disgusted at the reaction from the minister for Indigenous affairs. What a pathetic joke she is. She sits there giggling away when people are talking from the bottom of their heart, saying: ‘Oh, no, they do not need jobs, give them welfare’. This is the reason many Aboriginal people are in trouble ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This is half the reason people in Alice Springs are so fed up - we have ministers who refuse to change. They grip onto the old socialist days where we believe in the noble savage: put him out into the country and let him somehow survive, feed him welfare money and encourage him back to country, as they call it. Back to country, what a joke! These are the people we are dealing with and the member for Braitling raised this motion.
The member for Johnston should be the minister for Indigenous affairs because the one we have is a pathetic wreck. You have the audacity to say you speak for Indigenous people - you are a joke ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his comments through you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, Leader of Government Business. Please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The same comments apply to the Minister for Central Australia because he is another one. He is a nice bloke, she is a nice girl; however, they are failures. The minister for Housing says he cannot support this motion because the Minister for Central Australia is a great advocate - we are not talking about a great advocate. The motion is about failing to provide leadership. Where is the leadership from any of these people? There is none - zero. There is none from the minister for Indigenous affairs, none from the member for Stuart and none from the member for Arafura. These people are dinosaurs living in the past. We need fresh ideas, which is exactly what the member for Braitling is calling for.
I will be very interested to see if the members for Arnhem, Arafura or Stuart have an input into this debate because they are all failures. They are moribund of ideas, they are losers, they are pathetic and are perpetuating the problems Aboriginal people have in this society, and the sooner they are condemned, the better.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, bear in mind the House will go into adjournment shortly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Yes, Madam Speaker, I am aware, thank you.
Over the last couple of days I have listened very closely, and I listened closely to the Leader of Government Business on this issue. One of the inherent problems with the left intelligentsia still having the death grip they have on Indigenous affairs can be captured by several comments he made. I was quite surprised the Leader of Government Business would assert to this House that it will take two generations to teach a person how to clean a home. If that is the benchmark we are setting ourselves for achievement in Aboriginal affairs, we are setting a very low benchmark indeed.
What this motion drives at is there is something fundamentally wrong about the presumptions we have constructed in the Aboriginal affairs approach, and the presumption is that we have to fix it. I can well understand why people are moved to fix it. The Leader of Government Business articulated the concept. Many good people, he said, from both sides of the House, have endeavoured to achieve outcomes for Aboriginal people. I can guarantee you will, at the outset, set yourself up to fail if you seek to achieve an outcome for another person. If you do so, you are immediately locked into a welfare mentality.
I seek for Aboriginal people economic integration with the greater community and, to that end, changes have to be made which attack the very heart of the presumption we have to do things for other people. The more we try to do things for other people, the less success we have. Welfare itself, which we have heard discussed at some length in this House, demonstrates clearly when you do things for other people and expect them not to contribute to that process themselves, the effect is instant dependence.
I listened carefully to the comments about the need to build Aboriginal housing. Why do we need to build Aboriginal housing? Why are Aboriginal people incapable, being the largest landowners in the Northern Territory, of building their own homes?
The economic fortress which is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has created an environment where Aboriginal land is about as easy to invest in as North Korea. It is isolated, it is distant, and it is not attractive to any form of investment. It scares investment money away.
We hear comments, like the Minister for Central Australia recently, congratulating a person with a new house at Hidden Valley camp, which was given to them so that they could improve their lifestyle. This person, I am told, is proud of the house, and I do not doubt that. The minister congratulated this person for keeping the house clean. That is good but surely that is a base level expectation. A higher expectation is people buy their own homes. They get a loan because they have a job and can buy their own homes in Hidden Valley camp, because it is freehold title, or they can buy their own homes on Aboriginal land because there is a usable, existing, tradeable commodity in the form of a lease, preferably a 99-year lease, and that way you can guarantee the ongoing value of the property. The problem with a 40-year lease is you are already starting to erode the value of the lease by virtue of the brevity of its term.
These are the arrangements that need to be put in place so investment money can find its way into remote communities. There are many examples I could point to where investment money has attempted to get into communities, but unfortunately, the dual effect of the operation of the Land Rights Act and the gatekeepers who form the land councils has prevented that investment money from finding its way into remote communities.
Small wonder when you step over the boundary of a cattle station into a land trust, you step from the first to the third world in a single pace. You can step over that boundary, climb over the fence, or where the fence does not exist just step over, and you are stepping away from a piece of land which generates wealth and income on to another piece of land which is a wasteland economically. Why? Because we have sought to protect Aboriginal people from economic advancement, exploitation and the evils of white society. There would not be a person in this room who advocates the removal of land from Aboriginal people - I am happy they own land. I do not care who owns land. I care that through the interference of parliaments like this one, and the federal parliament, those landowners are deprived of the capacity to make any effective choice to incorporate themselves into the general economy of this country.
Talk about the abject failure of policy. Why? Because we are doing this for Aboriginal people. We are protecting Aboriginal people from themselves? We do not trust the decisions they make and, more importantly, when they make the wrong decision, we have such a strong urge to protect them. It is a natural urge but a destructive one, because eventually we have kids going to school getting an education which they cannot hope to use on their own land. If they go to the shop, the change is figured out for them. If they go to the health clinic, the form is filled out for them. If they go out into the community, what job is there to use that education? It does not exist because we do everything for them.
It is about time the expectation is placed on the shoulders of all Australians as well as people living in the Northern Territory. I will ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it now being 10 pm …
Mr ELFERINK: … conclude my comments at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly is now adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, this afternoon during Question Time I undertook to give a personal explanation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … on a matter involving my family some nine years ago. I am delivering this personal explanation through this adjournment tonight, which represents the first opportunity to do so ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin was in parliament at that time. If he cares to look at the Hansard record he will see I answered a significant number of questions on this issue on the floor of parliament. We are talking about nine years ago. I did not shirk answering those questions. I certainly did not shirk speaking to the media and answering questions ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: … from the media on this issue because I have nothing to hide. I am placing on the record tonight that I am giving a personal explanation as I undertook to do so, as I was questioned on the floor of parliament by the opposition. I do not think the member for Port Darwin questioned me. The member for Blain questioned me, and the former member for Goyder. I answered a series of questions on the floor of parliament in relation to this matter. I also answered media in relation to this matter.
If members care to avail themselves of the Hansard record they will see I did not resile from answering. Indeed, part of what I had to say at that time was I could look anyone in the eye in relation to this matter because I have done nothing wrong.
I will talk more about it. This is in stark contrast to the member for Katherine and the serious allegation of fraud. Up until now, he has not availed himself of the opportunity to tell the House his side of the story ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no allegation of fraud and he should withdraw that epithet or proceed by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: He will try to rewrite history; however, it is there in the letter and the newspaper reports. Until now, the member for Katherine has not availed himself of the opportunity to tell his side of the story. I have said all along I believe there are two sides to this story. All I am asking the member for Katherine to do is come into this House and tell his side of the story.
The allegations we are talking about here were raised by the CLP, and in the NT News, by Mr Camden Smith, currently the chief media advisor to the CLP, who at that time was a journalist with the NT News. In essence, these allegations suggested I attempted to use my position as a member of Legislative Assembly to influence a traffic matter involving my son ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: Say that outside, old boy!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you. Member for Greatorex, when I am speaking to you, stand. Withdraw at the lectern, please.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: As a result of the allegations raised by the CLP and their supporters, police investigated the matter and found it had no substance.
Once again, I call on the member for Katherine to make a public explanation in relation to the serious matters raised against him. Hopefully, he will do so tonight or tomorrow.
Tonight I wish to table another letter from Mr Michael John Rowley, who is still very aggrieved by this matter. I can foreshadow to the House I believe there is more documentation coming in relation to this. Members will recall one receipt was tabled today. There were allegations there is another receipt which has been doctored, bodgied, whatever you want to say. It will be interesting to see if and when that other receipt turns up. However, I am told documentation is forthcoming.
Hopefully, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, will show leadership and encourage the member for Katherine to come into this House and make a personal explanation that satisfactorily addresses the serious issues raised. If the member for Katherine does not, it will appear the allegations are true. Regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, will have no other option but to sack his shadow Treasurer. I table this letter for the benefit of members.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about the petition I lodged earlier in the Legislative Assembly consisting of 262 signatures. This petition represented a feeling in the community of Gillen about a basketball stadium erected in the Centralian Middle School grounds in December 2010. I first came to hear about the construction of the basketball stadium on 6 December.
I was contacted by several residents who were, quite frankly, distressed by this very large construction that had been very quickly erected across the road from their properties. I have to say the residents of Gillen, particularly along the Rosenbaum Street boundary across the road from this structure, generally are encouraging of facilities for youth in town. They are fairly regular citizens, not complainers or whingers; average people. I have no reason to think these people are troublemakers of any kind. They are just average citizens going about their daily lives and, quite suddenly, this structure appeared across the road from their properties.
This structure was built over and above two basketball courts which were there for many years, possibly decades. The residents were used to children using those basketball courts for their enjoyment and recreation. That was never a problem. However, the sudden erection of this basketball stadium has effectively changed their lives. This stadium was built with absolutely no advice given to them at all. They knew nothing about the construction in advance. It was built and they were literally left thinking: ‘My goodness me, what is this? How has this happened? Who built it?’ They knew nothing about it apart from what they could see in front of them.
In addition to not being advised of the intention to build the construction, they were never consulted on what they thought about the building. They were never asked how this might affect their lives, what amenities would be affected by the building, or who would be using it. They were never allowed to contribute to any community consultation or process around the building being erected. This building is a monster. Everyone in Alice Springs has heard about it, from one end of town to the other. Many people have driven specifically to the Centralian Middle School to look at the structure, and most people are quite horrified at the sheer enormity of it. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It is higher than any building within 1 km. The CBD is perhaps 1 km away from it. It towers above all the other buildings in the Centralian Middle School grounds.
The residents had a beautiful view of the West MacDonnell Ranges, now blighted by this huge structure. They thought that was the worst of it; they would not be able to enjoy the scenery they had enjoyed for many years.
One particular resident, a lady who lives right across the road from the structure, came to Australia over 40 years ago. She and her husband built their home and have enjoyed living there for many years. Her husband, in fact, passed away in that house, so she has a very strong attachment to it and was very upset by the sudden erection of the building.
Initially, they thought their view being obstructed was the main problem. Having gone there once after receiving the first phone calls on 6 December, I honestly sympathise with that concern. However, as time has gone on, that is probably the least of their concerns. What has happened since is that people have come to use the basketball stadium and, during the day, by and large, that is not a problem. However, people are using this facility all hours of the day and night. It does not have lighting. It has a gate around it which they have been told cannot be locked, so the school cannot prevent people from using this stadium after hours. People are coming there at night and hanging out. There have been reports of drinking, people sleeping at the basketball stadium and, generally, the residents in the area have observed what they consider to be antisocial behaviour.
This basketball stadium has been an absolute nightmare, particularly for the people living directly across the road from the stadium. Other people in the area feel it is not suitable at that location. Because of the attention it is attracting from people who are using it inappropriately, I say it is causing them problems, misery and dissatisfaction, and they are not happy about it. Two hundred and sixty-two people have signed this petition. The petition specifically asks that the basketball stadium be removed, which was quite extreme.
I consulted with residents in the area. I suggested we could put a petition together, and they gave me the wording. It was on their advice we constructed the petition; these are not my words. Asking to remove such a huge structure worth much money is probably unrealistic to some extent; however, 262 people have signed this petition asking that it be removed. They were not advised of the intention to build the stadium, they were not consulted on how this building and its purpose might affect their lives, that their views would be obstructed, and they object to the noise and antisocial behaviour of people using this facility.
That is an explanation of how this petition has come to the Legislative Assembly. I strongly advocate great consideration be given to how this structure has impacted on the lives of the residents in the area immediately around the Centralian Middle School, and also within a broader reach of the school, because it is a blight on the landscape. I recognise and acknowledge it is a great facility for kids, it is absolutely fantastic, but it has been put in the wrong position.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words tonight about the people who helped me in my trip around Alice a little over two weeks ago.
I arrived in Alice on a Sunday night when it was pretty wet, and I was given a quick introduction to Alice Springs in the wet. Superintendent Michael White from the NT Police took me and my personal advisor, Michelle Nuske, for a ride around town. I am probably very lucky to have Michelle working for me; she was brought up in Alice Springs. She lived at Areyonga for some time and her family still lives in Alice Springs. It gives me an insight into some of the issues in relation to Alice Springs.
We were able to visit some of the haunts of Alice Springs on that night. We discovered that when it is raining, it is pretty quiet in Alice Springs. Two days later on Tuesday, Superintendent Michael White again took us around and we were able to see many of the issues that have been a problem for Alice Springs firsthand. I have spoken about that previously, so I will not go on too much about it.
We met Damien Ryan. I also met Damien Ryan at the public meeting the council had organised, which was an excellent meeting. There were many views, and it was good to hear different views from a range of people. There were many subjects raised - probably more than have been raised in this parliament. It certainly was a good sounding board for some of the issues people are concerned about in Alice Springs.
We spoke to Peter Grigg, General Manager of Tourism Central Australia, about whether antisocial behaviour is affecting tourism.
We spoke to Neil and Julie Ross of Ross Engineering, who gave us an indication of the effect on business in Alice Springs. They had concerns there has been a shift of people away from Alice Springs, and felt unless Aboriginal people were stepping up to the mark - the percentage of Aboriginal people in Alice Springs is increasing and we need to ensure education and job opportunities are taken up by those people so Alice Springs does not become a town relying on welfare - that groups of people will be part of the industrial development of Alice Springs. Julie Ross is also the President of the Chamber of Commerce. It was good to get insight from her as well.
We went to the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation and met Brian Stirling, Barbara Satour, and Karen Little and discussed matters in relation to antisocial behaviour. These are people who are sometimes on the other side of the debate. We forget that although there might be concerns out there, if you keep hammering them time and time again, publicising them, even those people who might have some sympathy with what you are saying feel they are being polarised. That is one of the dangers of continually emphasising the bad side of what is occurring. Even though people running those advertising campaigns or protests may have good intentions, we have to ensure we do not drive people into believing they are the ones you are aiming at and, in the end, polarise some of the community, which creates more divisions.
We spoke to some businesses in the mall, and Lorraine in Adelaide House. After all the years of visiting Alice Springs, I have never been to Adelaide House, a nice little historical venue right in the heart of Alice Springs. Lorraine expressed some of the problems she has with rubbish from people who sit around that area. Sometimes when they are painting there is paint on the building, and because it is a heritage site her concerns are about availability of methylated spirits. That was an interesting aspect we did not know earlier.
We also met people who worked in Don Thomas, the outfitters. We went to see John, the owner of the 24-Hour shop on Gap Road, which is sometimes the centre of interest at night. There had been problems there until the lights were put in Melanka Square, which made a big change to confrontations near the 24-Hour shop.
I met Owen, the late-night operator at the Shell Service Station on Northside - interesting bloke who gives you firsthand some of the problems happening in Alice Springs where the back window of his car was broken with a beer bottle. He lives in The Gap and travels down there at night. He expressed his concerns. In fact, I was there the night before last, and he told me he was working late and a gentlemen from one of the camps who was banned from the shop came in. When he asked him to move out, he was spat upon. Since then, charges have been laid against that man.
We met Andrea Sullivan, Manager of the Alice Springs Memorial Club; Mark Coffey, Executive Director of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is looking after the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; and Brad Puls, Central Regional Manager of the Clontarf Foundation, a very interesting bloke with some good ideas - one of these people who really has the future of Aboriginal youth at heart. I recommend anyone to talk to him about what he is doing.
I met Dave Douglas from Tyre City, a member of Action for Alice. We had a long discussion with him and got some good ideas; understood many of the concerns he had. He was well-balanced in what he was talking about. I met ACPO Frank Curtis, who looks after juvenile diversion. He has a great program mentoring young people. He takes them out bush - I have forgotten the gentleman’s name who owns the small farm they go to on weekends - he tries to put young people back on the road. He told us he has several young blokes working part-time at Woolworths. His biggest problem is not having a vehicle big enough. I ask the government to find him a bus so he can take all 15 blokes out on the weekend. While he has a troop carrier, he cannot do that, and these are the people you need to support.
John Adams from the Alice Springs Youth Hub showed us around the youth hub, which needs much more going for it. We met the ladies who manage the Visitor’s Park, whose names I cannot remember. The visitor accommodation park is an excellent project; however, we have to remember it is only for people who want to stay for two weeks. It is not solving the influx of people from other parts of Central Australia.
I had a long talk with Chris Vaughan from Bojangles. He gave us a different point of view about alcohol and issues in relation to antisocial behaviour. Ann Clifton, a longtime resident of Alice Springs and Santa Teresa, is a great lady. Longtime residents are the people you need to talk to. It is interesting to know her maiden name was Wood, so we get on really well. She is a wise person who knows much about the Central Australian region and has her own views. I have known Amanda St Clair for a long time, especially her family. She is a longtime resident of Alice Springs and runs a conveyancing business. She has some very firm ideas on what should happen. She is also a member of the Action for Alice group. It was good to get her opinion on what is happening.
Tony Bohning, ex-Correctional Services, reiterated the importance of starting up juvenile work camps he used to run at Simpsons Gap and places like that. We are not doing enough for our youth and people like Tony Bohning should be listened to. We should be putting more effort into developing those areas, especially for young kids who do not have a home or are running the streets. Take them out bush, give them a bit of space under the stars, get them working and get them back on track. That area needs looking at for this region.
I thank all the people who took the time to talk with us. I appreciated their hospitality and enjoyed coming to Alice Springs two weeks ago. I enjoy staying at Alice Springs right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Member for Port Darwin, I noted a couple of mice there. You might want to lift your feet.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have never seen a mouse plague in parliament before - there you go. There are many rats in parliaments, but no mice.
Madam Speaker, I rise to my feet quickly tonight. I shall not be using all 10 minutes, and I want to raise an issue I raised with the police last night by way of a telephone call.
Last night, after leaving parliament, I drove through the CBD. One of the astonishing things was that from someone who is now out of town, whilst I know my way around this place pretty well, I was surprised to see the conduct and behaviour we have been talking about all over the CBD. Surprisingly, I did not so much as drive into town without having to ring the police in relation to, at best, a disorderly behaviour - a man standing in the middle of the street punching taxis as they drove past. I called the 131 444 number and waited about five minutes for the call to be answered. It was about six minutes and 30 seconds by the time I hung up the phone; so giving the details of the matter took about a minute-and-a-half. Whilst five minutes does not sound long, it is an interminably long time whilst watching someone commit an offence. I gave my identification to the police. I told them who I was and gave them my contact details. I have heard nothing back.
I raise this issue because I would like to know what happened as a result of police attending that job. There were, clearly, criminal offences being committed. I am more than prepared to give a statutory declaration to the police should they choose to find a taxi driver who wants to proceed with the matter of criminal damage - I believe this person damaged one of the taxis as it went past. If they cannot, I am more than happy to give a statutory declaration regarding the conduct of this gentleman in relation to disorderly behaviour.
I have no idea what happened to this person. I have not been sought out for a statutory declaration or any form of evidence. I will be willing to give evidence against this person, if needs be. I am comfortable I will be able to identify this person in a court. I watched the police arrive, to their credit, a short time after the phone call was made. They located this person and I presume dealt with him. I expect they have his name.
I raise this because I am concerned that the simple Summary Offences Act, the vehicle that controls our behaviour on the streets, is not being policed in this town at the moment. I witnessed any number of kids who should have been moved on, simply idling and lingering about which, by the way, is the legal definition of loitering. Whilst it is not an offence to loiter, it is an offence to fail to cease loitering if moved on.
This parliament has armed police with the capacity to issue notices to people to get them to vacate an area for periods up to 48 hours. Those powers seem not to be used. I do not know whether it is a direction from the higher levels of the police force - whether it is a case the police are too overwhelmed to be able to deal with these large numbers of people - but most of those children I saw last night would have been well below the age of 16 years. That was at about 10.30 or 10.45 last night. Not one of them was under any form of effective control. The great chasm we see between this government’s words in this House and what plays out in the community could not have been starker last night. It is clear the legislative instruments we pass are merely bits of paper with words written on them because their enforcement is not a matter this government seems to concern itself with.
I look forward to the Police minister briefing me as to what occurred last night. My specific questions are: why did it take five minutes for the 131 444 number to be answered? What happened to the matter last night? Why are other aspects of the Summary Offences Act not being effectively policed in this town?
I am concerned enough to raise this issue. I note something else for the record: people who report offences rarely get any form of feedback as to what occurred as a result of their report. I will give you an example. I was assaulted by a gentleman a few months ago because I had the temerity to be in a public place when he took it upon himself to throw a can of liquor at me. It cut my hand slightly when I caught it. Nothing ever came back to me about that. I know the gentleman was arrested, and I thank the police for their efficiency in relation to that matter. I ran a few inquiries and, finally, found out this gentleman had the assault charge pulled, and the matter was simply dealt with by way of disorderly behaviour, for which this person received a $300 fine.
If I had not bothered to find out what was going on, I would never have known. One of the reasons police are being criticised in our community is so often people do not hear the results of the complaints they make. I can add for the record, I am disappointed for the sake of a guilty plea, or some plea bargain, I presume, that the matter of an assault against me was dropped for the convenience of getting a disorderly behaviour charge up.
If there was a good reason for that change of approach, I would like to know about it. No one asked me, and if the experience I had is similar to the experience other people have when they ring the police, then small wonder people are becoming frustrated when speaking to police officers and not getting any feedback. This government, through its capacity, should require the police to, at least in serious cases such as criminal offences - for example, break and enters, assaults, that sort of thing - create a system by which people who make complaints find out what has happened to those complaints.
When I was a police officer I often did it; nowadays it seems to occur less and less. It is a matter of courtesy and would do the police a whole lot of good to have that two-way communication with the public they serve and protect.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016