2011-08-10
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Mr Mark Renner and Mr Matthew Kingham. 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 60 petitioners praying that the previous 300/301 bus route from Alice Springs Hospital be reinstated. 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:
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
As I said yesterday, this motion is extending the reporting time frame required for the final report of the subcommittee on Animal Welfare Governance in the Northern Territory to the Assembly to October 2011. Furthermore, it is my understanding from the Chair of the committee that an interim report will be presented in the second week of the August sittings.
Madam Speaker, I commend the work of the committee; it has been working hard and had a number of hearings. I can understand why it wishes to extend the time frame; however, it is acceptable there be an interim report given to this parliament, and I understand it will probably be next week. Furthermore, I understand there is agreement within the committee for this to occur. I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
HERITAGE BILL
(Serial 169)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to address shortcomings in the existing Heritage Conservation Act and to provide an improved framework for heritage management in the Northern Territory.
This is the culmination of an election promise made by the Labor Party to conduct a thorough review of the Heritage Conservation Act. At that time, many people keenly felt the loss of the Hotel Darwin, which was demolished, to almost universal dismay, in 1999. It was felt the shortcomings in the Heritage Conservation Act had contributed to this event and that the act required review. The then minister, my colleague, the member for Johnston, spoke about this in the Assembly on 16 October 2003 when he announced the commencement of the review of the act. Minister Burns noted the existing act invests a great deal of power in the minister, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places, and limited provisions for interim protection of places under threat.
An extensive public consultation process took place in 2003-04 that found there was strong support for addressing these issues, as well as for protection of a wide range of places and increased penalties.
In May 2004, the Heritage Advisory Council finalised a recommendations paper which it provided to government. A key recommendation was the establishment of a Heritage Council with statutory decision-making powers; that is, a Heritage Council which would make most or all of the decisions currently made by the minister. The government gave careful consideration to the recommendations paper.
A draft bill was released for public comment in February 2010. Thirteen written submissions were received from individuals and organisations, and the Heritage Advisory Council provided an extensive response. Respondents welcomed many aspects of the draft bill but it is fair to say that many respondents thought the draft bill still contained significant shortcomings. The government listened to these concerns and made significant changes to the circulated draft bill - changes that are for the better.
I now turn to the draft bill before the Assembly and describe its features in detail. I said earlier that the existing act has been criticised for investing a great deal of power in the minister, has lengthy and rather complex procedures for registration of heritage places, and limited provisions for interim protection of places under threat. Government has taken the view that it is elected to govern, and it is reasonable for the minister to have the final say with respect to important decisions such as whether a place ought to be heritage listed. Having said that, I am pleased the draft bill proposes a new approach to heritage listing processes that directly addresses the criticisms to which I have just referred.
The draft bill imposes time lines on all stages of the listing process, so all parties involved can be sure that decisions will be made in a timely manner. The process starts with someone nominating a place or object for heritage listing. The draft bill indicates that within six months of a nomination having been accepted by the Heritage Council, the council has to consider a report which assesses the significance of the place or object and decide whether or not the place or object is worthy of heritage listing. If so, the council is required to seek comment on the proposed heritage listing in a manner similar to the existing act. When the process reaches this stage, the act allows the place or object to be provisionally declared as a heritage place or object in order to protect it until a final decision is made. The owner is advised of this and asked to comment on the proposed heritage listing.
There may be concern about this aspect of the draft bill in respect of the rights of the owner, and I will address those concerns. I stress it is very rare for the heritage listing process to be instigated without the knowledge or support of the owner. However, it is true the situation may arise where an owner unexpectedly receives notification that his or her property is being considered for heritage listing and provisionally declared as a heritage listed place under the act, thus restricting their actions in relation to doing work on that property.
An owner may object to this situation; however, they are assured of a couple of things. First, their views about whether the place ought to be heritage listed are sure to be taken into account - the act requires this. Second, time lines or limits apply to this part of the process, so owners can be assured a decision about heritage listing, one way or the other, will be made in a reasonable time frame. The longest possible time for a decision to be made from this point would be about four months but, in most cases, it would take less than this.
Finally, it is still possible through various avenues under the act for the owner to be allowed to do certain work during this period if it is agreed this is appropriate in the circumstances. In summary, the government believes the process for heritage listing which I have just described is a balanced and reasonable approach that goes a long way to addressing criticisms of the existing act. It tips the balance of power away from the minister to some extent, and automatically protects places and objects that are considered worthy of heritage listing without imposing an unreasonable burden on owners, and ensures the whole process takes place within reasonable time frames. The way in which the draft bill deals with the work approvals also helps to deal with concerns about all effective power resting with the minister.
In addition, it improves the system in other ways. Under the existing act, only the minister or the minister’s delegate can make decisions about work and there is no distinction between major and minor work. The draft bill makes it clear that there are three categories of work: (1) exempt work for which no permission is required; (2) minor work which the Heritage Council makes decisions about; and (3) major work which the minister makes decisions about. This makes things clearer and much more workable and, in part, deals with the criticisms of the existing act: that too much power rests with the minister by tipping the balance towards the Heritage Council.
It is not possible for there to be a foolproof definition of the differences between major and minor work, but the draft bill attempts to deal with this issue as well as possible. The government’s expectation is that if a decision in relation to proposed work to a heritage place or object is likely to generate controversy or concern on behalf of the owner or another legitimate stakeholder in the eyes of the public, the minister should deal with the work application.
I will move on to other features of the draft bill. The draft bill features an expanded Heritage Council with 11 members made up of the following:
the Chief Executive Officer of the department responsible for the administration of the act, or a nominee of the CEO;
The minister, as far as practicable, must also ensure that at least two of the appointed members are of Aboriginal descent. This expanded Heritage Council introduces for the first time representation from local government and property owners, while still allowing for people nominated from within the community to fill the majority of positions.
The draft bill also features a mechanism that provides automatic protection to classes of places such as remnants of the Overland Telegraph Line; shipwrecks and plane wrecks; and gravesites. The draft bill allows the Heritage Council to make recommendations to the minister about classes of places that it believes ought be protected. The minister must seek public comment and makes a final decision.
During the public consultation process that followed the release of the draft bill in February 2010, concerns were expressed that such a mechanism may impose an unreasonable burden on property owners. I will now address those concerns.
The existing act, since its commencement in 1991, provided automatic protection to two classes of places that occur widely throughout the Northern Territory, being Aboriginal and Macassan archaeological places. Included in the former category are rock art sites, artefact scatters, stone carvings, and middens - tangible reminders of the occupation of the Northern Territory by Aboriginal people for tens of thousands of years. Macassan archaeological sites are mainly the remains of trepang processing sites along the coast. These distinctive sites are unique to Northern Australia and remind us that long before permanent European settlement in the north, there was regular contact with our Asian neighbours. All parties involved for almost 20 years have understood that such sites are important and ought to be protected, and the system has worked pretty well to date.
The draft bill allows for continuing protection of Aboriginal and Macassan archaeological places, and a mechanism which allows for a very modest expansion of this concept. The purpose of the mechanism is to protect places and objects where there is a high degree of consensus about their value, but where protection of individual sites may not be practical, in some cases because the existence of the site may be unknown. A perfect example is plane wrecks from World War II. Few people would question the significance of such sites. Several have been protected under the existing act. However, there are many that have not, and not all such sites have been located. Automatic protection of these sites is highly unlikely to impose an unreasonable burden on a landowner or proponent. The draft bill will enable the minister to consider automatic protection for these sites upon the recommendation of the Heritage Council, and after a public consultation process.
In summary, it is a sound proposal that has the potential to extend the protection of places considered important aspects of our heritage, without creating an undue administrative burden, or any unreasonable burden on landowners.
I turn to the issues of penalties and enforcement. The drafting of the bill is in line with current practices by using a system of penalty units, and has substantially increased penalties compared to the existing act. For example, under the existing act the maximum penalty for causing damage to a heritage place is $10 000 or one year’s imprisonment for an individual. Under the proposed new act, based on the current value of penalty units, it is $53 200 or two years imprisonment. On the ground enforcement will be assisted by fines of up to $13 000 based on the current value of penalty units for failing to follow directions issued by a heritage officer in the course of their duty. This effectively addresses concerns expressed during the consultation process in 2003-04, that penalty units were not sufficient and ought to be increased.
The draft bill has expanded rights of review, which will be widely welcomed as being in accordance with the present day expectations about such matters. The existing act has appeal rights in relation to decisions to declare or not declare a heritage place, revoke or not revoke a heritage listing, declare an interim conservation order, and issue a direction to repair. However, appeals can only be a matter of law and in the case of land affected by such a decision are only open to the owner or occupier of the land in question or of that land directly affected by the decision. There are no appeal rights in relation to proposed works on a heritage place or object.
The draft bill retains the right to appeal against all the decisions that are currently appealable; however, standing to appeal has been extended. For example, in relation to a decision to declare, or not to declare, a heritage place, any person who has made a submission at the time that comments were sought, may appeal. The draft bill also allows for a review of decisions by the Heritage Council and decisions in relation to proposed work on a declared heritage place, whether the Heritage Council or the minister took that decision. These reviews are merit-based and made to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal with the intention of allowing the matter to be heard in a forum that is less intimidating and costly than going to court. Other aspects to the draft bill are designed to address minor issues with the existing act and generally produce legislation that is in accordance with modern standards.
I have outlined all the key features of the draft bill and I would like to reiterate those:
a new process for heritage listing which introduces time lines at all stages of the listing process and allows for interim protection of places assessed as being worthy of heritage listing;
improved processes for carrying out work including the ability for the Heritage Council to make decisions about minor work;
an expanded Heritage Council which includes representation from local government, property owners, and which requires the minister, as far as practicable, to ensure Aboriginal representation;
the capacity to list classes of places, thus extending the protection of places considered important aspects of our heritage but difficult to list individually;
increased penalties and improved provision for on the ground enforcement; and
expanded rights of review.
This constitutes a real step forward in improving the framework within which the Northern Territory government, working with the community, manages the unique and diverse heritage of the Northern Territory. This bill is a culmination of a great deal of consultation with the community that reflects the government’s commitment to a great Territory lifestyle through valuing our heritage and our history.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the Assembly. I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 4 May 2011.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to have the Transport portfolio back. I thoroughly enjoyed doing Transport last time and it is great to have it back. The last time I was involved in Transport, we put forward a number of amendments to the Traffic Act to try to lower the numbers of drink-driving and make improvements across a number of areas. While they were knocked back, it had a great deal of impact.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling has twisted his microphone. He might want to …
Mr Giles: It is broken.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, could you use the seat next to you?
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is fantastic to be back in the Transport portfolio. I enjoyed working in Transport previously. We put forward a number of positive reform agendas, which were knocked back by this government because it is reluctant to take on good ideas.
Once having the Transport portfolio back, I went through the Notice Paper and identified this traffic amendment bill. I thank the minister for urgently setting up a briefing for me yesterday with the department. I thank the departmental staff who came to that briefing. I understand this bill moves the Northern Territory to national uniform legislation in line with the trade measurement system put forward through COAG.
During the briefing, it was explained, as I read through the second reading speech and the bill, that we are moving to a model of blood analysis, or BAC, to breath analysis. I did not quite understand the methodology of that with the national uniform legislation because nothing appears to change. I now recognise that instead of the blood alcohol content measured in millilitres - now to 210 litres - I understand how that works and recognise this is a procedural motion for the Northern Territory parliament to bring us in line with the rest of the country. The Country Liberals will not be opposing this bill.
I found it interesting that the Northern Territory was supposed to come online with all other states by 1 July 2010 but, once again, we seem to have fallen behind. We seem to often fall behind under this government. It does not matter if it is crime, domestic violence, child protection, or alcohol reform …
Mr Conlan: Child protection.
Mr GILES: I hear the interjection from the member for Greatorex about child protection. Child protection is difficult because, as the government says, it is all about the cavemen genealogy dating back to the prehistoric Neanderthals - that is how they see this. It is very hard to bring about change; it has only been about 3000 years and the government has not been able to get it right. How is it supposed to get uniform legislation around a national trade measurement system from COAG in 10 years? It is going to be very difficult for these people; it is in the genes …
Mr Wood: Getting back to the bill.
Mr GILES: Getting back to the bill. I hear the interjection from the member for Nelson; he has been part of this government for several years.
It is important for us to bring about these amendments by 1 July 2010 and here we are in August 2011 and the government still has not got its act together.
It is no wonder break-ins in Alice Springs are 307% higher since March 2005. It is no wonder we see an increase of 26% in assaults and 28% of break-ins in Palmerston since September 2009. In Darwin, we are seeing a 47% increase in assaults from September 2006. That is an increase from 577 to 847. Think about the families and businesses that have to protect their house even more because this government has dropped the ball. Yes, it has dropped the ball on crime, break-ins, and sexual assaults and this is another example, in traffic, where it has not complied with what it was supposed to do under COAG and bring in line its national uniform approach by July 2010.
Many people are asking where the Country Liberals stand on some of their transport policies. I have spoken at length, as have my colleagues, and we stand by our previous policy, our previous commitment, to open speed limits in the Northern Territory. This is a government which took away open speed limits. This is the nanny state which tries to bring about regulations and reforms and control people’s lives. We do not tolerate that on our side, and we are united on open speed limits. I have our open speed limits sticker here. I will put it back on my computer to show our transport policy; in that we support open speed limits. I know we are united on this side.
The member for Johnston is the namesake of the Johnson report - as received under FOI by Channel 7 from federal Cabinet. The report says the capacity of the Northern Territory government is a particular concern. We all hold that concern here in the Northern Territory. Rest assured, Territorians, a Country Liberal government within 100 days of coming to power will undertake an assessment of our main arterial roads to ensure we can bring about the open speed limit. This government has failed to invest in the road infrastructure in the Northern Territory. We have to check that to ensure it is safe.
I do not hear any noise coming from the other side about open speed limits. I thought they might have raised some concerns and opposed open speed limits. Clearly, they must be on board. Clearly, they must like the stickers that are now on the computers saying – and I have many more if people on the other side would like to support our open speed limit policy. I know the minister likes to speed. We are all about open speed limits on this side - within reason. Ensure the roads are safe because the government has let them go. Rest assured, Territorians, we stand by our principles. We are united on this side of the parliament and will bring back open speed limits …
Mr Wood: I find it hard to believe you are united.
Mr GILES: We are united. We are united in stickers, member for Nelson. We have our open speed limit stickers. There are plenty of other stickers to go around. This is the one that says: ‘I hate Delia’ - with a picture – ‘from Burnsie’. The member for Johnston likes to talk about our unification but, I can tell you, they are deeply divided on their side. Matty Bonson provided us with a couple of opportunities this week and here is another one.
We will not be opposing this legislation. We recognise coming together for national uniform legislation is important. What is important is to recognise the delays by this government. It was supposed to be online by 1 July 2010; it is not online. It is good to see us coming together now. I reiterate that we understand why it is so bad at getting things done because there is a litany of failures - whether it is domestic violence, crime, land release, or fixing the port. These things are well documented and highlighted in the Johnson report received from federal Cabinet. That Cabinet document says they are concerned about the Northern Territory’s capacity to deliver - we are all concerned.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to sum up. I thank him for the briefing yesterday; he arranged it straightaway. I look forward to working at length with the transport officials, because they are very good officials; I enjoy working with your transport officials. Thank you, Brenton, for yesterday. Minister, I look forward to shadow-boxing with you over the Transport portfolio until the next election where we will, hopefully, take government and bring about open speed limits, which I am sure you will enjoy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also make comments about this legislative instrument. It is some time since I read it, but I understand this is part of an alignment system with national standards. A blood alcohol reading relies on a simple assumption about the transference of alcohol from the bloodstream into the lungs. When we drink liquor, we excrete it by different means. One is exhalation and another is urination, but 90% of the alcohol that we excrete is broken down into its constituent chemicals by the liver. Up until the …
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but I am not going to argue with a doctor of, what was it, pharmacology, on this type of issue. I will be guided by whatever interjection he cares to share with me.
In a blood alcohol reading it is assumed that 5% of alcohol in the blood is excreted through the lungs, which means a two-step process to achieve a blood alcohol reading. When you go into a court and discuss a blood alcohol reading, you are actually describing 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. You come to that point through the assumption that the breath taken from the lungs is precisely that 5% amount, or thereabouts; I cannot remember the exact amount, but it is around 5%. The consequence is a two-stage process to get from a blood alcohol reading to a reading of blood alcohol concentration based on a person’s breath.
I understand this legislation removes one of those steps because, from memory, and I hope the minister could nod if I am correct, this particular source of alcohol is on the breath, and it is taken from an amount of 210 litres, so it is 50 mg of alcohol per 210 ml of breath. I pause briefly to wonder about an odd figure of 210 litres of breath to produce 50 mg of alcohol but, of course, if you round it down to 200, we would be talking about 0.055 or 0.045, or something of that nature. By changing the litreage of breath expelled in the lungs, you can effectively sell this as an issue in the public domain, being under 0.05%.
It was not so long ago in the Northern Territory that the legal limit to drive intoxicated was 0.08% and, in fact, probably still would be if the federal roads funding sabre had not been rattled. However, times have changed. We have moved on, and now we are taking a change to direct, here in the courts today, an assertion by a prosecutor that a defendant before the court would be regarded to have exceeded 50 mg of alcohol per 210 litres of breath. It removes that stage, and I imagine that is why the national authorities have gone down that path. It will no longer be an offence to drive with a blood alcohol concentration, but it will be an offence to drive with a breath alcohol concentration of more than 50 mg per 210 litres of breath. It sounds technical, but in terms of accuracy, it is probably a better way to come to that result, and I suspect that is why the national structure has been built.
However, it does give me cause to comment that drink-driving is an important issue in our community. There is absolutely no doubt that the community expects the government to set a low benchmark. We are not quite as bad as Norway which, I understand, is a 0.01% or 0.02% limit, or some other European countries, or some Southeast Asian countries, if memory serves me. What it does mean is we set a low benchmark for blood alcohol concentration, and try to send a signal that we take these sorts of offences seriously. Indeed, the right to have a driver’s licence is a right taken away by court if you offend against these limits.
It ill behoves this government to one day try to soften the laws surrounding disqualified driving, and the next day say it wants to tighten up how these laws operate. It demonstrates the schizophrenia which has infected this government and how it lurches from one policy position to the next; hoping to meet national benchmarks, albeit late, in one breath and sending a signal that we do not take drink-driving seriously in the next. This is one of the reasons people of the Northern Territory are becoming tired of this government. It is a tired government; it does not think about what it is doing; there is no consistency in its policy approach, and it always works to make the whole community responsible for the actions of a few.
Should there be a change of government, we will be returning to a concept where a person is held responsible for their own actions. I note the shadow minister for Transport pointed out our policy position of reopening the speed limits, not because we want people to drive dangerously, but because we, as a government, trust people to judge the way they drive effectively by themselves. Never has it been a law in the Northern Territory that you could drive as recklessly as you liked. The open speed limits said that in the right conditions and environment you were able to judge a speed that was safe for yourself and the vehicle you were driving. This government determined by putting a carte blanche 110 speed limit across the Northern Territory with some exceptions for the Stuart Highway, the Victoria Highway, and the Barkly, I think, which said to people: ‘You are too stupid to determine how you should drive a car. We are going to impose a speed limit’. What we have seen in this process from the Northern Territory government is the start of the introduction of the nanny state and the nanny state has been growing and growing under this government’s tutelage since that time.
Yesterday, the next manifestation of the nanny state was realised by this government, where not only does it say everyone is responsible for their actions but, in the case of repeat drink-drivers who end up in gaol, you are actually going to be less responsible for your actions because we are not going to make you complete the period of your disqualification. If you are picked up and disqualified as a normal person, and you do not go to gaol, chances are you are not going to do anything other than serve out the full term of your disqualification. If you do go to gaol, what we are going to do is shorten the period of your disqualification. No longer is the whole community responsible for the actions of a few, but the few are becoming less responsible for their own actions. That is a philosophy which Territorians and I are getting tired of.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a technical change for a reasonable legal reason and, as a consequence, we do not oppose the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill and thank the department officials for the briefing.
It is bringing it into consistency with other states in Australia and is fairly straightforward, but I was interested in the discussion about nanny state. It is a subjective discussion which depends on your argument. If you are arguing for something you think should not be regulated, then we are a nanny state. If you argue for something that should be regulated, we think that is for the good of the community, and this is a classic example. Many people would say they can drive on the road after about five beers. They say there is nothing wrong with that. We bring in legislation to protect people on the road from those drivers and one could say that is a nanny state.
When I first came to the Territory, I do not think there was anything called a blood alcohol test or breath test. I do not remember ever getting pulled up by a policeman saying blow into a bag in 1970. We introduced those laws because of the number of people dying on our roads. We could argue the case about what are the causes of all these accidents, but the facts are we have restricted how you drive on roads because we are concerned about the number of fatalities, injuries, and accidents that cost us, as a community, much money. The more accidents, the more money we pay through higher insurance to insurance companies. The more people who end up in hospital, the more money taxpayers pay to make them well or care for them for the rest of their life. If people have died, the more we pay to the family left to survive without a breadwinner, which can be a cost on the community.
It is easy to say nanny state; I have some sympathy for that as well as we can become overregulated. However, the facts are, and unfortunately we saw it on the weekend, people have died on the road, tragically. I imagine a number of people in this parliament knew the people who were killed.
We have issues in relation to fatalities on NT roads. I did not support the change to the open speed limit. I have since listened to people involved in the trauma of motor vehicle accidents. I have discussed the effects of colliding with a tree at increasing speeds no matter how good your car is, and I have spoken to people who have accepted that 130 km/h, which is higher by 20 km/h than any other state …
A member: South Australia is trying to introduce it.
Mr WOOD: I am not against the 130 km/h speed limit but you have to remember the original speed limit was an open speed limit on every road not marked in the NT, which meant if you drove down the Daly River road, which was never suitable for open speed, you could …
Mr Elferink: No, you could not. That is the point I made.
Mr WOOD: You could if you wanted to and believed you were driving safely. That is a subjective decision; whether you are driving safely. The reality is we put speed limits on roads in suburbs and the rural area to reduce the chances of an accident. As we know, the higher the speed - especially if two cars collide - you have double the impact. The chances of surviving those types of accidents are remote. Some good friends in my electorate, a young couple who were involved in a head-on collision on the Arnhem Highway have taken a long time to recover from their injuries. They were very lucky to survive.
Whether we have open speed limits, whether we are breathalysed if we drive on the road, whether we should have licences, is that not a nanny state? Why can I not just hop in the car and drive? We are regulated; we are limited in our rights to drive. What is nanny state legislation and what is sensible legislation that is beneficial both to the community - do not forget other people drive on our roads - and what is beneficial to us.
It is an argument for people to discuss. We should not be flippant about it. You can hang your head on a slogan and you might find that is not the wisest decision to make. Just because you do not want to say you may have made the wrong decision does not mean you should not be willing to accept maybe a wiser decision should be made in lieu of the facts before you.
What we are dealing with today in relation to the breath testing for alcohol is part of a range of legislation which is trying to make our roads safer - and we need to keep that in mind. Slogans are good, but slogans need to be kept in perspective when we deal with the reality of the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. There should be a study of all our Northern Territory roads on a continual basis. Some roads might be suitable for higher speeds, and some roads may be more suited to lower speeds. That is part of a process, which could be the responsibility of the people involved in the structure and maintenance of roads. We should not make a statement that says ‘open speed limits’ without a great deal of understanding of what the effect would be.
There is another important amendment in the bill which has not been mentioned today. It came up in the second reading and said this bill provides the Registrar with the power to exempt a class of driver person; for example, police officers and certain road rules while in training. From memory from my briefing, that was to do with times in training when police have students with them and they may have broken the regulations. This has clarified some of those concerns. It is good to see that change has been included in the amendments to this bill.
The member for Braitling has broadened this debate, but the debate around the benefits of this type of bill, and the protection of people on our roads, should be the centre of this debate, rather than heading off on a range of other subjects which might be important but not particularly relevant to this bill.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and am interested to hear the minister’s comments.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to the debate. First, I will do a sum up and then I will deal with the members who have contributed.
The Northern Territory legislation relating to drink-driving needs to be updated in line with the Council of Australian Government reforms. A new Australian Standard for the measurement of breath alcohol content has been adopted nationally. This means the equipment currently used by Northern Territory Police to measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath has to be modified to comply with the new standard.
As the member for Nelson picked up in his usual good summary of the bill and the debate, there are a number of other housekeeping matters which have been attended to in the Traffic and Other Legislation Amendment bill. These include:
providing the Registrar with the power to exempt a class of driver person; for example, police officers from certain road rules while in training;
The miscellaneous amendments are, in the main, merely clarifying the current situation so there may be no doubt of the intent of these provisions.
It is important, to sum up, that the new breath alcohol measurement standard implements a reform that was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments and prescribed under the Commonwealth National Measurement Regulations 1999. These regulations were updated in 2009 to pick up the newly-agreed national measurement regime using litres of breath for breath analysis. The states and territories agreed to implement the new standard by 1 November 2011.
After that date, all breath analysis devices must comply with the new standard when they are recalibrated. All jurisdictions have been moving to the new regime over the last couple of years. It was interesting to hear the member for Braitling - and welcome back to the shadow for Transport; a very challenging but enjoyable, exciting portfolio area. It is good to have you back. The amount of oxygen you use in this Chamber, with the latitude you express, we might have to examine your carbon emissions because you are probably travelling way beyond the acceptable level in this place. However, it is a welcome back, and I thank you for your support. Once again, you have chosen a one-line media grab about government taking too long. The explanation I have just given shows you we are in pace with the rest of the country, and that is what we do, Madam Speaker.
The member for Braitling did go on to acknowledge the Department of Lands and Planning’s Transport division, and not only the briefing yesterday, but looking forward to working with them, and that it is a great thing. That is a positive thing and I acknowledge that. For the member for Braitling, with his diatribe about government and not meeting time lines, I will give him an update of what the Transport group has been working on in recent times, as well as the bill we have before us today.
The Transport group has been working on a raft of legislative and industry reforms over the last four years focusing on improving road safety including:
heavy vehicle task force process and report;
Alice Springs deserves a mention there. Undertaking the level crossing review was important for community safety in the Territory.
increased traffic infringement penalties for certain offences, including speed and not wearing seat belts; and
They are major bodies of work undertaken by the Transport division of the Department of Lands and Planning, delivering not only road safety, but community safety. How the member for Braitling gets the phrase ‘nanny state’ in, I will never know, but that will be an ongoing debate. This government is delivering road safety and safety for Territorians, and the member for Braitling is debating a nanny state.
I will also touch on the member for Braitling’s reference to my traffic infringement. Well done, member for Braitling, you have not forgotten it, and I have not forgotten it either. It is a regular conversation point of mine, especially when I am speaking to young people. I have a very good example where I received a traffic infringement, and I tell them all about it. I use it as an educational tool. I took my punishment, as I deserved, and member for Braitling, we will continue to debate that. I have my position on it, you have your sensational grandstanding, and we will continue to - I think the term was shadow-box. I prefer to debate as our policies are quite different, and from the statements made by the new shadow for Transport, the Country Liberals’ policies are very different. I am sure Territorians will judge them accordingly.
It is great to have the member for Port Darwin included in the debate. He not only entertains the House but also adds to the debate. I enjoyed that opening with your very good understanding of the legislation. In response to your comments about the offence of drink-driving, the offence has not changed, member for Port Darwin, to say it succinctly. The limits for alcohol in the breath test as opposed to alcohol in a blood test remain the same. There is no difference in the levels; these remain as they are currently.
Your reference to our government shortening the period of licence disqualification - you might have been referring to the major legislative reform in the House yesterday around the new orders. In relation to driving offenders, recidivist driving offenders, those orders are very much tied to a solid education and awareness package. In debates yesterday, I spoke about understanding the nature of our community, the differences in our community, and the disadvantage of our community. If government does not take a proactive stand and drag these people into an environment where education, awareness, and training is delivered in a sensitive and innovative way, they are never going to take that step towards learning.
It is not about shortening disqualification periods. It is about making people accountable for their offending behaviour, making people understand their offending behaviour, and then sending them back to the court. The member for Port Darwin understands that and demonstrated that clearly yesterday: sending them back to the court and having the judicial system make those decisions. If everything is travelling appropriately, I am sure a magistrate or judge will make that decision, which will relate to having a person on a strict legal contract. It does not give them the keys to drive on the outside of that courthouse. It puts them on a strict regime where they have to prove to society that they have addressed their offensive behaviour, their offending behaviour, and, in a sense, their criminogenic behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the support from all members of this House. This is important legislation. It addresses road safety and provides an opportunity to tidy up elements of the Traffic Act. I could talk much more, but no doubt there is other important business on the Notice Paper today.
I thank the Department of Lands and Planning’s Transport division for their hard work, especially when we look at those major legislative reforms over a long period, working with government and delivering road safety for Territorians, and real outcomes in the community. Thanks to all the staff. As you have heard, it will not only be me enjoying working with you, it will also be the shadow for Transport from the Country Liberals who will be sharing in that journey.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 24 February 2011.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Northern Territory government’s response to the third CTC report.
One of the difficulties in discussing this third report is that it came out in November 2010, the government responded on 24 February 2011, and six months down the track we are asked to respond to the government’s response at that time. There is some danger that the government’s response might be different - I hope it would be different in some cases - to its response at that time, but the response I have is the response I will respond to.
The Northern Territory government used a slightly different approach to this response than previous responses. It has not used ‘noted’ anywhere, and in past responses recommendations were either ‘agreed’ or ‘noted’. It has agreed to nine and supported two of the 15 recommendations and provides some of the related information. The response is another example of CTC’s frustration with rhetoric not matching the reality of what happens.
The key issues are that the response says things are agreed, and details provided, when the details were not provided. I refer to recommendations 4, 6, and 11. Information was promised to be forwarded before the next hearing - recommendations 5 and 9 - and it is unclear what this means, but it is assumed when the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services next appears at a CTC hearing. There is no scheduled hearing for DHLGRS. Why does the CTC have to wait until another unscheduled hearing? If the government has agreed to provide something, it should be forwarded immediately.
Responses to some recommendations are less comprehensive than they could be. The summary style information does not fully address the recommendations. Examples of this are in responses to recommendations 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14.
I would like to go through the government’s responses to each recommendation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind if I welcome these children?
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Miss Temira Wallis and Mr Brian Hyke. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Thank you very much, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: The first recommendation the CTC put forward was that SIHIP construction only be of housing designs that would deliver the longest possible useful life and low maintenance requirements, to which the government responded:
It further responds by saying: ‘design elements and construction procedures includes fixtures, fittings, and equipment’ and talks about standardisation. It talks about an alliance design team applied to SIHIP to maximise the build life of the completed dwelling. However, it says at the end that solid wall solutions would be preferred solutions in communities where new house designs are yet to be finalised. That is exactly what the CTC was inferring by asking the SIHIP construction be made of materials that will have a useful life and low maintenance requirements.
That recommendation came from inspecting the Wadeye house damaged by a family member, not a tenant. He damaged the house walls, which were hollow. A number of houses put up by New Future Alliance are of hollow wall construction and our concern was if that situation and the cost of those repairs were duplicated, government would have expensive repair bills because the houses could not stand up robustly to potential damage. The issue we have, and the government has said in its response: ‘solid wall solutions will be the preferred solution’. We agree, however nothing has been done to change that. The New Future Alliance is still putting up hollow wall houses. We were saying solid concrete, like Thamarrurr or Territory Alliance build, which are solid wall and would last longer.
In relation to fixtures and fittings - since this report came out we inspected houses at Milikapiti and Pirlangimpi. One issue is the usefulness of installing so-called flick mixer taps. Whilst one of the responses is this is better for people with disabilities, the issue the CTC had is that most of the existing houses - you have to remember these refurbishments only cover some of the houses in these communities, not all of them – is you have installed taps which: (1) are expensive to repair; (2) are expensive to buy; and (3) do not match the other taps in those communities. With repairs and maintenance, especially if it is the council’s job, consistency is desirable. It would not matter if the houses were being refurbished, but someone should talk to people on the ground who maintain those houses; that has been a failing.
A similar issue arises with stoves. It was pointed out to us at Milikapiti that the new stoves are sealed stoves, making it costly to replace what we would call a coil - but they are not a coil, they are a sealed unit. Most of the other houses have stoves with a so-called open coil top that might cost $20 to repair. All those houses have that type of stove already. What has happened with the alliance program - using guidelines of people in the department saying this is the more appropriate type of stove to use - different types of stoves are now being put into those houses, which are not the same as the existing houses. They are more expensive to repair. The idea of uniform fittings in houses makes sense and saves money. The argument is these stoves are more robust. One of the issues we raised is ‘let us see’. Let us keep a check of these fittings and see if they are more robust – and only time will tell.
The second recommendation was:
The response says that the Northern Territory and Australian governments have committed to pursue ‘best for program’ outcomes in all delivery aspects of SIHIP. It also says the Territory government has agreed to pursue this with the Australian government. What is disappointing is: where has that pursuance gone? The federal government has announced a second tranche of money for new houses and refurbishments. I have just spent time looking at SIHIP houses in Central Australia. I have said before that all shire service managers said to me: ‘We should be maintaining those houses’. I am interested in finding out from the government if it has really committed itself to changing this. If not, what is the problem? Is it the federal government’s intransigence in turning this around?
I spoke to minister Macklin when she was here for the Palmerston meeting. I had an opportunity to talk to her about this issue and said: ‘The councils believe you will get better value for money if they look after the refurbishments’. So far, even though the minister in Hansard said he thoroughly endorsed this idea, it will be interesting to hear if there is any chance of this happening.
The third recommendation is:
The government’s response is:
The key phrase in the accompanying notes seems to be: ‘works are then coordinated with repairs and maintenance service providers to achieve best results to meet community housing needs’. Is an example of this how the repairs and maintenance refurbishment work is allocated on Melville Island? This did not appear to be working well for the shire or the tenants. There appeared to be a blurring of repairs and maintenance money, and what are refurbishments and the funding of them. There has been much debate about how much money - what is the value of the $75 000 when it comes to refurbishments. There is concern that councils have to pick up what the alliances do not have to do. That is an important area which requires discussion. I will come back to that in relation to something else later on.
The fourth recommendation is:
The government agreed saying:
The response to that, minister, is that the CTC received, originally, a pro forma SLA form; that is, without the requested details. The information had therefore not been provided. Copies of the service level agreements with shires were again requested in a letter to Dr Burns dated 14 March 2011 following a trip to Melville Island. The CTC has only received two SLAs for Tiwi and MacDonnell shires. Others have not been forwarded as the department says other shires did not respond to their request and therefore they do not have permission to release them.
In Clause 19.1(d)(ii), page 16 of the Property Management Agreement, it says: ‘obligations on confidential information in the agreement will not be breached if disclosed to a range of bodies, including a Legislative Assembly committee’. The question is, why were the signed agreements not provided, as there was no legal restriction on their provision to the CTC?
Recommendation five states:
The government’s response was:
Recommendation six:
That information is okay, but it does not deal with the recommendation in (b) that details be provided of the planning processes followed for designing SIHIP subdivisions and who participates in the processes.
I understand from the local member there were issues at Maningrida recently regarding the standard of subdivisions. Are the standards of the subdivisions the same as in Litchfield Shire? Hopefully, not the same as Pelly and Lorikeet roads. Are the standards in the towns the same as what would be required in a growth town? We have not received that detail we asked for and I ask government to look at this area immediately.
Recommendation 7 states:
The government agreed to that.
The question remains: if this is the policy, why was it not followed in the Wadeye case last year? I ask the minister, when responding, to find out what happened in that case regarding the damaged house; what was the outcome?
Recommendation 8 states:
That was agreed and provided – that is what the government is saying - a detailed quarterly report is provided to the CTC. While additional information was provided, detailed financial information was not provided. We are never going to see that detailed information under this process. The alliance process makes it difficult to get information about exactly how much money has been spent on houses. The argument is that this is part of a package and has been difficult. That is the reason we asked for detailed financial information. We want to see if there was $75 000 spent on a house and that information is extremely difficult to get, but that is important. We did receive our June 2010 spreadsheet in a timely manner, which had been a concern previously.
Recommendation 9 states:
This is agreed by the government.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan and Madam Speaker. It is unclear what ‘before the next hearing’ means and is unacceptable where there is an agreement to provide something, especially when no hearing is scheduled for DHLGRS.
Recommendation 10:
This is agreed by the government:
I highlight the last sentence: ‘a single point of contact’, but the organisation outlined appears to give more than one point of contact. There seem to be two or three - a senior executive director, her staff, and regional officers. The department’s organisational chart in the 2009-10 annual report, page 12, does not help either. Within the senior executive director’s division there are two discrete areas; one called local government and one called shire support. How regional officers fit into the organisational structure is not included so it does not clarify how all this works together as a single point of contact.
Recommendation 11 states:
I understand there have been changes to the CDEP program since then. The government has agreed to continue the CDEP program; however, an update would be useful because this is a major issue for councils and members of the CTC who are concerned about future employment in these areas. I will not read the response government gave on that issue, but an update - this is nearly six months old - on where we are at with CDEP would be welcome, minister.
Recommendation 12 is:
We need that information to determine whether local government reform achieved the benefits promised by government. This is supported by the government:
The response is that under the department’s property management agreements – SLAs - shires are required to report monthly on Indigenous employment in repairs and maintenance. Will that be included, and how and when will that information be collected and reported?
An issue with the government’s response is - are we able to get a copy of the Charles Darwin University report if it has been completed. The department or local government must have figures on how many people are employed. Community local government councils were going for quite a while; I would have thought they go back enough years for data to be collected.
The other side of the coin is to ensure there is a break up between employments by agencies, as distinct from employments by councils in their core functions. It is not accurate to say councils have more people; you have to compare apples with apples. Councils, generally speaking, stuck to their core functions, although some councils came to grief looking after agencies. We need to identify what is core function employment and what is agency employment.
Recommendation 13 states:
Just now, this came up in debate in relation to swimming pools. The government’s answer is interesting:
In evidence on 14 September 2010, DHLGRS CEO said:
What is happening about getting those longer-term revenue streams? If I have time, I might come back to that. I want to quickly move to the last two recommendations.
Recommendation 14 states:
This is an area where government should provide an update to the House. It has been raised here as part of the debate. Where is it at? The government agrees with our recommendations:
I will have to shorten that. The Northern Territory government’s response says negotiations were due to commence in early 2011. The response was tabled in early February 2011. Surely, there is more information that could have been included? What is the progress on this? Have formal negotiations commenced? Is there a time frame?
In a response to debate, the minister said government is trying to develop a plan for growth towns that includes long-term leasing arrangements. Part of that plan includes looking at the options for the Commonwealth being replaced by the Northern Territory entity, or for creating a joint Commonwealth and Territory office of leasing coordination.
The last, very important, recommendation is:
The NT government agreed and said:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson has already had an extension. There is only one extension.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, has he? Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Nelson from completing his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not suitable for this kind of thing, member for Port Darwin. You know the …
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, I will try to …
Mr ELFERINK: It is a motion, Madam Speaker!
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: That was very unparliamentary.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate it.
Mr WOOD: The answer from the government was:
In relation to permits, we were not saying there should be a breakdown of the permit system in general. Access to a town via road that does not require a permit is what the CTC was looking at. We understand that going to border areas requires a permit, but this is specifically in relation to the operation of growth towns.
Madam Speaker, I will not take up any more time; my apologies for going over, but I would be happy to hear the minister’s response. We asked for updates on some issues. Some issues need more full debate in parliament, especially regarding town leases, where growth towns are at, and where the issues such as refurbishments of houses done by alliances - the concept of that being done by local government councils - how far has that advanced.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I make a few comments, not so much about the report itself, but the circumstances surrounding the report and how it is passed through this House.
The member for Nelson correctly pointed out that this matter has been sitting on the Notice Paper since November last year. Once again, I will be accused of bullying by the member for Nelson, and I know the members opposite have now picked up the language, but I will always criticise the member for Nelson where I believe criticism is due, as any other member of this House, particularly government. Where I believe the member for Nelson is doing a good thing, I will recognise that, and will say so, as I will for any other member of this House. This is not bullying. This is the process of holding members to account. Yes, I hold a mirror up to the member for Nelson from time to time because he has the opportunity of a lifetime and is squandering it. Moreover, he is doing it for reasons that I cannot entirely fathom.
The member for Nelson’s opening comments today reflect my beliefs. When the member for Nelson started speaking here today he made comments about his disappointment in certain aspects of government’s response. He asked for the CTC to be created in a time when he was not even sure what the CTC would take. To do what he wanted it to do at the time, it was going to have to be a second Chamber of this House, but he settled on a committee, and the rest is history. A term of the agreement which keeps this government in power is that the member for Nelson would not continue to support a government engaged in maladministration. The government plays a perilous game with the member for Nelson, as he is the one who keeps them sitting on the government benches. They now demonstrate a level of indifference, which is reflected by a report that was handed down in November last year not finding its way to the top of the Notice Paper for discussion for fully nine or 10 months, and the member for Nelson accepts that.
If I was in the member for Nelson’s shoes, I would find that unacceptable. He is not happy with the answers from government. If I was to pull out the – what is it - the 18-page document or whatever, which is the agreement between him and government; how many of the promises have been kept? And yet the member for Nelson continues to support this government.
There are numerous examples of maladministration, which was one of the grounds that the member for Nelson said that he would not continue to support government; the cattle deaths on Mataranka is one that springs to mind. The references from the Johnson Report, where billions of dollars are being spent in the Northern Territory with little outcome, is evidence of maladministration. Child protection and its shortcomings is evidence of maladministration and the list goes on. Crime rates, cost of living, land release; none of those are areas where the government has gotten anywhere near to reaching its benchmarks and yet we hear the member for Nelson continuing to persevere with support of a government which has been correctly identified by the member for Fong Lim as moribund.
Yesterday, the member for Nelson said: ‘It is a year to go and then the people of the Northern Territory can decide’. That is a declaration that he has no intention, no matter what happens, no matter how he or his agreement is treated, that he will in any way hold this government to account by bringing it to a general election before 25 August next year. That is an abandonment of opportunity. The member for Nelson will say I am bullying him; I am not bullying him. I just find it incomprehensible that he would take these opportunities and cast them to the four winds.
He continues to criticise government. Yesterday he was talking about matters unacceptable to him. Again, in this House, I say to the member for Nelson, if you find those things unacceptable, the answer is simple. You walk over to the Chief Minister and say: ‘Make me the minister responsible for that area’ and become part of the solution. The Chief Minister will not have much choice if you say to him: ‘It is either a general election or make me the minister’. But, that is not what the member for Nelson does. The member for Nelson continues to support the government and, whilst he challenges them from time to time, follows up with nothing. And that is the frustrating thing about sitting in this House. If he wants to keep that government in power - fine - but use the opportunity to bring about some of the good that the member for Nelson continues to complain about not seeing in the community. If that is bullying, then so be it; it is bullying. But, I am not going to walk on the egg shells of mere civility for the sake of stepping away from my duty of making fair criticism when it is required. I am confounded and continue to be confounded by a member of this House who has enormous capacity to bring about change and refuses to do so.
The CTC itself is an expression of this difficulty. I was on the CTC, and I am on one of its subcommittees somewhat reluctantly. The council of Territory coercion would probably be a better description. When I was on the CTC, it took months to properly figure out the administration of the organisation. The CTC has had many hearings and over time has taken valuable evidence to demonstrate how things are working and how government operates. It continues to do so, but its inability to influence government is locked in; an admission the member for Nelson makes himself. His opening comments about how government received and dealt with the report show this government has now stepped away from responding to this committee. This committee was supposed to be a revolution in politics, but it has descended into arrangements that existed prior to the government’s crisis several years ago.
We have committees of the parliament and this is but one. Despite the rather grandiose name of Council of Territory Cooperation, it is nothing more than a committee of this parliament. It has some surprising powers but extending similar powers to other committees would allow them to achieve exactly the same things as the CTC. With a few tweaks to its terms of reference, the Public Accounts Committee could do everything the CTC does.
For these reasons, I continue to hold this mirror up to the member for Nelson. He does not enjoy it, but government does not hold a mirror up to him. It now essentially ignores him. If he continues to give away his power and allows government to continue ignoring him, the maladministration of the Northern Territory will continue for at least another year if the member for Nelson is to be believed.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Taminmin College students accompanied by Miss Ngaire Smith. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will wrap up this debate. Turning to the member for Port Darwin and his quite melodramatic offering about a mirror - that mirror is one in the fun park where you have no legs, or a big head, or long arms. The mirror the member for Port Darwin holds up is an interesting, tricky mirror. It is how he wants it; he is trying to bait the member for Nelson. We saw him go to his chair the other day and stand over him. However, in a political sense now …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is alleging I, in some way or other, threatened the member for Nelson. I would like him to produce evidence of any of this otherwise the minister is lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Minister, could you carefully word what you have to say bearing in mind the standing orders.
Dr BURNS: It is in the member for Port Darwin’s political interest to discredit the work of the CTC. The opposition withdrew from the CTC, withdrew engagement, withdrew from direct access to senior public servants and, indeed, any other witness the CTC called in relation to the matters of its inquiry. It cut off its nose to spite its face for political grandstanding and ideology. It has not got over the fact in 2009 it thought it had it all in the bag; it thought it would be in government within a couple of months – that government would pass to the Country Liberals. It was too lazy to go to an election before the people.
I previously said on the floor of this parliament that it was a gross error of judgment by the Leader of the Opposition and one wonders how much he wants to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He fumbled then and it has been downhill ever since for the opposition, and it has turned its guns on the member for Nelson.
A citizen recently pointed out how silly that strategy is. For the election in 2012, our polling is clearly showing it is neck and neck and could well come down, once again, to the member for Nelson. You have burnt your bridges. You are burning your bridges in continually attacking the member for Nelson. In 2012, the wisdom of the people of the Northern Territory will decide who to install in government. I said to the member for Port Darwin a number of times: ‘The people are never wrong; the people are always right’. There are a number of ways this could go - I have mentioned one possibility. Politically, you are burning your bridges. That is all I will say about the member for Port Darwin.
From the government’s perspective, we value the work of the Council of Territory Cooperation. Sometimes, the issues raised by the CTC and the member for Nelson, in particular, are uncomfortable for us. To say government does not take the CTC seriously is incredibly wrong.
The member for Nelson raised a number of issues today - you would almost call them nuts and bolts issues - about stovetops, taps, and a range of things - particularly the works at Milikapiti. As soon as those issues were raised, I went to Milikapiti and beyond, with the member for Nelson. I took the CEO of the department. I am not sure whether Mr Kirkman came along; there was possibly someone else from the department. The alliance was onsite. We went site to site that day. The member for Arafura was also with us. We talked through the issues with both the experts and the local community. So, to say the government does not take the issues raised by the member for Nelson seriously is absolute balderdash. We do take them seriously.
The member for Nelson has raised the issue of our response to the third report. If the member for Port Darwin had listened carefully, he would have heard the member for Nelson talk about a number of things that have been achieved; reports that have been given to the CTC; actions that have been taken over a whole range of matters. There are 15 or so recommendations, and the member for Nelson gave a bit of a scorecard, in his view, about how many had been fulfilled, how many were maybe, and how many he felt there had been some lack of action. It is a report card from the member for Nelson.
What I can do is give the member for Nelson assurances that on those outstanding issues, where we can, we will endeavour to supply further information. I give this undertaking to the member for Nelson today - I am prepared to meet with him once again, as I did on the Milikapiti issues. I hope my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, will also meet with him, with the CEO, and let us talk through, one by one, the issues the member feels are outstanding and get an action plan. I will give the member for Nelson that undertaking, just as I did when I went to Milikapiti. If the member wants me to go to other places I will; the member knows I like to get out of the office. In fact, I am jealous of the way he goes around the Territory, engaging with many people.
Even without an agreement between the government and the member for Nelson, the member for Nelson, since 2001, has been the hardest working member in this place. The way he engages in debate, in committee stage debate, and informed debate - not just foolishness, as sometimes comes from some opposition members. Some of them engage in committee stage debate in a good way, but the member for Nelson does not grandstand; he is not into handstands; he is not into political bits and pieces; he is into getting to the bottom of issues. He is a terrier; he never gives up. He is absolutely tenacious in what he does and I respect that.
I do not always agree with the member for Nelson, and I cannot always supply what the member for Nelson requires because, if we are talking about SIHIP in particular, this is a partnership with the Commonwealth. The member for Nelson wants every bit of SIHIP financial information laid on the table, but I cannot do that, member for Nelson. You mentioned the alliance contracting model and its complications. I have expressed publicly on many occasions my reservations about the alliance method, but it is what we have and I am working with it as best I can.
As the Auditor-General said in his SIHIP report about a year ago, the alliance model has some pluses, and we have to recognise that. The pluses are around flexibility and consolidating effort. These are important and positive elements of alliance contracting. The negative is until a stage of work is completed, it is difficult to ascertain the exact financial cost. As you are aware, package by package, we have tried to supply you and the CTC with financial data about completed packages. Although the costs were slightly higher than I had hoped for, on average, they are in line with the predicted average cost for new houses, rebuilds, and refurbishments. We will continue to supply you with that financial information. I suppose the element …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My report was on behalf of the CTC; just to make sure people do not think this is my report. The minister is addressing it as ‘I’, but it is actually the CTC, just for clarification.
Dr BURNS: I did acknowledge that at the beginning of my offering, Madam Speaker, where I said that government members were sitting on the CTC, but I will talk in general terms, member for Nelson.
Government cannot provide commercial-in-confidence information to the CTC. The alliances entered into contractual arrangements with government and expect confidentiality. Nonetheless, costs can be and are attributed, but there are difficulties with the alliance model.
I am confident we will be releasing more information about SIHIP for the 2010-11 financial year and figures are being finalised. I should be in a position to release more information, particularly with the completion of packages. I need to give you that assurance, member for Nelson. I operate on advice. I am more than happy to share that with the committee, where appropriate, once again recognising we are in a partnership with the Commonwealth and it has views about recording and reporting frameworks. It is not just a matter for the Northern Territory government; the bulk of this substantial funding of $672m is from the Commonwealth, so it obviously has a major say.
Issues raised by the member for Nelson on behalf of the committee and our reply to the committee - as I said, I am more than happy to meet to work through some of those issues with the CEO where the member wants more information. I noted a few of the recommendations - 4, 6, and 11 - outstanding ones you mentioned where you said you required more information. I will endeavour, with the CEO, to get that information.
You talked about scheduled hearings; the CEO and Mr Kirkman are - I do not know whether happy would be the word - but they are pleased to be involved in those hearings, and when summoned, they will come. I want to commend Ken Davies. I have worked with several CEOs over my time, and Ken Davies is very hard-working, and attentive to his department and its performance. Given the scale and unique nature of SIHIP, it is a work in progress. Some of the questions you asked I do not have the complete answer for, for that reason. In this first tranche, and hopefully it is a first tranche - first stage of this enormous project with 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds, and 2500 refurbishments - that the next steps we will learn, we have already learnt so far, and we will continue.
You mentioned, for instance, that you wanted solid wall house construction. Government has said that is our intention too. That is the way we want it to go. You also said that one of the alliances was continuing to build steel frame construction. We must recognise that we have already entered into contractual arrangements with that alliance and cannot change those arrangements without much heartache and expense. What we are talking about is the future, about what we are going to do, and it is going to be solid wall construction.
In my original speech on our response, I talked about the approaches I have had and, no doubt, the member for Nelson and other members of the committee have had, people from interstate and even local Territory companies saying: ‘This is a wonderful thing, it is in a shipping container, and all you have to do is take it out and open it up and it is ready to go. You can do it in two weeks and it is $200 000’. Magnificent products, many of them, but I do not believe they are durable enough for the 30- to 40-year time frame we want. They are wonderful products for building in the rural area, or for government employee housing on remote communities. I am not putting the products down but our experience told us these houses need to be very durable.
Vis-a-vis the Wadeye property you alluded to where a family member unfortunately put an iron bar through the wall of a steel frame construction house. Member for Nelson, you asked what happened. I can assure this House that the family has been pursued and is repaying the debt for the damage to that house. I am not sure what has happened with criminal proceedings, but with the other undertakings I gave today, I undertake to ascertain whether there have been criminal proceedings in that case. I have made it plain to my CEO regarding damage to houses - whether they be in the urban area or the bush - that I want perpetrators of damage to be pursued. I want the incidents of damage reported to police and I want those perpetrators pursued for the debt. I am focused on that, member for Nelson.
You mentioned – I am only up to recommendation 2 - where we are in negotiations about transfer of refurbishments to the shires or other local entities that could carry out that work and provide local benefit and possibly efficiencies. I inform the House that our advocacy with the Commonwealth continues on that. They feel there are contractual agreements in place but that is where I want to go.
SIHIP is a work in progress. The Chief Minister and I, and my office at an officer level, continue to advocate for this with minister Macklin and FaHCSIA. I am glad you spoke to minister Macklin and we all need to do that. I see that as the natural direction; the positive direction at the local level for the next stages of this project, so I am reporting where it is and we are continuing to advocate.
You asked a question about the standard of subdivision. I visited the Maningrida subdivision and it appeared to be of a high standard. If there are problems, I will meet with you and the member for Arafura to discuss issues related to that. The extreme rain event we had earlier this year, Cyclone Carlos, was centred over Maningrida and probably right over that subdivision. There have been problems with the roadworks due to a washout. The roadworks were beginning to be formed. They had not been compressed – all that engineering side of things - and, unfortunately, the extreme rain. I forget …
Ms Scrymgour: Eight hundred millimetres.
Dr BURNS: Eight hundred millimetres in one day. That is an incredible amount of rain even for the Territory, and created a …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling a suspension for lunch, I have received a document relating to pairs for the member for Wanguri and the member for Brennan for the period 3 pm to 5 pm. I table that.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Bernie Finn MP, member for Western Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council of Victoria. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Chief Minister for his government’s pretence of support for the Territory’s live cattle industry while failing to rebuke the Gillard Labor government for its blanket ban on live cattle exports and failing to deliver any real and meaningful assistance to thousands of Territorians now suffering under economic hardship as a result of the ban.
Madam Speaker, it is a well-known practice of the Labor Party - that franchised and deceitful brand - to use such notions as bipartisanship and ‘let us not go down the path of politicising things’; it is a smokescreen, a shield, a deception from dissecting the core of this issue. The reality is the bipartisan position was taken at a time when there was a devastating decision taken, a cold-blooded decision that had a monumental and catastrophic effect on the Northern Territory pastoral sector and its heroic and hard-working families, as well as the regions of the Northern Territory, and the economies that are struggling in our regions.
Make no mistake; it was absolutely clear this was not Cyclone Yasi. This was a political decision. At the time, the effect of that decision caused many of us to stop and consider our actions. The first action of the opposition was to visit Indonesia because it recognised that this cold-blooded, calculated, political decision had an effect on the relationship with our near neighbour. Immediately, the response was not a political one, but the right thing – to visit our neighbour, let them know we are still with them, and prepared to work with them. Step No 2 was to demonstrate the gravity of the effect of this decision to the people of this nation and, most importantly, the pastoralists, those heroic families; demonstrate to them how seriously we take the effect of this cold-blooded, political decision. It was not Cyclone Yasi. This was a decision taken in Canberra.
The second point was to recall the parliament and join in a spirit of bipartisanship, but I will not be conned, nor will I be gagged. The bipartisan position was taken to reinforce the effect of this disaster resulting from a decision; we did that. The purpose - because of the damage - it was like a terrible accident or disaster had occurred. The first thing is to render assistance, and we rendered assistance by demonstrating the gravity of the situation. We came together in this place and I acknowledge that was the right step. I acknowledged the step taken by the Chief Minister and those who work on the fifth floor, and by my colleague, Dave Tollner, and those who worked behind the scenes to make that happen. That was a good and necessary step. We achieved our objective. We reinforced the serious effect of this decision. Make no mistake; the bipartisan position was to demonstrate the effect of the decision. I remained silent, as many of my colleagues did at the time. However, a decision was taken that once we rendered assistance we needed to draw our attention to how this problem occurred in the first place.
I bit my lip because I could not believe a Chief Minister would stand, nod, and plainly create the impression of support for the decision taken by Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of this nation. The head of the Labor Party, the franchise brand across this nation that made this devastating decision, stood there meekly.
I waited to see whether there was capacity within this Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to wake up, stand up, and recognise his first priority is not to his Labor brand but to the people of the Northern Territory. He was given an opportunity to stand in a bipartisan position. Why? Because we needed to render assistance to those people devastated by the decision he meekly accepted. We gave him that position, gave him the place to stand, and I was happy to occupy that place for a time to render assistance. However, I could not swallow the fact a decision had been made; a political decision that made our Chief Minister mute. He could not genuinely express honest offence at the decision Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, of the Labor government federally, had made. He could not stand up and criticise.
I considered it from the other point of view. If the Chief Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, and John Howard had made such a decision, what would his response be? What position would he take? What high moral ground would they be standing on? Instead, they are relieved that we provided them a space to stand so they could say: ‘Let us not politicise this’. As the lame duck Asian Relations and Trade minister said all through estimates: ‘Listen, please, I warn you not to politicise this. I am not going to answer any questions on this because it is political’. That is a thin deception covering a decision not to be accountable for the decisions you have taken that have affected families.
I come to the point why I changed. I was at the Katherine Show and Gary Riggs was there. He is a man for whom I have great admiration. Why? Because I know people from the land. My brothers are on the land. My son worked for eight years in the pastoral industry. He gained his first place in the pastoral industry under the guiding hand of Gary. I know his family. I know the story behind the scenes. Yes, they might have a four-wheel-drive but I know the workload. People from the city say: ‘When are your holidays?’ You cannot take a holiday – you have to work it out. You want to create a future for your children so you extend your capacity and extend your lease because you have young lads who might want to take on greater responsibility because they love the land. It is like a calling.
My son was under his tutelage in his early days. He loves the industry and I admire that man who represents families – men and women across the Northern Territory. He, like others, spoke to me during the show circuit and, in plain language, described the effect this has had on their future. When a man of the land says this could well mean they will walk away, it is like ripping the heart out of a person who has devoted himself to the land. That discussion is going on around dinner tables across the Northern Territory, the Kimberley, and Queensland. I know that pain, but the pain is more bitter because it was a cold-blooded, clinical, political decision taken by the Prime Minister and Ludwig. It has had devastating effects across the Territory, the north of our nation, not to mention the effect in Indonesia. I do not think people grasp that.
I acknowledge, given the gravity of this situation, there needed to be a response. I am pleased we now have some cattle going on boats. However, I will not be conned, nor will I be gagged, and I will stand up for those families. I will stand up for them because this was a decision that destroyed their hope and livelihood - and I know what this does to the morale of men, particularly, and the women who support them. It was so serious that we needed to reinforce that a response was required to a very serious situation, which we understood. There was some hope with the stand we took in this parliament, and the position we provided, through discussion, for the government – which was exposed on this – that we stand together and render that assistance. The hope was it would leverage a national response. It is unusual for a parliament to come together, unusual for an opposition to make that call initially, and for the government to accept that.
I expected Western Australia and Queensland would follow the same, in recognition of the seriousness of the situation. First, we needed to render assistance - that is what you do when you come to the scene of an accident - you help. That is what we did. We did what we could do from opposition. That is why I went to Indonesia. How offensive for the member for Casuarina to refer to that as a holiday! You ask my wife about what I should be doing with my money. I did that because it was the right thing to do; to let people, who were bewildered at this decision, know there was a way forward. Those people were offended at a blanket ban - for goodness sake! What message does that send to our Indonesian neighbours who are determined to drive reform? That is what they want. We offended them immensely and damaged our industry, and the Chief Minister - as he has done, sadly, since he has been Chief Minister - never stood up in a genuine way to his federal Labor masters – never!
Something goes on in that Labor brand. I do not know what they do to create this meek observance and respect for the brand. I do not know what it is. It is a different outfit. I could never be a part of that outfit. You do not stand up for those families and you do not understand the reality of the pain of real people who work in the real world, and what effect your calculated and cold-blooded decisions have on families. I know what that is like.
So, when I had that conversation in Katherine, I thought: ‘It is over. It is time now, once assistance is rendered, which is appropriate, to turn our attention to how the accident was caused’. It was caused by weakness to stand up to a political response by the Prime Minister and Ludwig, who were influenced and controlled by extremists. Not finding voice to distance immediately, instinctively, away from that position, but to meekly follow along - and follow all the way - I find offensive. I cannot tolerate that any longer, nor can the opposition.
If it was truly bipartisan - this great spirit of bipartisanship, which I find as a cloak of deception with an intent to gag discussion - the ad in the paper flowing from those discussions would have been bipartisan. Was it? No; it was the government. They ticked that box. We contributed to the national discussion and complied with the spirit of bipartisanship by putting a response nationally into the media. I think it was - correct me if I am wrong, member for Fong Lim, was it just one ad that went into the paper - the national paper - one ad, in the spirit of bipartisanship, no. Once again, I kept my mouth closed. I wondered why. I thought, I know what is really going on here, some sense of relief because really once again the Labor Party sees this, and this Labor government, sees this as a political issue. We have to manage this situation, and we provided them with a place from which they could manage the situation. So, if it was genuinely bipartisan I would have seen a genuine response to that call for some communication to the rest of the nation as to the effect this decision had. No, it was not bipartisan.
There was a media conference at the wharf. If it was genuinely bipartisan, if it was genuine, the Chief Minister would have called and said: ‘Come on down’. It has never been genuinely bipartisan. It has just been a convenience, and we will not offer that convenience any longer: the convenience of a refuge, of a spine that is dangerously weak and does not stand up and provide the appropriate leadership at a time when families desperately need it.
We should have, in a spirit of bipartisanship, accepted a call to censure the federal government - where was that call? There has not been any criticism. There was commentary in the Northern Territory News. I am not sure who wrote it, probably Mr Nigel Adlam - a couple of stories about the Chief Minister going to Canberra and putting the blowtorch on the evil characters in Canberra who imposed this terrible situation on us …
Mr Conlan: Xenophon and Wilkie.
Mr MILLS: That is the sideshow! The main game is a decision was made to impose a blanket ban. The issue has been canvassed. We know there was a need for a response. For goodness sake, the President of Indonesia knew there needed to be a response. They never expected their near neighbour would impose such an effect on their economy, which affected national security and exposed them to sovereign risk. Food is important to a nation of 240 million people. What sort of neighbour does that; offend them, and then threaten their food security?
Make no mistake; it is a serious issue in Indonesia. I do not know whether you picked that up because I have not heard anything. You people seem to be so mild about this; you are seeing this as a political exercise, or some media thing you have to manage. ‘It is a public relations exercise’ is where your heart and soul seem to be, and that is why you do not appear to dig deep when it comes to serious issues. You are relieved when given places to stand; things to do that create impressions. I bet you get a sense of relief when you see: ‘Oh yes, people are starting to think I am doing something about this’, says the Chief Minister, ‘Good, we seem to be winning the PR exercise’.
Meanwhile, people are concerned about their future. These are not public servants; these are people who have a weight of debt you would not believe. If you are on the land, have an asset, and have borrowed to extend, to create capacity today and a hope for your kids, you borrow lots of money. That has to be repaid. Labor does not seem to understand that basic concept, but the level of debt these families are holding is something you could not believe. When the asset is devalued as a result of a cold-blooded decision taken in Canberra - which you have not found the spine nor the voice to stand up and call it what it is - you increase the weight to an extent that people find it difficult to sleep at night. They worry about their future, considering what day they will make a decision to drive off the land and not come back; that is the effect.
It is not a public relations exercise for God’s sake. This is real, and the pressure is immense, and to allow this charade to go on any further in phase two of this - now that some assistance has been rendered - we need a proper response and to recognise how this accident, this deliberate damage to an industry, occurred.
It occurred because someone made a decision. It was the Labor government in Canberra that made this decision and it was this Chief Minister who has still not found voice to criticise that decision or stand up for the Northern Territory. His greater interest is preserving solidarity with the comrades, rather than standing with Territorians. That is not on, and we will not cop that. We cannot do it. I am not going to abide by the spirit of bipartisanship any longer because I will not be gagged. I did it, and we did it, because it was the right thing to do and it has served its purpose, until now.
Now we have an obligation to stand up and call it for what it is because to do otherwise would be negligent and complicit, and we will not be. This Chief Minister, for the lack of real leadership, for courage at a time required, for this government with its capacity to practice the art of deceit by taking this whole issue as a public relations exercise, follow along behind the crowd, not respond appropriately, have calls from the opposition such as: ‘Do something practical like your pastoral rents’. I found that the lamest excuse, which demonstrates from the Chief Minister the lack of compassionate and real leadership.
To say the first job it had to do was resume the live trade before it considered something basic like sending a message: ‘Do not worry guys, we will lift that off you, we are here to help’. You could have done that at any time; it is a bit like giving someone a drink of water when they are thirsty. They have been caught up – they are in trouble, they are worried, they are frightened. You could have said that right at the beginning and acknowledged that the deputy leader, the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources had made that call and so she should have. It was the right call to make. But to wait and to have a lame dog excuse saying: ‘Oh well, we had to do this first, now we have done a press conference down at the port, and now we can announce that’.
Anyone can see that announcement was made when the parliament was resumed; that is what it was about. It was a public relations exercise; people can see that. They can see the timing of it; the excuse does not wash. You are not genuine. The Chief Minister is probably going to be hurt: ‘Yes, we had bipartisanship and now he has wrecked it, so he is a baddie, and I thought the Opposition Leader was sincere’. I am sincere. You can come to the scene of an accident and stand there and be sincere, but you have to actually help people. You can be sincere and observe. You can be sincere and perhaps not grasp the fact that you have actually contributed to the problem. Yes, I am sincere. The Chief Minister is sincere. But there is a problem and the problem was caused by a decision and that decision I can spot quite sincerely was the wrong decision and had devastating effect.
First job: render assistance. Second job: I cannot abide by that decision. I find it galling so therefore we stand up now and call it as it is and this is the time to call this Chief Minister out, and this Labor administration, for lack of leadership, lack of courage, and lack of conviction about anything meaningful. You deserve censure.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I express my deep disappointment that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to abandon a bipartisan approach. This is not about politics. From the beginning I said this is about people’s lives; people in the Northern Territory and northern Australia. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks he is the only one who knows people on the land, he is wrong. I know people on the land. I have friends who work in the pastoral industry, and no, member for Fong Lim, I am not joking, I know people. Some of these people are my friends and I know what they have gone through during the period of the ban.
I have said many times that I had the misfortune to spend time in Australian abattoirs as part of my studies. I have never seen anything like the footage in Four Corners report; that footage was as bad as what we saw from Egypt and the Middle East with cattle and lambs. Something happened in the Middle East and Egypt - there was a trade ban for live cattle and live sheep for a period of time. In Australia this time the public reaction and what people felt about it - even the industry condemned the practices at those Indonesian abattoirs.
We stand here in the spirit of bipartisanship and will not seek to politicise it because the last thing people in the pastoral industry want is bickering between two political parties in parliament about: ‘I am better than you, I have better photographs than you’. They want the problem to be resolved so they can go on with their lives. The reality is from the very first moment I was not afraid to speak publicly. If the Leader of the Opposition goes back he will find I was the first one to say it was a crisis for the Northern Territory and northern Australia, and the first one to say this had the potential to transfer the welfare issues from Indonesia to northern Australia. When the ban was announced on 7 June, I spoke to the federal minister about it. I advised him about the implications the ban would have on the Northern Territory and, on 9 June, when the Prime Minister was here to open the medical school, I spent 20 minutes briefing her about the implications the ban would have on the cattle industry in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia.
Since that day, we have worked closely with the Cattlemen’s Association and the live cattle exporters because we realised the issue would have wider implications than simply on people growing cattle in the Northern Territory. Many jobs and businesses rely on the cattle industry in the Territory - from the small shop in Tennant Creek that changes car tyres to the fuel supplier in Katherine, to the people working on the wharf, and people working on the boats. Not only that, the implications go wider than the Northern Territory; they expand to Indonesia, and I will come back to that.
I spoke immediately with my counterpart in Western Australia, Terry Redman, and Tim Mulherin in Queensland. All three recognised the impact on the industry in our states, most of it in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, less in Queensland. The Queensland minister recognised the impact it would have on his cattle and beef industry should the number of animals currently being exported not find their way to Indonesia but were directed to the internal trade.
I met with officials of the federal minister many times. I participated in a teleconference on 10 June. In the teleconference, we talked about the establishment of a working group of live animal exporters made up of Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia. I insisted Luke Bowen from the Cattlemen’s Association be part of that group since the Northern Territory had a big interest in Indonesia. From the first moment, I offered to travel to Indonesia with Senator Ludwig and advise him about the special relationship the Territory has with Indonesia and the Indonesian government. Irrespective of governments in place, we always had a good relationship with Indonesia. Even in the darkest moments of the relationship between Indonesia and Australia, during the East Timor emergency, the Northern Territory still maintained a good relationship with Indonesia. I offered to travel to Indonesia.
We did not stop working with the Cattlemen’s Association and the cattle industry. The Chief Minister went to Canberra. The Chief Minister and officials travelled to show our level of support to the federal government. We made it very clear what we thought about it and, in some cases, our calls were echoed through …
Mr Elferink: You agreed with them.
Mr VATSKALIS: … the southern newspapers that actually tried to portray this as a different position to the federal government, despite the fact that both governments are of the same political persuasion.
No, we did not agree with that, member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, you did. You stood up there with Ludwig and said: ‘This has to happen’.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: We agreed animals have to be treated humanely, in a way they are treated in Australia. What we said was we would like to continue …
Mr Elferink: You supported the ban.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we would support the ban as long as our animals continued to be treated inhumanely, the way it was portrayed on Four Corners …
Mr Westra van Holthe: So, you supported the ban!
Mr VATSKALIS: What we also supported, member for Katherine - because you are well-known for twisting things and having your own way - was to invest in Indonesia. We called upon MLA to invest in Indonesia to upgrade the abattoirs utilising our Australian animals; to upgrade the facilities so the animals are treated humanely in those areas ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr VATSKALIS: I am the first to argue that if it was about animal welfare, the worst thing was to stop exporting live cattle to Indonesia. If we stop live cattle from Australia, Indonesia will be supplied live cattle from other countries, with wider implications. Not only would those animals be treated inhumanely like the ones we saw on Four Corners because there would be no pressure from the importers to change their practices, but also the potential for certain animal diseases to find their way to Indonesia and, from there, to Australia.
Last week, I heard the Leader of the Opposition saying he went to Indonesia. He did go to Indonesia and I congratulate him for that. He visited an abattoir, and I congratulate him for that. My trip to Indonesia was at the personal request of the federal minister for Agriculture, Joe Ludwig, who asked me to utilise our special relationship with minister Suswono and the members of his department, and also meet with the MLA. With me went Luke Bowen from the Cattlemen’s Association, Rohan Sullivan, the President of the Cattlemen’s Association, and Adam Hill who represents the exporters.
During the three days I spent in Indonesia we met with a number of senior officials from the Department of Agriculture and discussed the issue of live cattle exports. I also met with the Deputy Minister for Trade and his team. In addition to that, I visited a feedlot. All the information I gathered I conveyed to the federal minister for Agriculture and highlighted the Indonesians were disappointed the ban was put in place without them being advised. I also advised him of their disappointment about the way very limited information was coming from Australia. The clear and blunt message was: ‘You put the ban in place. If you want us to come to the party, you have to lift it’.
My trip to the feedlot was an eye-opener because I met the manager who has 130 families working and surviving because of that feedlot. The feedlot closed because there would not be any more animals, and 130 families would find themselves without a house and an income.
I also looked at the market and at the time, because of the ban, the price of meat in Indonesia had risen by 70 per kilogram. When it was pointed out to me that the average Indonesian family survives on $2.50 a day, you can imagine the impact that increase would have on the average Indonesian family.
What was also an eye-opener was the officials themselves advised me they condemn the inhumane treatment of animals. Indonesia has in place a number of laws and by-laws to control the slaughter of animals. Unfortunately, some of these by-laws were not policed strictly in some of the more remote abattoirs. For your information, Indonesia has 660 abattoirs. Of these 660 abattoirs, 134 were utilising Australian animals. Of these 134, approximately six or seven were complying with what we call international standards or Australian Standards.
We also have to consider the cultural differences between Australia and Indonesia. Many people felt it was an attempt by the Australian industry to change from live cattle export to chilled beef. I assured them that was not the case and certainly in the Territory we cannot provide them with chilled beef for the simple reason that we do not have an abattoir - neither has north Western Australia. Indonesia highlighted that we have to take the cultural differences between Indonesia and people in Australia into account. The Indonesian people like live animals for their religious ceremonies and, also, the average Indonesian household does not own a refrigerator. An Indonesian housewife will go to the wet markets on a daily basis to buy the meat she will cook that day for consumption by her family. There is nowhere to store fresh or chilled meat; there is no way to store leftovers.
We conveyed this information to the Australian Embassy after meeting with the Australian Ambassador, Mr Moriarty, and I thank him very much for his assistance. We met with MLA officers in Indonesia and discussed the issue of upgrading the abattoirs. I was not hopeful at the time, because there was some change of staff at MLA. I could not get my head around how many abattoirs MLA was investigating, how many abattoirs were going to be upgraded, what was the time frame, who was going to pay for it, how quickly there would be an audit of these abattoirs, and by whom, to assure the Australian government that everything was fine so the trade could recommence.
This issue is beyond politics. As I said before, it is about lives; lives in Australia and lives in Indonesia. I am not talking about consuming protein; I am talking about lives and bringing up families.
In Australia, a significant number of cattle from the Territory find their way every year to Indonesia - about 280 000 cattle. If these 280 000 cattle stay on land, the impact on Territory land will be significant. Because of the distance factor, many of these cattle cannot be sent south because by the time you truck them and sell to the abattoirs, you will not receive much in return. The transport costs and sale price would probably be the same. The kind of cattle we grow in the Northern Territory north of the Barkly is not the kind of cattle the average consumer in the southern states demand. That became very clear when Coles, New World and Woolworths advised they did not intend to buy any of these animals because they do not meet their specification.
You can imagine having a property which is probably mortgaged to the bank, you have 30 000 cattle on the land. Okay, the weather was good, there was plenty of feed at the time, but as it gets drier you need money to buy diesel to power bores to have water pouring. You also have to buy feed because the land can only support the animals for so long. We were heading for an animal welfare disaster in the Northern Territory.
The trade is just starting to open again and will trickle compared with what we had before; only a small number of animals will go to Indonesia this year. When the Wet comes, you cannot muster the animals, you cannot take them out, and you cannot export them to Indonesia. The animals stay on the land unless the abattoirs currently under upgrade in Indonesia fast-track so we have more abattoirs. We need more abattoirs in Indonesia so we can export more animals.
We have been lobbying the federal government to allow animal exports from the Northern Territory and Western Australia to Indonesia to remain in feedlots for 100 to 150 days to allow time for abattoir upgrades. If this is adopted, the pressure on the land and pastoralists would be relieved. We will continue to insist on that, because we cannot just say: ‘Let us put these animals out there. These animals are good enough for the seven abattoirs currently meeting our standards. When the others are upgraded, then we will export more animals’. We have to be proactive, put pressure on the MLA, and put pressure on the feedlotters and suppliers to comply with the guidelines we have put in place.
The Chief Minister and I gave evidence to the Senate committee recently. We highlighted the problems faced in the Territory, the pressure on pastoralists. We highlighted the cost, not only to the pastoralists, but also to the Australian public. In discussions with some of the banks, I was told they have significant portfolios of pastoral properties and that means a lot of money. We are not talking about a million or two or $10m; we are talking about two, three, four hundred, possibly billions of dollars of properties in their portfolio. If pastoralists cannot export animals and are not able to pay their mortgages, banks are bound to find themselves with a significant portfolio of properties that probably will have a value of about 30% to 50% and people unable to pay their mortgages. That will be a significant impact to the banking sector in Australia, which you and I, and everyone else will pay through interest rates on our mortgages.
Should we not be able to sell our cattle, the cattle have to go somewhere. If they go down south as low quality meat - most likely mince meat to be used as patties for the fast food outlets - this will press the price of beef down. We have seen that happening in Queensland and the southern states because of an influx of beef from the other states, namely Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
This is not about playing politics. I do not think it is clever or appropriate for us to play politics with this significant issue. We have to be together. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition made his choice. He found excuses to say: ‘I am pulling out of this bipartisan approach’. We are not; we still believe we can work together although suddenly the Leader of the Opposition does not want to work together. I am pretty sure there will be some members opposite, member for Fong Lim, who would be willing to stand together and walk together for the pastoralist. I said before this is about lives …
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t you invite the Leader of the Opposition to your media conference and say: ‘What a great job he has done with yourselves’?
Mr VATSKALIS: … this is an issue about lives.
I know your electorate does not have many pastoralists living there and neither does mine. However, we have friends outside our electorates who have properties and work together. They might not live in our electorates but there are many businesses in our electorates that have some connection to the pastoralists.
The Indonesians were appreciative of our visit. They had an opportunity to speak to us. I conveyed all the messages to the embassy and to the federal minister for agriculture and I was pleased he took my offer to visit Indonesia. I am pleased that he rang me and asked me to do that. Obviously, the message sunk in because when I was at the Jakarta airport waiting to board an plane back to Darwin, I received a phone call from his office to advise me that the minister had decided to lift the ban, effective immediately, under certain conditions.
I do not have many photos of abattoirs because I did not visit abattoirs at the request of the Indonesian host. I have many photos of cows in feedlots, but having photos means nothing. The important thing is not going for a photo shoot, but going to discuss how to assist your industry, how to contribute to lifting the ban from the Australian government. That has not finished yet because this is only the beginning.
We have insisted on a working group to oversee the development and upgrade of abattoirs in Indonesia, working together with MLA. We have a vested interest as industry and as governments. We and Western Australia - irrespective of their Liberal government – both have an interest in making sure the trade starts and starts quickly - in time at least to be able to muster animals, bring them to the ports, load the boats, and send them away. We have insisted on the development of a working group; we are pushing the federal government for a working group to be established. Both the minister from Western Australia and the minister from Queensland are keen on it and we will continue to work together to make sure this happens. I understand the minister for agriculture is already thinking about it.
Yes, that was a decision made by government, but it was a decision made for a particular reason. We might not like the outcome, but something had to be done at the time. We could not close our eyes and continue to allow animals from Australia, or anywhere, to be treated the way we saw them being treated at those abattoirs. It is easy to blame Indonesia; to blame the people who were working in the abattoir. We have to consider the cultural differences between them and us. We also have to consider that abattoirs in Indonesia do not operate on a commercial basis as they operate here in Australia. My advice from Indonesia was that some of the people killing animals were not even paid in money; they are paid in meat. So we are not talking about professionals in the same sense as here in Australia. We are talking about people who kill animals the way their father and grandfather did.
In addition, most of the abattoirs, especially the smaller ones, are not owned by the corporate sector but by local governments that do not spend money to upgrade them. Local governments whose only interest is how many animals they put through to take a cut out of and not put anything back into the abattoir. Feedlotters and officials gave that advice to us. There are problems in Indonesia but we have to work with Indonesian authorities and we have to work with the Indonesian private sector to upgrade the abattoirs if we want to continue to supply live cattle to Indonesia.
Unfortunately, with the advance of media such as the Internet and Facebook, we will continue to see many pressure groups utilising the power of the media to pressure governments. It was obvious a massive campaign was occurring through the Internet and Facebook in the beginning with e-mails about banning the live cattle export and then the Four Corners report. People were told something bad was happening, there were advertisements on the television that this was to be shown in a few days time and, when it happened, everyone became upset because of what they saw on television. What we saw was not what happens in the majority of the abattoirs utilising animals from Australia. The majority of those abattoirs are well run, owned by the corporate sector, and comply with international and Australian standards. The abattoirs we saw were small abattoirs, probably far away from Jakarta, filmed by people who entered the abattoirs and people who were not professionals or properly trained to kill the animals.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our commitment is to work with the opposition. The bipartisan approach is not about playing politics. It is about supporting our industry, and supporting our people in the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion 100%. When the government says it does not want anyone playing politics with this issue, it is actually saying it does not want anyone scrutinising what it has been up to. We saw it today when the minister for Indigenous affairs spoke about Indigenous health saying the issue is bigger than politics. What she is saying, in effect, is we do not want scrutiny on this issue. This is what government says by saying it wants a bipartisan approach. It is saying do not scrutinise us. It is scared of scrutiny for the reasons given in this debate so far.
The first person to say we needed a circuit breaker, this is a good decision, I support the ban, was our Chief Minister. He said it in Question Time today. He said we needed a circuit breaker; that is, we support the ban. The minister for Primary Industry said the same thing - we supported the ban. That is beyond doubt; that is a simple fact. We all know that is the case. Since then, the language and the rhetoric has changed to the point where it is clear to most people that government realises there is a massive impact on the Northern Territory economy.
Supporting the ban was probably not the right decision to make. I am not going to belt them up about that; we all make mistakes. What galls me is there is no scrutiny at all by this government on their federal Labor colleagues. That really irks me. Senator Ludwig’s decision to ban the live cattle export has to be one of the worst decisions taken by any government, anywhere in Australia, at any time. It is horrific. The damage caused to our local economy, to families, to businesses, to the fabric of North Australia, is incredible. The minister touched on the damage it has caused in Indonesia. It has caused massive damage. As he said, in one feedlot 130-odd families - not individuals, families - rely on that industry.
This decision was taken, as I am aware, without any consultation with the Northern Territory government or the Indonesian government. Senator Ludwig just announced the decision. There was no regard for Indonesia’s food supplies or food security; no discussion around that before the decision was taken. Indonesian people were given no opportunity to investigate or test the claims of the ABC or to weed out rogue operators. The minister told this Chamber that the practices undertaken in the footage of the Four Corners show were illegal in Indonesia. Surely, the Indonesian government should be given the opportunity to police its own laws before we instantly call for a blanket ban.
The worst thing of the lot was the message that Senator Ludwig, Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, and all those other weirdos sent to the Indonesians. The message they sent to the Indonesians was no more than: ‘You guys are a pack of cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That is the message that got through to Indonesia: ‘You are cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That is a disgusting message to send. That message should have been pounced on by every right-thinking person in Australia. We have the minister for Primary Industry now telling us he is the first person anywhere to call this a crisis. Whoopee doo! He said we have a special relationship with Indonesia. Well, he is right, but this government has done nothing to foster that relationship.
One of the first meetings I had in Canberra when I was elected member for Solomon was with members of the Northern Territory cattle industry who wanted to meet with Mark Vaile, the then federal Trade minister. It was an eye-opening meeting because I walked into that room with them, and one of these guys said to Mark Vaile: ‘Minister, you might find it unusual to see us down here because we have had such a good relationship in the Northern Territory with the Indonesians. Any time we ever needed anything done in Indonesia we got on the phone to one of our Northern Territory ministers and the problem was fixed, because the Northern Territory government had such a wonderful relationship with Indonesia. That has all broken down since the election of the Martin Labor government. For the first time ever we are in Canberra talking to the federal Trade minister about issues to do with the live cattle industry between North Australia and the federal government’. That is how much this government cares about Indonesia.
As I said, the message the federal government sent to the Indonesians is: ‘You are a pack of cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. There is no other way the Indonesian government, or the Indonesian people, can interpret that arbitrary decision made by Senator Ludwig. The damage that has been done to our industry is absolutely incredible.
We are hearing now that things are slowly being fixed. There is a deal that some 180 000 head can be sent to Indonesia. Indonesia has issued import permits, but we do not have export permits in Australia for that many head. If that was the best case scenario, it would mean that probably a third of our trade would resume. What that means, of course, is that two-thirds of our trade has not resumed.
I look at the farms that can take advantage of this decision and those that cannot. The ones that will take advantage of this decision are the corporates. It is the corporates, Elders, AAco, and the rest, who have the capacity, the supply chains in place, and the ability to guarantee a no-stun, no-deal policy. The little guy on the land, the mum and dad farmers, who have been here for several generations, I very much doubt whether any of them will be able to get any cattle out at all. For them, nothing has changed whatsoever. What do we hear from this government? Do we hear this government calling on the federal government to buy those cattle?
The federal government took away their customer. The federal government made this bizarre decision to put a blanket ban on the sale of cattle into Indonesia. The federal government is responsible. Any just-thinking person would say: ‘If you are going to do that, you have to buy them’. If I walk into a newsagent and rip up all the magazines on the shelf, I am expected to buy those magazines. If I do not, I would be charged and dragged off to court. The federal government has to stump up and buy the remaining 400 000 cattle that are staying in Australia because those cattle are no longer a domestic herd. They are what most people would consider a feral pest. That is the absolute reality of it. There is no market for these cattle. As time goes by, they exceed all Indonesian weight limits. They go over the 350 kg mark, they go over the 400 kg mark. Whatever that mark is, they become unsaleable. When they are unsaleable, they might as well be a horse, a donkey, a camel, or a feral pig, because they are just a grass burner. They are something that is taking food out of the mouths of genuine domestic animals that will be sold for food consumption, but there is no opportunity for that. Maybe the federal government can buy all those cattle and turn them into pet meat.
The federal government has to step up to the plate here. What really irks me is the Northern Territory government, whilst they rant and rave about Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie and others of that ilk who have no understanding of life in North Australia, and no desire to have an understanding of life in North Australia, whilst it gladly condemns them, it is not prepared to condemn the real culprit in this matter. The real culprit is the federal Labor government. We elect governments in the Northern Territory to stand up for us. We are a small jurisdiction considering the number of people dispersed across a big area, and we need to punch above our weight. We need to yell louder than anyone else in Australia to ensure our voice is heard, and that is what we primarily expect out of our government in the Northern Territory.
We come into this place and time and again we hear stories about the bad old days of the CLP and the decisions it got wrong. Everything was bad, but you never, ever hear a story of a CLP government not standing up for the Territory. You never hear a story about that. Irrespective of the political ilk of the federal government, CLP politicians from Paul Everingham through to Denis Burke were not scared to get up and have a crack, get up and have a go at the federal mob every time they did something that was bad for the Territory. We do not hear that from this mob. Never, ever, do they stand up to the federal government and defend Territorians.
The live cattle export industry is an incredible industry; we have so much to be proud of. It is only a recent industry, in the scale we now have, which started some 20 or 30 years ago. With the closure of meatworks in the Northern Territory, this industry sparked up. At the time when we were sending cattle overseas things were not particularly good. Welfare issues were of major concern; the rickety, little, old boats would get over to Indonesia and the cattle would be standing in some rice paddy up to their guts in water, having a poor diet, and killed in inhumane ways.
Over this period, the industry, Territory government, and the Indonesians have worked collaboratively to get us to today’s standards. This industry should be the envy of all Australians. The trip over there on these cattle boats has a lower mortality rate than a P&O cruise. That in itself is something to be extraordinarily proud of.
Twenty or 30 years ago, we sent nutritionists who went into villages, looked to see what was around the village, and devised a diet specifically around keeping cattle healthy. We spent millions and millions of dollars building feedlots – first-class, envy of the world feedlots. From the time a calf drops on the ground in the Northern Territory to the time it is knocked on the head in Indonesia, it enjoys a better life than cattle from practically anywhere else in the world.
Yet we have some mad woman who goes to Indonesia with a camcorder, films the last few seconds or minutes of an animal’s life, and for that we have to shut down a whole industry, put thousands of Territorians’ lives in jeopardy, several hundred families on dole queues, devalue our pastoral industry, put pressure on banks, and ruin what was an incredibly harmonious and good relationship with the Indonesians.
Do we have a government in the Northern Territory standing up and condemning the federal Labor government? No, we do not. We do not at all. What we have is a Territory government that hides behind a veil of bipartisanship and will not do anything to cause problems for Ms Gillard, Bob Brown, and Mr Ludwig in Canberra. It hides behind the veil of bipartisanship to cover up its shortcomings, rather than standing up and defending Territorians. It says it does not want to play politics with this issue. We have heard that time and time again today.
Two things have stuck in my mind: there was an announcement made about the ship going overseas and a list of measures designed to assist Territorians. Was the Opposition Leader invited to that media conference? Was the opposition Primary Industry spokesman invited to attend that media conference in a way of genuine bipartisanship? No.
What happens in Question Time when the minister for Primary Industry is put on the spot about what he did in Indonesia? He starts a tirade against Senator Scullion. Somehow or other Senator Scullion visiting a meatworks in Indonesia is to be condemned, because Senator Scullion went on a tourist visa and managed to look at the situation firsthand when the minister could not. I say ‘good on’ Senator Scullion for showing the desire and initiative to go there to see what was taking place on the ground. There has not been a louder voice in Canberra on this issue than Senator Scullion. He had the guts to condemn Joe Ludwig and Julia Gillard for their ridiculous decision. He has done the business of what should have been happening in the Northern Territory. He has been standing up having a serious crack.
If you want to look around the Northern Territory and find federal representatives to throw rocks at, you would not have to look too far. You would have to ask whose electorate does this affect most, federally? Could it be the electorate of Lingiari? It covers 99% of the Northern Territory and has all the Northern Territory cattle stations in it. What has minister Snowdon said about this? I do not think you would find five lines in a newspaper anywhere. He has not said boo about his colleague, Senator Ludwig. He has said nothing about the decision made by federal Labor.
A colleague of Nigel Scullion in the Senate who has been rather quiet is the president of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, Senator Crossin. What has she had to say? Absolutely nothing!
This government needs to be condemned. We would like to act in a bipartisan way with this government but not when it is all about hiding the truth from Territorians or not standing up for Territorians. Territorians demand better and demand their government stand up for them and direct blame where it is due …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired. Please resume your seat, thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion. This side of the House strongly supports the pastoral and cattle industries, its producers, graziers, families, employees, contractors, service businesses, and the countless Territorians who have been, and will be, affected by this short-sighted, misguided action in regard to the Territory’s live export trade.
It goes without saying that we support, in the strongest terms, the improvement of animal welfare in the supply chain and abattoir processes so standards meet, if not exceed, international and best practice standards. The long-term sustainability of the live export trade is dependent on addressing animal welfare issues in a cooperative and collaborative way between government, industry, and community.
That was my opening statement in the motion before the House about the live export trade and I believe it is important to state it again, to show, and make clear, the full extent and depth of this issue and the impact on the Northern Territory people and economy.
This issue is a matter of huge significance not fully known or understood some 10 weeks back, particularly by the federal Labor government. It is a serious issue to 250-odd pastoral families in rural Northern Territory and countless families working or involved in the pastoral and agricultural service and export industries. It is a matter of significance to the Territory and Australian economies. I do not believe the federal Labor government or this Labor government fully understand the impact it has had and will have on our economy. It is a matter of significance to future confidence and investment in the Northern Territory. By no means last, it is a matter of enormous significance to the social fabric of rural communities in the Territory.
It is important to highlight what is involved in the pastoral and agricultural industries. Too often people skim the surface of an issue or only see what they want to see. Clearly, that is what happened with the federal Labor government and its blanket ban on the export of cattle.
The industry is more than just growing cows; it is about families, businesses, livelihoods, regional development, Indigenous opportunities in remote and regional Territory, and social cohesion. Live export was built up over 20 years in the Top End of the Territory, specifically breeding cattle for the Indonesian market, creating a primary industry of purpose-bred cattle - purpose-bred cattle meaning the Brahman and the Brahman-cross cattle. They are a resilient cow, they are tick resistant, they breed well, and they travel well.
Other industries associated with the pastoral and agriculture industries are real estate, finance, and insurance. Let us look what happened to real estate. Cattle stations/pastoral properties were on the market to be sold. When the ban happened, two properties were pulled off the market. Other pastoral properties were looking at subdividing their lands - that was stopped.
Finance: we have finance companies in from South Australia, as I speak, trying to assist, advise, and counsel many cattle station people as to their future.
Insurance: can they get insurance into the future? Will an insurance company provide insurance to a pastoral property, given the nature and the risk of the business - or so they may perceive?
Transport: a massive industry - truckage, haulage, helicopters, and the fuel industries. Has government done any studies to ascertain the impact of reduced consumption and sale of these products?
The export yards: we have four depots in the Top End. We have companies, family companies, which own these depots. We have managers from different companies who manage these properties. There are the shipping and stevedore industries, and veterinarians and animal health. Veterinarians and AQIS people have to be at the depots and export yards to monitor animal health and welfare.
Aboriginal employment through agistment and training pretty much came to a standstill. Cattle from Robinson River were loaded on trucks ready for transportation to Darwin. They were stopped and told the cattle had to go back to Robinson River. The Aboriginal people in employment out there did not understand why and, when it was explained to them, they were not very happy with Labor governments.
Hay producers, feed producers, processors, and nutrition supplement manufacturers have all taken a massive hit. I will come to the agriculture people in a minute. There are the specialised animal husbandry services on the pastoral properties as well as in the holding yards and export yards. There is a whole sub-industry of rural contractors who service the pastoral and agricultural industry. For example, drilling and maintenance of bores, fencing contractors, pump and the water tank manufacturers, builders of permanent holding yards, cattle yards, and temporary yards - they have also been impacted to a dramatic extent.
In addition to these businesses and industries, there is a vast network of activities in the industry and the community. The pastoral industry, their products and services, provide entertainment, but they also provide learning activities for young people and perhaps not-so-young people, including camp drafts, rodeos, agricultural shows, field days, workshops, and, of course, cattle sales.
Recently, I attended three of the agricultural shows in the Territory. The cattle and agriculture sections were a bit gloomy. The Droughtmaster cattle sales were cancelled in Tennant Creek, the Cattlemen’s dinner was cancelled in Katherine, and the live export section of the competition did not happen at Royal Darwin Show. Many cattle people did not come in from the bush for these agricultural shows. They did not bring their families in to spend time at the shows, enjoying swapping stories, and generally talking about their industry and where it is, or is not, going. The camp draft at Katherine Show only went ahead when the show society provided additional funds to make it happen.
During the recent Senate committee hearings in Darwin, harsh facts and figures were put on the table. When AAco, the Australian Agricultural Company, made their presentation, they said they had put off eight Aboriginal stockmen at their Barkly properties. There was a lost employment opportunity of up to another 50 people who would not be employed during the mustering season, which is not going to happen in that area. In one month, Road Trains of Australia’s turnover was down $2.5m, and they had put off 13 full-time employees. All heli-mustering helicopters are grounded. The maintenance companies and businesses associated with the heli-mustering industry have also put off workers and their turnover is right down. When you have an apprentice helicopter mechanic, which is a specialised type of employment - there are not too many employment opportunities for those young people unless they go interstate or become a pizza delivery person or similar. Other stations have said they are letting stockmen, ringers and maintenance people go.
During the Senate hearing, there was a story about Outback Helicopters. A young helicopter pilot who spent all his savings getting his helicopter licence was recently employed, recently married; and his wife had only just graduated as a preschool teacher. She was pregnant and ceasing work. For some reason, she did not qualify for any support. He was put off by Outback Helicopters because there was no work. They had embarked on building a house and borrowed money from the bank. The bank found out he was out of work and she was not working. They stopped the finance; stopped the funding. They have a half-built house and are still living in a donga. That is just one story and I am sure there are many more like that. They have a young child on the way. Both of them are unemployed and they have a life ahead of them in a donga on a rural property somewhere.
An area not yet covered and about which I have not heard from government or the minister, but would be interested to hear, is the impact of a live export ban on the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry, in regards to pasture and hay production and servicing the live export trade, has come to a standstill resulting in job losses. The Douglas Daly and Katherine regions specifically grow hay and produce for the live export market, both for depots and holding yards, and on the ships. In one week, the cows and cattle housed at Noonamah eat in excess of 3000 to 4000 bales of hay. That is an enormous amount of feed now sitting in sheds and on properties. It will start to lose value and will not be good for anything.
The federal government has been exceptionally reckless in the way they have gone about this. They have again treated the Northern Territory with disdain and contempt. They do not appear to be concerned about the impact on people in particular, but also our economy and our future. It is disappointing this government does not seem to want to come out and fight harder and stronger for, not only the pastoral industry and agricultural industry, but also all the communities in the remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support this censure motion. The government needs to do more – much more. They did freeze rents on pastoral leases - a good move - that we called for some nine weeks ago. We urge them again to speak with local shires to see if they can come up with a compromise with compensation so the cattle people, the pastoral people, do not have to pay rates. Sure, it is not going to be a large amount of money, but any compensation, any support they receive would be welcome, particularly by the small family-oriented pastoral people.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is an astonishing position of a government who no longer cares to effectively stay in this Chamber when they are under censure. This government claims the spirit of bipartisanship but acts utterly unilaterally. If this government genuinely wanted to pursue bipartisanship on this issue, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory would have been standing shoulder to shoulder next to the vessel that left the harbour today, but they were not. This was the Paul Henderson show, and it is all about making the Chief Minister look good.
This side of the House generated the spirit of bipartisanship when we called for the recall of the House to deal with the issue. In the briefings with the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff, it was like dragging him into this room, dragging him in. Finally, they came in here and we kept our side of the bargain. We bit our tongues, knowing the Chief Minister was sitting next to Senator Joseph Ludwig nodding away saying: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do; this is the right thing to do’. I can tell you what was at the forefront of the mind of the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government: ‘Whatever we do, we will do nothing to criticise the Canberra-based Labor government, Julie Gillard and Joe Ludwig. They are in enough trouble and we are not going to add to their pain’.
This claim to bipartisanship, but offering nothing in the process, is demonstrative of a deceitful government that continues to be deceitful in the way that it continues to morph itself around this issue. It has come 180 degrees from: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do’, nod, nod, nod, next to Julia, to: ‘Yes, we are here fighting for the Northern Territory. Look, we are attacking some Labor backbenchers and we are attacking Senator Xenophon’.
The people you should be attacking, government, are the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and specifically, Senator Joe Ludwig, and you should have launched that attack on day one. The defence of the industry should have been loud and proud. There was barely an utterance. The minister says: ‘I was on the phone. I made a phone call’. Bully for you, minister. When did you front the media and the cameras and say you were proud of the live export industry in the Northern Territory? Never! Never heard the word proud, never heard the word protect. Never heard any of those words until we got a feel for how the issue was going and then we would start to make a few comments and see how we were tracking.
This government has clothed itself in disgrace in the way it has conducted itself in relation to this issue and this government should stand condemned for it. If this government wants to take an approach of bipartisanship, it should behave as if it was part of a bipartisan parliament. But it is not. It never has conducted itself in this fashion. It merely saw bipartisanship as a political advantage to avoid scrutiny and criticism rather than to embrace what was offered in the first instance.
The Leader of the Opposition was in Southeast Asia whilst the Northern Territory government bunkered down in its offices. The member for Fong Lim was in Canberra whilst the government members were still talking to their media advisors saying: ‘What should we do next?’ Other members of this House were standing in front of cameras saying: ‘Let us bring the parliament back for this vital and important issue; stand up and say we are proud of the industry’, whilst this government continued to try to find the mood of the community.
Madam Speaker, this issue could not have been about anything other than leadership. Those people who stood up and were counted, irrespective of what the political cost might have been, all sit on this side of the House. Those who sheltered in bunkers, hid and cowered behind their fifth floor staffers, all sit on the government benches. That truth cannot be denied. As far as I am concerned, because of that truth, this censure could not but be supported by anyone who has observed what has gone on inside this House and beyond it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I said at the outset of this censure that we would take it reluctantly. We recognise it as a political stunt and the end of bipartisanship on this issue. So it is amazing to me that the member for Port Darwin earlier today talked about mirrors in relation to the member for Nelson and told him to have a good look in the mirror. I said the member for Port Darwin should hold a mirror up to him and the mirrors he engages in are the same mirrors you find in a sideshow that distort reality, that make someone incredibly short or incredibly tall or without a midsection.
What we are seeing here this afternoon is a different sort of mirror. It is the rear vision mirror; it is trying to change history. They were engaged in a bipartisan situation with the government and suddenly there has been a change on their benches. The member for Fong Lim has come in and they have decided to politicise this issue. In short, we will not be participating any further in this political sideshow of a censure.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have been given an extension of 10 minutes.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, this is resuming the debate on the third report of the CTC.
I have a little more information about the property at Wadeye the member for Nelson alluded to that was the subject of malicious damage. I have been advised that the house in question, presumed to be Lot 596 Wadeye, was repaired and there has been no more damage or reported antisocial behaviour since this incident. The cost of repairs was less expensive than initially thought, and the tenants have completed Centrelink deduction forms to make restitution. The tenancy manager in Wadeye, in consultation with the community, further addressed the issue by finding more appropriate accommodation for the family member who was residing at Lot 596 at the time, and allegedly damaging the building. This has proven to be an effective solution to the antisocial behaviour, as there have been no further reports of antisocial behaviour or tenant-related damage.
Madam Speaker, I commend the local community in relation to this. I understand criminal charges were not laid in this case. That was a question asked by the member for Nelson. Apparently, there was insufficient evidence available. However, restitution is being made - an agreement has been made - and I am advised that there have been no further incidents of antisocial behaviour damaging that dwelling.
In relation to Recommendations 5 and 6 regarding subdivision standards for SIHIP, I am advised it was agreed that the Alice Springs Town Council Land Division Requirements for Council-related Infrastructure 2006 would be adopted. This is quite appropriate given the fact that those town camps are incorporated, as I understand it, into the Alice Springs Town Council service area to be serviced by the town council. I believe that step was reasonable.
In Tennant Creek, Barkly Shire Council does not have published guidelines. The standards adopted were based on an assessment of infrastructure in equivalent NT jurisdictions and the existing level of amenity in Tennant Creek. At the commencement of SIHIP, the shires did not have standards for subdivisions in remote communities. Remote Housing NT reviewed town council guidelines for infrastructure in rural areas and considered the existing level of amenity in remote communities to develop the SIHIP infrastructure guidelines. Following consultation with LGANT and shire council infrastructure officers throughout 2010, Remote Housing NT has provided funding of $50 000 to assist the development of remote community subdivision guidelines. Remote Housing NT has given all shires an undertaking to engage the relevant councils in the planning, design, and construction process of future developments.
There was a myriad of questions asked during the member for Nelson’s speech. I have undertaken to meet with him and further discuss some of his concerns with the CEO of Housing. I reiterate that offer. I have also discussed this with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, because some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson are in her portfolio area. We agreed we will meet with the member for Nelson and others to hear firsthand his concerns and resolve them wherever possible.
As I said in my speech, SIHIP is a work in progress. There has been much progress over the last 12 months in completion of houses and other infrastructure. Much has been learnt through this process, and there have been a number of reviews. I understand the Australian National Audit Office is also reviewing this program. All of us in this House, and in federal parliament, will be looking very carefully at that review. I am sure that review document will be closely read by all; particularly the member for Braitling. I will be reading it very carefully. I believe SIHIP is progressing and it is exceeding its targets for completions. We will complete our targets by the target date of 2013.
I understand the debate will continue over this important project, and I hope it is constructive debate based on fact. We do not want to go back to the missing $200m alleged by the member for Braitling who had not read the partnership agreement which explained where the money was, and existing commitments. I am sure he will read things much more carefully after that blunder where he believed there was $200m missing. It is an important area and I look forward to further debate. Obviously, the CTC will be carrying out further reviews, further site visits to places all around the Northern Territory and I welcome that.
I want as many people as possible engaged in this program, to see there have been negatives and things that have not happened as quickly as they could have, but there also have been positives - positives around Indigenous employment, up to 25% to 30%. The member for Nelson has been concerned about real jobs, as he said, but this is a long journey. Many people who have been engaged in this program - Indigenous people at the local level - do not have a history of work and employment, so this is a first step. It is a step at a time, it is an incremental step forward, and it is going to be a long journey. I have said again and again publicly in this place, it needs a commitment for a sustained effort over many decades, particularly by the federal government, whichever political persuasion might be in Canberra, to address the arrears in Indigenous housing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the committee. I have not agreed with everything it put forward. It can point to a number of things that government has met the committee with; the department has supplied information. There are areas we need to attend to, and as I said earlier, there are probably areas where we cannot satisfy the committee because it is a work in progress.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this report today.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 8 August 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of minutes left, I believe, from Monday night. I was highlighting …
Madam SPEAKER: Fifteen minutes left.
Mr CONLAN: Fifteen minutes, fantastic, thank you, Madam Speaker, … government’s failure in infrastructure and what they have done, and I was up to where the Chief Minister, once he took over, really is desperate for something to hang his hat on. He needs a big infrastructure project under his belt. So when this show is over, when he is exposed, and when he finally finds this whole show comes to a close for him, he can turn around and say: ‘I have done that’. That is why he is very desperate and very keen to see INPEX come to the Northern Territory - as we all are. The member for Fong Lim rightly highlighted the other day that, of course, we all welcome INPEX and we hope they get a wriggle on and we can get that show on the road.
We talked about a century of North Australia and the next 100 years. It is important to understand exactly how we reached the point where we are in the grand scheme of things, and how we are possibly going to get to the next 100 years, and what we are going to provide for Territorians. It is worthwhile highlighting exactly what was achieved under the previous government; that is, the 27 years of Country Liberal government. Stack that up against achievement in infrastructure, and what has been built - physical stuff, bricks and mortar - and major projects brought to the Northern Territory. Stack those up with what has been achieved over the last 10 years of the ALP under the Martin/Henderson governments.
The establishment of national parks under the Country Liberals - no government has established more national parks than the Country Liberals - Litchfield and Keep River, Charles Darwin and Gregory National Parks, and Windows on the Wetlands.
If I remember rightly, when Palmerston was first mooted and the first sod was turned - the members in Palmerston would remember well - what did the then ALP refer to Palmerston as? It was ‘Palmerslum’. That is what they used to call it. That is how they referred to it and it was a disgrace. As an Alice Springs member, I lament and say with a heavy heart, it just might be the second biggest city in the Northern Territory, but I think Alice Springs holds that mantle, metaphorically anyway. The reality is that Palmerston is the second biggest city in the Northern Territory.
Much of that is attributed to the failure of this Northern Territory government because they have failed to address the pressing issues in Alice Springs, invest in Alice Springs, and keep that town growing. It will be interesting to see what the census figures reveal for Alice Springs. The last census in 2006 showed a decline in population in Alice Springs for the previous five years. It will be interesting to see what growth we have experienced in the town over the last five years.
Kings Canyon, Yulara, the Katherine Gorge Visitor Centre - no mean feat – and they underpin major tourism for the Northern Territory. The Gold Battery and Tourist Information Centre in Tennant Creek - I know the member for Barkly would be well aware of that. The Northern Territory museums and Channel Island Power Station - where would we be without that wonderful project by a former Country Liberal government. The Arafura and Masters Games’ are initiatives of the former Country Liberal governments. I think we are up to the 24th year for the Masters Games. It is a wonderful event. Anyone who has ever taken part knows exactly how good it is and the contribution it makes to the Northern Territory and the local Alice Springs economy.
The Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park; State Square; the very building we are standing in single-handedly saved the economy of the Northern Territory. It was completed in 1994 and those living in Darwin at the time tell me that every single tradie had a job because of this infrastructure project at State Square. Stokes Hill Wharf and, of course, the Alice Springs Convention Centre; the ribbon was cut by the Labor Party but they are pretty good at that. They did the same with the railway. Barry Coulter became a one-issue politician towards the end of his career, focused on making sure that railway was completed between Alice Springs and Darwin and it took him years, six years, a term-and-a-half from my understanding. He was the man who brought the railway from Alice Springs to Darwin, and regrettably, Clare Martin did not even invite him to the ribbon cutting, but you get that.
A member: They never do.
Mr CONLAN: They never do.
The Alice Springs Convention Centre: I know we have a convention centre in Darwin and it is a terrific facility but you would have to say, before its completion, the Alice Springs Convention Centre was the jewel in the Northern Territory crown for conventions. Some might say the convention centre in Darwin is detracting from Alice Springs because people have a choice, but that is a good thing.
The Marrara Sporting Complex, built by the Country Liberal government; Charles Darwin University; they brought the V8 Supercar championship to Darwin; East Arm Port; gas development; and the railway.
That is a list of infrastructure projects and major events the former Country Liberals brought to the Northern Territory. It spent 27 years developing a number of projects and bringing a number of infrastructure projects to the Northern Territory. In fact, you could safely say it pretty much built the place. We had to when we took over in 1978 after self-government. The Commonwealth gave us endless amounts of money to build the Territory and get it set up. It was the Labor government, under Walsh as Finance minister, who said to Bob Hawke: ‘That is enough. No more special treatment for the Northern Territory; they will be treated like any state in the nation’. It was unfair, and since 1984 we have been treated financially like every other jurisdiction across the country. It would be difficult to keep up and pay for our circumstance in the Northern Territory. We have done pretty well and successive Country Liberal governments from 1978 to 2001 did an extraordinary job to get us to this position.
If we look at the last 10 years, the Northern Territory government commissioned and completed the wonderful waterfront development. The other side like to take pot shots and say: ‘You did not support it at the time’. I supported it. I was not part of the Chamber that opposed the waterfront; I was an average Joe Citizen in Alice Springs and I thought it looked pretty good.
Mr Elferink: We did not oppose it. The idea was generated by Tim Baldwin.
Mr CONLAN: I was getting to that. This is what the government does not like to hear: former CLP member, Tim Baldwin, proposed the idea. Nevertheless, the waterfront project is an outstanding success and I thoroughly enjoy taking my family there when they are in the Top End. That is good; hats off to you.
The oncology unit: I have wracked my brain to think what you have done in major infrastructure projects to take us into the 21st or 22nd century because that is what this is about. This statement is about the next 100 years. As we look into the 22nd century, what projects has this government commissioned, signed off, developed, and finally built? We have the waterfront and that is terrific, and the oncology unit which took a long time. It took pretty much the whole term to do. You proposed it in 1999 from opposition - Clare Martin. You came to government, you had your mini-budget in 2001, and we have had a succession of Health ministers come and go during the life of the oncology unit. Now we have a world-class facility. Contrary to what the member for Casuarina likes to protest, I have been there on several occasions and it is a world-class facility and Territorians should be rightly proud.
We firmly believe those living in Central Australia should be able to enjoy the long-standing relationship with Royal Adelaide Hospital and undergo cancer treatment at Royal Adelaide Hospital if they so wish. There is enormous kinship between Alice Springs and Adelaide, just as there is strong kinship between the Kimberley, Kununurra, Broome and Darwin - north Australia. There is a kinship with the north of Australia, and there is a strong bond between Central Australia and southern Australia or Adelaide.
Let us look at some of the infrastructure failures of this government. If we are going to talk about the next 100 years it is important that people know exactly what they are signing up for when they go to the ballot box next year, think about the next 100 years, and look at this statement. What is Paul Henderson, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and his Cabinet, going to deliver for us over the next 100 years? They have said this, so let us have a look at their track record and see what they have done.
Have a look at our national roads. In 2005 – this is over the last five years. Let us look at our national roads. In fact, I might have just tripped myself up, because roads have improved by a minus. It has gone from B minus to a B, so a slight improvement on roads. Congratulations – a little fairy clap for Paul Henderson. However, Territory roads have become worse. They have gone from a sealed road, which was a C rating, down to a C minus. Local roads have become worse. Local sealed roads have gone from a C to a D plus.
Rail has come off worst out of the lot. Rail has gone from a Grade A in 2005 to a C plus in 2010 - pretty damning for the rail. Ports have gone from B plus to C plus - it has become worse. Airports have gone from A minus to B minus. Potable water has gone from B minus to C minus. Wastewater has gone from C to C minus. Electricity has gone from B minus to C minus, and gas has gone from A to A minus. That is in five short years - or some might say five long years - under the Henderson Labor government; with a bit of crossover with Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister.
If the past is anything to go by, there is not much confidence in this government delivering and providing for future generations of Territorians over the next century. That is precisely why this statement was brought into this House; to try to convince us of the contrary – that you are right to feel confident in the Northern Territory government because it can deliver. Well, it cannot. It has not delivered.
The other day I mentioned schools and the member for Johnston was right about Rosebery - I stand corrected – government has delivered Rosebery Primary and Rosebery Middle School. From my understanding, it is the only school the Northern Territory government has delivered from their bottom line. Everything else pretty much comes from Commonwealth funding ...
Dr Burns: You are out of touch. Look in the remote regions. You might see a few there as well.
Mr CONLAN: Then again, I might stand corrected. The Country Liberals built hundreds of schools across the Northern Territory. How many has this government built?
Dr Burns: The Commonwealth built some.
Mr CONLAN: How many have you built? We built hundreds and hundreds of schools. We set up police stations across the Northern Territory. How many police stations has the Northern Territory Labor government built? We see Casuarina Police Beat staffed by ACPOs. It is hardly staffed at all, but it is staffed by ACPOs or - what do you call the part-time police officers?
Mr Elferink: Auxiliaries.
Mr CONLAN: Auxiliaries, yes. It is the same with the Alice Springs Police Station, largely staffed by the Alice Springs Police Beat, largely staffed by - can I have an extension of time, by any chance?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time. Sorry about that.
Mr CONLAN: That is all right.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Port Darwin.
We have the Alice Springs Police Beat which, again, is largely staffed by Auxiliaries. If you turn up and push the button because you have seen an incident – this happened about six weeks ago. Someone came into my office and said: ‘You are not going to believe it. I saw a fight taking place right outside the Westpac Bank in the mall, and I ran up to the Police Beat, pushed the button, and the lady on the other end was in Darwin. She said: ‘Please explain. What is the situation’? I said: ‘There is an incident happening, can you please get someone around here right now. It is getting pretty serious’. The person had to go through all the rigmarole of name, identification, where they were, the name of the place, the whole thing.
So, the Police Beat is largely ineffective. I know it looks pretty good and you think it is a real armoury in your law and order arsenal - but far from it. If you were to resource it properly, it might deliver - but hardly delivering successfully on law and order issues across the Northern Territory.
Another issue is the mobile police van. That has to be the biggest farce. That could well be a cruel farce in the true meaning of the word, because I well remember heralding the arrival of this $100 000 police van in 2006. I was working on the radio at the time. I remember interviewing whoever the Police minister was - whoever was part of the revolving door of the ministry - at the time about this thing; when is it coming, when will it arrive? I remember driving back from Broome in July 2006, and there it was on the north Stuart Highway just outside Alice Springs near the Tanami turn-off. I thought, here it is, wow. It had a radar trap set up, or something set up, and everyone thought wow, this is terrific. Look through some of the media releases and there is the minister for Police, current Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, the member for Wanguri, and the member for Stuart, who was pretty new in the job at the time. He was saying: ‘We are going to have it out on the street, we are going to have people, it is going to be manned, people are going to be able to come up to it. It is going to be a physical presence in the mall, and in and around town, and a real deterrent for law and order. This is going to be pretty much another piece of our armoury in tackling law and order’.
Well, this thing sits out the back of my office, at the back of the police station - my office backs onto the car park of the Alice Springs Police Station - day after day after day. It is not in the mall. It is not out. It might be used for certain operational matters. It was out there when the Alice Springs sittings were on, for the football and those sorts of things, which is fine, so it should be. However, it was heralded as a real tool to combat law and order issues in Alice Springs from the mouth of the current Chief Minister who was the former Police minister, and, indeed, the then member for Stuart. They said: ‘This is going to be a really effective tool to combat law and order; it is going to be a visible presence on the streets in Alice Springs’. Well, we do not see it; this thing cost $100 000. This is a big investment into law and order.
Madam Speaker, they are not delivering when it comes to health, education, law and order, and, as I highlighted, we are seeing very little in the way of infrastructure. I mentioned health, and it is probably worth mentioning that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is required. Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it is great to see so many people here listening to this speech, because it is important. This is a speech about the north of Australia. I would like to know, though, where does north Australia start and finish. Someone told me, I think the member for Braitling, is it true, that it starts at the Tropic of Capricorn? That would technically mean that Alice Springs is not included in north Australia by 26 km, but we are used to it.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. The Berrimah Line has become the Tropic of Capricorn line. We are talking about north Australia. It is a very important debate and a very important part of the future of Australia, and …
Mr Tollner: He did include the federal government’s solar cities program in his vision.
Mr CONLAN: Oh, so that must include a bit of Alice; that is very good.
Madam Speaker, I did mention health and I know we saw the Minister for Health up there today. If you are going to develop the next century, you need to provide proper healthcare for future generations. It is interesting that the Labor Party continually run the line that John Howard and Tony Abbott ripped a billion dollars out of health. The problem with the member for Johnston is he believes his own rhetoric. He believes this is what happened. Someone told him, someone else confirmed, then someone else said it, and now he believes it to be fact.
Member for Johnston let me tell you what happened. All the states got together and said to Tony Abbott: ‘We want $3bn for health’ and Tony Abbott said: ‘No, I will give you $2bn’. Somehow, that has been construed that Tony Abbott and John Howard ripped out $1bn from health. Wrong. He gave you two, not three. He saved you from blowing another billion dollars up against the wall like you continually do with all your spending. He actually saved taxpayers of Australia from the Labor government’s waste.
It is also worthwhile highlighting some of the Coalition government’s achievements in health because it is very easy for this mob to sit over there, beat their chests, and say how wonderful they are. They think it is their moral high ground. They think it is their top of order issue. While the Coalition was in government there was an increase in immunisation rates in children from just over 50% to 90%. They lifted the private health insurance coverage rates from the mid-thirties to 45%, an increase in the total investment in health from $20bn in 1995-96, the last year of the Keating Labor government, to $51.8bn in 2007-08. That is not too bad at all. There was improved access to pharmaceutical benefits with increased expenditure on the PBS from $2.2bn in 1996-97 to $6.4bn in 2006-07. Funding for medical research increased from $127m in 1995-96 to $544m in 2007-08. Nine new medical schools, and 3700 additional commencing nursing places between 2005 and 2007, and access to $4250 of the Medicare benefits over two years for dental services for patients with a chronic illness, something the Gillard government wanted to cut. In fact, it was Kevin Rudd who wanted it cut …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could I ask the member to table the document he is reading from so we can see the source, particularly in relation to an immunisation increase from 50% to 90%? I am very interested in the source of that.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I have 20 seconds left and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, are you willing to table the document?
Mr CONLAN: No, Madam Speaker, they are my personal notes, but I will provide the minister with the source; it is pretty easy. The fact is that northern Australia has potential plus. It is the food bowl, the energy corridor, potentially, for this country, but not under this Labor government.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, people in the public gallery must be asking why would government come into this House, start a debate, and then leave the House in such a state that all we can see is the backs of their chairs. That is why we have …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that the state of the House is the responsibility of both sides of this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I also remind you, member for Port Darwin, not to refer to the presence or absence of members. Keep to the topic, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: There was a point of order called.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port of Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: One can well imagine the dismay of many Territorians when they look at their parliament and their government and the government has business of import to bring into this House. They come into this House saying what an important statement this is, and then we, on this side of the House, have to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the House is in such a state of disarray that you have to call a quorum. That means ringing the bells and getting members back into this place - oh hallelujah, here they come.
The Australian Labor Party is starting to treat this House with a level of contempt. I do not expect all members to be here at all times; that is not a requirement of this House and we all know how the system works. However, to leave one nightwatchman on duty whilst the rest of the government finds itself in other parts of the building is not good enough, a disgrace, and behoves them poorly.
Mr Tollner: It is left to the poor old member for Johnston to hold the fort.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this ministerial statement, and even more so to be a member of the Henderson government …
Mr Tollner: Here is gammon woman.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Ms McCARTHY: … which is making a difference and creating with Territorians from all walks of life …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw the comment he made in relation to the minister, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not find it unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear what it was, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Referring to the minister as ‘gammon woman’ is entirely inappropriate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is inappropriate, thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to rise and withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I meant to say ‘gammon minister’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can withdraw that as well, thank you. You are reflecting on me at the moment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, she is a gammon minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Goodness me.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, as Minister for Statehood I have been working with the Chief Minister on this year’s anniversary of the centenary of the surrender of the Northern Territory from control and management by South Australia to control and management as a territory of the Commonwealth government. This has helped give me a great sense of the history of our times and, as an Indigenous Territorian, a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria, I am mindful and reminded every day of the continuing strong role of the Commonwealth in the future of all Territorians
It is wonderful, as a Territorian, to be a member of this government which has a vision, a plan for the future for all people of the Northern Territory, a plan that is inclusive and works for all Territorians wherever they live. Earlier this week we had a debate in the parliament about the wellbeing of Indigenous Territorians. I know the enormity of the work to be done in the area if we are to truly deliver a situation where all Territorians fully participate and benefit from the continuing economic development of the Northern Territory. We have big challenges in closing the gap of disadvantage in health, education, employment, and in supporting strong families, so all children in the Northern Territory can explore and access every opportunity the Territory has to offer. My objective, and that of this government, is pursuit of the possible to make it happen; turning decades of neglect into decades of prosperity.
On the first day of these sittings we heard much about a Commonwealth Finance department report into Indigenous expenditure in the Northern Territory. Finance department reports have a reputation for dry analysis. However, if we dig beyond the dramatic headline favoured by the Country Liberals, the report has some sage advice. It talks about being wiser, spending public money in a more targeted and wise way, reducing duplication, being clear in our objectives, getting our priorities right, and reporting on clear and measurable targets. The report also had this to say:
My point is the approach being promoted by the Finance department and the way forward is the path we are on: national partnership agreements negotiated with the Australian government; moving beyond three-year funding cycles, clear roles and responsibilities, clear targets and reporting achievements, arrangements for ongoing review, and adjustment of programs based on experience and evidence of outcomes. Most importantly, in growth towns, working with local people on implementation plans, building partnerships, matching local priorities with clear action, and involving all those with responsibilities in the monitoring and reporting of progress.
The community-driven local implementation plans are the key planning and engagement tool for the Northern Territory growth towns. Already, all our growth towns have seen delivery of both bricks and mortar projects, as well as development of clear plans for future investments, building our towns, improving access to services, and developing opportunities for Territorians, wherever they may live.
We have also undertaken the most comprehensive assessment ever of road and essential services infrastructure needs in the bush to address decades of neglect under successive CLP governments. This is work critical to underpin new investments and give us the necessary evidence base to win vital funding from Infrastructure Australia. We have rolled our sleeves up and done the work to support our case. However, if we are to deliver the necessary change in outcomes that is required, we need to travel together and, importantly, to support strong governance and administration at the local level.
The Finance department report also highlighted that:
This is a very clear message, and I am working with my colleagues to build our workforce to have the skilled Territorians, including many Indigenous Territorians, delivering these services and building strong towns. There are certainly service issues we need to address, but I ask members of this House to remember what was inherited: community government councils struggling with governance and financial sustainability and over a third of community government councils at risk of collapse at any one time.
We accepted the challenge and set out to build a strong local government sector in the bush, and we are on the right path. Yes, we have a way to go. Let us not forget the challenges though: a unique situation of limited own source revenue and heavy reliance on government grants; huge service delivery challenges; workforce capacity issues; and a very poor infrastructure base inherited from many of the former community government councils. Rebuilding does take time and, as well, staying vigilant to correct deficiencies.
We also need to celebrate the achievements. I meet many Territorians who are committed to building strong local government, and this is what is needed to take us into the future. I am certainly proud of our Northern Territory commitment to provide matching funds for rural jobs in local government - $30m over the next five years. We support the participation of women in local government, so we now have one of the highest participation rates of elected members and women CEOs in the country. The work being done by our shires is delivering an enormous range of human and technical services on behalf of the other tiers of government.
Another important feature of our government is talking with and listening to Territorians. We took the initiative of establishing an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council to advise the Chief Minister and me, as Minister for Indigenous Development, on Indigenous affairs and policy. We established, and have grown, the Indigenous Economic Development Task Force involving the skills and experience of private sector partners to create more jobs and employment for Indigenous Territorians.
The Northern Territory is a place of great opportunity built on a premise that you can achieve anything, and we are working extremely hard on spreading the opportunities across our regions. As the Chief Minister outlined, Australia’s future prosperity is in northern Australia and we are playing an active role in developing future opportunities. We have been talking about measurable targets and our Indigenous Economic Development Strategy for 2009 to 2012 has three clear targets: 3000 more Indigenous Territorians will commence employment in the private and public sectors; 10% Indigenous employment in the Northern Territory Public Service; and 200 new Indigenous businesses.
I am pleased to report to the House the progress being made since the targets were set. From figures supplied by the Department of Business and Employment, indications are that during 2009-10, a total of 3082 Indigenous Territorians commenced employment in an apprenticeship or traineeship in the private and public sectors; 8.2% of employees of the Northern Territory Public Service identify as being Indigenous and, in recent times, we have helped support the establishment of 44 new Indigenous businesses. Clearly, we have a long way to go, but a wonderful start.
As part of my work at an intergovernmental level, I am working hard to represent the Northern Territory on the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum. This provides a platform for the federal minister for Regional Development, Simon Crean; the regional development minister from Queensland, Tim Mulherin; the Western Australia minister, Brendon Grylls; and the Northern Territory, to generate broad-based and sustainable growth in northern Australia. The forum develops priorities and strategies to address infrastructure priorities and opportunities. It also works to promote sustainable development, particularly in the areas of water, energy, Indigenous employment and skills shortages, and works through any barriers to progress in these areas. Only a week ago, the second meeting of the forum took place in Port Hedland, Western Australia, to continue our discussions. Good progress was made on our key priorities and I look forward to continuing my active involvement. The Northern Australia Ministerial Forum highlights the opportunities and challenges ahead of us as a nation and for northern Australia.
I now turn to another of my important ministerial priorities, supporting our tourism industry. I am proud of our government’s work in tourism, with an increase in funding for tourism from $26.7m in 2000-01 to $41.3m in 2011-12. We have supported new tourism opportunities through new infrastructure development, the Darwin and Alice Springs convention centres, for example; supported innovation in marketing tourism to the Northern Territory; fostered tourism benefits from the Alice to Darwin rail link, The Ghan, one of the great rail journeys of the world; won Jetstar commitment to a Darwin airport hub; developed aviation policy to maximise opportunities from a rapidly changing and competitive market; and attracted new aviation services to the Territory in a difficult and highly competitive business environment.
The Northern Territory government also has a clear vision for growth in Indigenous tourism. Tourism NT currently assists over 100 Indigenous operators to offer quality tourism experiences and maintain a strong market presence. The opportunities tourism-related businesses can offer or deliver in these regions are real and will be an ongoing focus.
Madam Speaker, in Women’s Policy we continue the strong role of women in business, governance, and nurturing strong, resilient families. The development of our strategy, Building on Our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012, has been an important road map for progressing issues important to women in the Territory. Like all of our work, this important plan was built on the voice of Territorians and information collated from Community Cabinet forums held from 2003 to 2007 in urban, rural, and remote communities in the Northern Territory. It sets out key actions in five priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. I am pleased that we are advancing those issues.
I am enormously proud that a Territory Labor government introduced the mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, an important measure that other jurisdictions have yet to match. We are certainly not soft on crime. We have listened. We have seen what needs to be done, and we have acted, just as we are acting now in reducing the impact of alcohol on our families and the wellbeing of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, the Territory is a place of great opportunity built on the premise that you can achieve anything. We on this side of the House want to turn around the impact on so many Territorians of decades of neglect, and we want to see a future with decades of prosperity. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Education and Training, I remind you that at 5.30 pm we go into General Business.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Yes, I understand that, Madam Speaker, and we will see how we are going at 5.30 pm.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement and it is an exciting future for the Territory in northern Australia. I have a prepared speech, but I would like to comment on a few of the things the member for Greatorex said in his speech, particularly at the end.
He was obviously defending Tony Abbott’s record as Health Minister and the assertion – it is more than an assertion: it is a fact that he ripped $1bn out of the Commonwealth Health budget to the states over the time he was Health Minister. I am not sure whether the member for Greatorex understands, but professional experts, health economists, did that work and it is a simple explanation as to what occurred. The relativities changed; the relative contributions of the states and territories, particularly the hospital budgets, compared to the Commonwealth. In some places, it might have been 60:40 – here in the Territory it was approximately 50:50 - and as time progressed under the Coalition, the Coalition’s share of the funding decreased and the Northern Territory’s increased.
Although Tony Abbott points to the fact that he put increases into health funding to the states and territories, he did not put enough in the indexes and increases that exist in delivering health services. He did supply some increases, but they were inadequate, with the effect that the health budgets of the states and territories and their relative contribution had to ratchet up. The Commonwealth ratcheted back and made substantial savings over a considerable period. There was a credible report produced at that time, which Tony Abbott did not meaningfully challenge because he knew it was correct.
I was interested to hear the member for Greatorex talk about immunisation rates jumping from 50% to 90% under the Coalition’s period in office. I am interested in that. I would be alarmed if Australia’s immunisation rates fell to 50% because that would be catastrophic and would allow diseases like polio. A range of diseases have been well-controlled by long-term immunisation programs in Australia. The reason is that we have great immunisation coverage in Australian and fewer numbers of immunised people opens the door to those diseases. Unfortunately, there has been a trend of decreasing immunisation rates within Australia. I might stand corrected and am interested to see the source of the information put forward by the member for Greatorex. The Internet is a little slow today, but I am interested to follow up and see whether indeed they decreased at one point to 50%. That would be alarming.
I cannot resist it, member for Greatorex; I am trying to help Hansard also. You could attend to two corrections for Hansard. It is ‘potable’ water, not ‘portable’ water, and I forget what the other one was – it was in relation to police beats - it was probably ‘ineffective’ rather than ‘uneffective’. I am just trying to help you, member for Greatorex. I know you were excited when you were delivering the speech, but any way I can ever help you, I will, of course. So, I will turn to my prepared speech …
A member: You just cannot trust that static water, I reckon. He is on the money.
Dr BURNS: The static water, that is right.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in his statement. Incidentally, the assertion by the member for Greatorex that we have not built any schools I will probably talk about tomorrow. I have a list. I do not know whether I will have time to do it tomorrow. I have an extensive list of the schools that have been built since Labor came to government in 2001, particularly in the remote regions. I want to help the member for Greatorex understand that as well.
We can look forward to an exciting journey over the next 100 years, although I doubt I will be here for the whole ride. Access Economics forecast us for a healthy 4.2% annual economic growth for the next five years. As a government, we are ensuring the right plans are in place to maximise the opportunities ahead for northern Australia’s development, which will be driven off the back of rich Northern Territory resource deposits. As the Chief Minister said, northern Australia is an increasingly prosperous part of Australia. We have a strong economy, a growing economy, and people continue to flock to the north to experience the opportunities at hand. It is our job, as government, to ensure no opportunity is missed and the rewards are shared far and wide by Territorians.
Education and training: we are investing strongly in building the Territory’s future workforce to maximise opportunities ahead. Make no mistake, we know job creation is important to our economy, but we need a plan to fill those positions. The Territory has been enjoying the fruits of a good economy for many years despite uncertainty around the globe. This has led to us having the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past two years, and the challenge for us as government, and me as Education and Training minister, is to ensure we develop workers to fill the jobs that will drive our economy. Under Labor, we have focused on producing more apprentices and trainees, and ensuring students have access to vocational education and training, which we all know as VET, in their schooling. This is best reflected in our renaming of the Territory’s Year 12 qualification to the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training, which students will receive from this year on.
This year alone we are investing over $19m in training. We have made a commitment in this term of government to deliver 10 000 apprentice and traineeship commencements and we are on track to reach the target. At present, a record 4700 apprentices and trainees are in training. This year alone we have had 1478 Territorians commence an apprenticeship or traineeship. In 2010, there were more than 3000 apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. In the last three years, almost 4000 Territorians have completed apprenticeships and traineeships, with approximately 1500 of those being in occupations on the Northern Territory occupation shortage list.
We have incentives for Territorians to take up apprenticeships and traineeships. The Workwear/Workgear Bonus Scheme provides eligible trainees and apprentices with a $1000 payment or, if they are in training in a recognised skill shortage area, they receive $3000. This helps with the cost of tools, work clothing, and items needed to do their training. We also work with employers to offer support and encourage them to take on trainees and apprentices.
The Territory government continues to build strong ties with Charles Darwin University. I commend Vice-Chancellor, Professor Barney Glover, for his leadership and initiatives in giving local Territory students the ability to gain tertiary qualifications through CDU. As well as now training our own pharmacists, engineers, and doctors, CDU is gearing up for the impending INPEX project. Like the Chief Minister, CDU has visited the oil and gas hub in Aberdeen, looking to Robert Gordon University and Aberdeen College as experts in course delivery for oil and gas industry qualifications. INPEX is close to a final investment decision, meaning 3000 construction jobs and 200 to 300 jobs during the project life. That is why our work is full steam ahead in preparing the workforce to fill these jobs.
Territory children are well placed to look forward to a good future with a good working life because our schools, teachers, and principals do an outstanding job. Territory children who attend school every day can look forward to a bright future because they will receive an excellent education.
The opposition like to tell you our children in Northern Territory schools are doomed and teachers are not doing a good job. They are wrong. Territory kids are as bright as any other kids from any other state. Our schools are also just as good as anywhere else. For the last two years, I have had the pleasure of attending ceremonies to present our top Year 12 students with their certificates. Let me tell you, those young Territorians are amongst the best and brightest in the nation.
We have opened our first two of five Centres of Excellence for our high performing students. This gives young Territorians the opportunity to be challenged and extended academically in specialist fields. This year the first Centre of Excellence opened at Darwin High School with 42 students studying maths, science, and engineering. Another started at Casuarina Senior College with 29 students in health sciences. Centralian College will become a Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Futures and Solar Energy and, in 2012, Palmerston Senior College will become a Centre of Excellence for the Arts.
Despite the continued achievements of our students, time after time the opposition talk our schools down. The way they do it …
Mr Bohlin: Oh, come on!
Dr BURNS: … the way they do it is saying our schools are not performing to the national average. Look at your own media releases in that regard, member for Drysdale …
Mr Bohlin: Look at the NAPLAN, okay? We are saying you have underperformed as a government.
Dr BURNS: No, you have done that time and time again; that is, talking our schools down.
The children who are not performing are those who do not go to school every day. If our kids go to school, they do as well as any child in Australia. I have said on the public record a number of times, most of these schools have two populations of students. There is a population who attend regularly, and there is a population who attend irregularly. It is not a valid test to put a mean or average across those two groups of students, and compare that to the national average. The NAPLAN and My School website is about comparison of like schools. The essence of what the opposition has been doing, by comparing to national averages, goes against the spirit and intent of like school comparison.
We have a significant problem and we are not going to shy away from that problem. That is why we have our Every Child, Every Day strategy, so we see more children from remote areas finishing school, getting jobs, and taking advantage of future economic growth in northern Australian. We are building the schools for the future so our students have better facilities and access to technology.
The Henderson government worked hand-in-hand with the Australian government on the delivery of the Building the Education Revolution. The BER has already, or will, deliver new improved infrastructure at every Northern Territory school. That is a $207m investment in Northern Territory schools, delivering new classrooms, laboratories, libraries, language centres, school halls, outdoor learning centres, and more. Neither the opposition nor the Coalition in Canberra supported this fantastic investment in every Northern Territory school. When we had a motion on the floor of parliament, the local branch did not support new buildings and facilities in our schools. Shame on the opposition for that. These are important structures going into every school across the Northern Territory.
The Henderson government knows education is the key to every child’s future in the Northern Territory. We support our students, schools, teachers, and principals. We will continue to do so well into the future so the children of the Territory can look forward to reaping the benefits the Northern Territory experiences from the economic growth of northern Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it now being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! When this debate comes back on, I still have seven minutes, do I?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, and an extension if one is granted, yes.
Debate suspended.
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member for Sanderson has 22 minutes in continuation in closing debate.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, it has been some time since I spoke on this. On 24 November 2010, during my introduction of this bill, I said it has been nearly two years since the Coroner’s report was released, and I quote from page 6 of the Coroner’s report:
The Coroner’s report into the death of Rachelle Gay Shooter was completed and signed by the Deputy Coroner, Dr Celia Kemp, on 16 December 2008. It was then tabled in this House by the member for Karama on 11 August 2009. That is one day short of two years ago. When one goes through the Coroner’s report, it is a very sad report, and especially sad for the family of this poor lady. I quote for the benefit of members in this House, on page 5 of the report, starting on the second last line:
The Deputy Coroner goes on to say:
It then goes on to state:
After my second reading speech, the Chief Minister responded, as the appropriate minister, and spoke about Class 1B buildings and structures including boarding houses, guesthouses, and hostels, saying this is a significant omission. We accept that we could put amendments in place. In fact, we would accept amendments from the government on this private member’s bill. The Coroner’s report that we are referring to says: ‘private residential properties including private rental properties’. It is designed for private residences. We could take an amendment to that and include boarding houses, guesthouses, and hostels.
It is now heading towards three years and the government has failed to move on this. I would like to quote from Hansard on 23 February 2011 where the Chief Minister, in the second paragraph of his response, says: ‘We will be looking to provide for mandatory alarms post-1997 before the middle of the year’. I am assuming he meant 2011, but he does not actually say which year, just the middle of the year. These are life-saving devices and it behoves us as responsible members of this community and the people who make the rules in this community to move on this. If the Chief Minister is going to introduce legislation, it would be nice if he could get someone moving so we are not in a position where we have further tragedies.
In 2005, Territory Housing installed smoke alarms with permanent 10-year batteries in all their rental properties. I commend the government for that and I do not know who the minister for Housing was in 2005, but whoever it was, the idea was great. The government should move a little quicker than it is. If it will not support our bill, it should get its own legislation into this House as soon as possible. It should not take three years for that to occur.
In recent years, there has been a significant uptake of smoke alarms in Territory households, with 73% of Territory dwellings having smoke alarms in 2006 compared to 35% in 1997. That shows the advertising campaigns; the community efforts to encourage people to install these life-saving devices, have worked. Sadly, we are still looking at a high percentage; any house that does not have one of these is one too many. The elderly may not have the sense to move and these are things that would give people an early intervention in their own safety, and get them from a house or unit that is on fire to a safer place.
There are a number of different types of smoke alarms and I remind the government that these are not expensive options. I have had discussions with developers who have owned premises built before 1997. They fear the government may force them to put in hard-wired smoke detectors. I do not know whether the government is considering that. We have not seen their legislation yet. There are good smoke detectors on the market that people can buy for as little as $8.95. They are the 9V battery models that require a battery change every 12 months. There are units with a lithium battery that will last 10 years; they are sealed to prevent interference and that is the type authorities prefer. The best form of smoke detector is, of course, the hard-wired 240V with a backup lithium battery that lasts for 10 years.
I do not know how long it will be before the government looks at this. I hope members on both sides realise the dire straits people are in when they are in house fires. I do not know whether many members on the other side have been to a house fire where lives have been lost or whether they have had to deal with it. I certainly have. It is not a pleasant job and it is distressing when you know that lives could have been saved if smoke detectors had been fitted. The community is saddened knowing lives might have been saved if smoke detectors were fitted to houses and were compulsory. It is sad that a community has to live with those facts, so it behoves us to get the ball rolling.
There are good brochures available from government. The federal government, the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, and Fire Protection Australia produce good brochures. They send them out to electorate offices all over Australia encouraging people to prepare plans for their exit from a house fire. I refer to the Fire Safety at Home: Be Prepared brochure put out by Fire Protection Australia, the Commonwealth government, and the ACCC. The brochure contains a great plan on page 16. I encourage anyone listening to this or reading Hansard to prepare a plan for your home, your family, anyone else who resides with you or in the granny flat underneath an elevated home. The first thing they do before they look at a one to seven list of absolute essentials where you should have fire alarms - it says here: ‘Install an electrical safety switch; do not overload power points; switch off appliances when not in use; check electrical equipment’. There are a number of others and then you get down to: ‘Install smoke alarms and check them regularly’.
If you are in a residence built prior to 1997, you are not required to fit them. If you own one of those residences and rent it out, you are not required to fit them. There are many responsible people who fit them; there are many responsible landlords who fit them. I am assuming the government will look at something where if you have to put a smoke detector in, someone is responsible for certifying that it works. Unfortunately, the voluntary uptake of smoke alarms has not been sufficient. We are going to have to, as a community, be it the opposition with a private member’s bill, or the government, produce legislation to hopefully save lives.
These plans are great. I hope the Northern Territory government, irrespective of who gets their bill through, produces similar brochures, similar information, and I hope government produces an advertising campaign on television or the media to encourage people to continue to fit smoke alarms in homes. We can move legislation, we can make it compulsory; however, there will be some who will not take any notice. I sincerely hope the government has an effective campaign.
We talked about pool fencing and this current government made a big thing about pool fencing. It was absolutely essential. It saves lives. We made a big song and dance about it and I agree that pool fencing saves lives. I do not agree with the way government went about it, but when you look at the cost of installing pool fencing and the lives that were lost - I do not have those figures in front of me but I have figures about fires. I would like to give the House and members opposite some figures: across Australia, between July 1996 and June 2004, 412 people were killed in 366 fatal residential fires. In the cases where it was known whether smoke alarms were installed, 14% had non-working alarms and 55% had no alarm at all. These are terrible figures and a terrible waste of life.
I am unsure how many people died in swimming pools - one is too many. However, when we look at the amount of money the Northern Territory government spent installing pool fencing and ensuring people had pool fences - we had inspectors going out - I wonder if government proposes to spend as much money on smoke alarms.
Depending on the type of smoke alarms to be fitted to residences in government’s legislation – we could add up how many residences in the Territory are without smoke alarms and give them to people as a lifesaving gift from other taxpayers. There are people who will say they cannot afford to install a smoke detector; it is an imposition. I spoke to the Darwin City Council and asked how hard it would be if, when people come in to pay their rates, to give them a smoke detector. Have a few boxes behind the counter and, when you pay your rates, you get two smoke detectors, one for the sleeping area, and one for the kitchen. How hard would that be? They said: ‘Not hard at all. We could just tick it off once you pay your rates, if you choose to take advantage of a free smoke detector’. How much would that cost? If we ascertain the cost, it might be a viable option that we, as a community, can do to assist those who are struggling.
I have spoken to people who live from fortnight to fortnight, and I run this question past them at the shops on Saturday mornings or at barbecues: ‘What would you do? How would you find this?’ Many people said: ‘We have already fitted them’. However, there were people who said: ‘We cannot afford to do that’. I know it is about choices, and people have choices. When I was in a situation where I did not have much, I still had smoke alarms, and I made sure the batteries were up to speed. They were essential items as far as I am concerned, and that was my insurance policy. My parents taught me at a young age that the people who cannot afford insurance are the people who need insurance. I cannot afford to lose my life. I cannot afford any of my children to lose their life. Therefore, it is really important.
Some people argue they cannot afford it and it is something they do not want to do. If we were to look at a scheme where we provided a couple of smoke detectors, I am sure it would be considerably less than the money government spent on pool fencing and compensating people massive amounts of money in pool fencing. That would mean people have no excuse - unless government determines that smoke alarms have to be hard-wired. People who do not have smoke alarms fitted would have no excuse not to install a smoke alarm if it is mandated.
People have said: ‘How are you going to police that?’ It is a bit like registering a car. You do not have to register your car. It is a requirement of the law that you do so. If you choose to break the law, you do not have to register your car. However, if you drive an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle you run the risk of substantial fines. Often, people do not register their cars because either they do not want to get them inspected or they choose not to spend the money. When they choose not to get them inspected - as an ex-policeman, it is my experience there are reasons why they do not want to get them inspected. It is because they do not want to pay the money to maintain and repair an unsafe and unroadworthy motor vehicle. The same logic applies here. If fire inspectors go to a house, or there is reason to suspect they are not working, we should ensure people suffer some penalty for not putting smoke alarms in.
Madam Speaker, there is a range of issues to deal with and the government has work to do. I hope it is working quickly to bring this to parliament. I hate to think we would endure more tragedies before this comes in. The government said it was going to bring it in before the middle of the year and it is heading on to September. I do not see anything on the Notice Paper yet; it has not been raised in this House. How long is it going to be before this comes up? I spoke to other members of this House last November about the timing of this and said: ‘We need to do this as a community’. I received answers such as: ‘The government will bring this in’. I do not know when the government is going to bring it in. How long before it does? This is something we all need to consider. We need to dig deep into our conscience and say: ‘What about lifesaving things’.
I go back to cars. Should we send police to do roadside stops and check people to ensure their cars are roadworthy and they are registered? I think, yes, we do. There are people out there who choose not to do that. Many suffer from a poor attitude towards community expectations, and I am sure we will find there are people who put up arguments and excuses as to why they should not do this. There is a cost imposition; it is too hard; there are legal implications about who is responsible for certification. The simpler we make that, the less push back we will get from those who see this as an imposition on their financial situation, or an imposition on them having to complete some other form.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the government to bring this legislation on as soon as it can. I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 November 2010
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, how times change! It was November last year when this motion was first put and we were talking about the Yuendumu people who had been involved in trouble in Alice Springs and had chosen of their own volition to move to Adelaide. The Chief Minister liked to cause a storm, along with the Deputy Chief Minister and the member for Stuart, and ended up spending $300 000 to bring the people back. It sounds like a good investment. Pity they could not put some of that money into housing.
At the time, there was toing and froing from Mike Rann, who took the dog whistle approach of providing racism to the people of South Australia, and forcing those people out of the park. It was quite okay for Mike Rann to have 323 illegal maritime arrivals to South Australia in 2009-10. He did not mind that, but a handful of Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory he could not tolerate. It is similar to the policies of this Northern Territory government: a black policy and a white policy. This was identified and reflected in the Johnson Report, where he talks about different ways of doing business and expresses concern about the capacity of the Northern Territory government to do its job, particularly around education and housing.
However, times change, and I remember, at the time, there was argy-bargy between the dog whistler, Mike Rann, and me. Mike Rann made a comment about me wearing my intelligence as a number on the back of my football jersey. I commented that being insulted by Mike Rann is like being slapped around with a piece of wet lettuce. But, how times change! Mike Rann can talk about numbers. Maybe he wears on the back of his football jersey the number of supporters he has in his own party because Jay Weatherill is now wearing a bigger number than Mike Rann; swings and roundabouts.
In thinking about what argument to put up today regarding the treatment of the Yuendumu people, I thought post-Mike Rann’s imminent demise while he was on a trade mission to India and had the numbers done on him. Let us be mindful of the fact that the Labor Left in South Australia will now control things under Jay Weatherill, and those Aboriginal people in South Australia, amongst everyone, will succumb even further to a life of misery and poverty. The left of the Labor Party drives Aboriginal people across this country, and has done so since the 1970s with the failures of the Whitlam era.
The Yuendumu people are not fortunate enough to have wide-ranging economic development or job creation. The roads are not sealed and rubbish still litters the place. The shire council, the biggest failure of this Northern Territory government - we thought SIHIP was a failure - look at the shire model No wonder people are hopping mad in every community and outstation across the Northern Territory. This government, with the shire council model, forced an economy of scale approach - they were underfunded, assets were stripped from communities, roads are not being repaired, and people have nothing to do. Jobs were lost in shires as they centralised and Aboriginal people have every right to be disappointed and upset with the shires. The shires have had the biggest negative effect on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, and Yuendumu is no different.
I heard today in parliament argy-bargy about bipartisan approaches, and crocodile tears coming from the Chief Minister, and others, about our approach to live cattle. The Chief Minister can try to hide from the fact he stood next to Julia Gillard in Nhulunbuy while the live cattle ban was announced and he supported that ban. We drew him back in and said: ‘Let’s be bipartisan’. The Leader of the Opposition was in Indonesia lobbying, the member for Fong Lim was representing the rest of the team in Canberra, Senator Scullion did all he could, and the Country Liberals took charge. The Chief Minister now likes to take the accolades and play a partisan approach and when called to account today the crocodile tears came out. There are no crocodile tears for Aboriginal people who lost their jobs in the western region - Yuendumu. There are no crocodile tears for the Aboriginal people who own pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, none at all.
There are also no crocodile tears from the minister for Indigenous policy. She gave a speech today during a debate about how she would like to see a bipartisan approach on growth towns. I have committed many times to supporting the philosophy around a hub and spoke model, such as growth towns. I have said I do not agree with all the locations for the growth towns, and I do not agree with how growth towns were selected. They should have been selected on economic opportunity, on an economic plan that developed economies and delivered jobs that could get people off sit down money, off welfare, and start having sustainable towns and communities in the Northern Territory. That has not happened. She stood there with crocodile tears about a bipartisan approach for growth towns. A sensible person should now question if the Country Liberals should support this growth town policy because nothing is happening. Nothing is happening on the growth towns.
How many SIHIP houses have been built at Yuendumu? None. How many refurbishments? None. Let us not forget the $672m SIHIP program came about as a result of the Little Children are Sacred report in 2007. Everyone likes to refer to the intervention as a Howard intervention. They had it for four months. Labor has had it for four years and you have everything wrong. As the Johnson report says, there are serious concerns over the capacity of the Northern Territory government to deliver on housing and education. Housing and education are the two main things you deliver in isolation of anything else.
What have you done at Yuendumu? Check the NAPLAN results; check the attendance figures. You are not achieving. Why should we bankroll this growth town model? Why should we support it in a bipartisan way and handle the crocodile tears from the minister for Indigenous policy. I drove our support. I tried to support you with growth towns and you delivered nothing. I have downloaded a copy of Yuendumu Budget 2010-11. It does not mention anything that is being achieved in Yuendumu. Healthy homes, No 5, page 2:
That is fantastic. There is nothing in here about jobs. We are building a new preschool, Family as First Teachers program. There are several small federal government-funded things but you are not achieving anything. It is all smoke and mirrors. As everyone on this side says: ‘Listen to what you do, not what you say’.
Your local implementation plan for Yuendumu is a 52-page or 56-page document. It is all good; we have seen these things before. I have worked in bureaucracy and know fluff when I see it, and I cannot see anything more than that. At the back it lists the actions to be taken, the agencies involved, whether its ROC, LRG, AG, our local LGANT, FaHCSIA, PHMC - whoever it is, it is just bureaucrats sitting around the table writing a document. How much money goes into this sort of fluff? You spend all your time consulting to come up with this stuff. No one can work and kids cannot even go to school because all you do is go through consultants. You are not alone - the feds do it too. Get out there and make some decisions. This is an absolute joke.
When you look at the bureaucracy that goes into all this stuff - people working hard; I know they work hard, I know they go to lengths to produce all this. Matt Fagan and all those people who are in charge of this do a good job, and bring it together, but what does it mean? What does this document mean to the people at Yuendumu? To the kids who are being sexually abused, to the chronic alcoholics, to the ones living in tents or in humpies, that bit of paper cannot solve their lives. Neither can this bit of fluff about the budget. You are not solving anything.
We keep having these debates and I get up here - and you might like to call it a rant or a screaming contest. You change nothing. Your growth towns have about this much left for our side. Start doing something! I am looking at you, member for Johnston. You are about the only person on your side who can actually do anything - and take this in a nice way, not in a derogatory way. In your old age, in your parliamentary career, you are starting to realise some of the failures your mob have made. This growth towns stuff is a joke.
I support a hub and spoke concept. The regional transport ideas the Minister for Transport has tried have some merit. However, you have to achieve. You are still stuck in that Jay Weatherill side of things on the left. That is not going to achieve. When the left controls Aboriginal policy and Aboriginal affairs, it fails. Give it to a right winger rather than the soft lefties with the crocodile tears. The member for Arnhem might be a nice person, but she is never going to achieve anything. We know it is a joke on this side, and most people out there do. It is not about her as a person; it is about her ability to show leadership and vision.
I listened to the last debate about northern Australia - what a load of guff! I know the member for Greatorex likes to give you all a serve about time wasting. That is not vision. There is not one person on your side of the Chamber who has showed vision for Indigenous policy, for what the Territory is going to look like from an Aboriginal perspective - not one. We can stand here and talk about Yuendumu all we like, but nothing is going to change.
The member for Casuarina, the Minister for Health, came out with that disgraceful report the other day. How he could table that, I have no idea. To make reference to a government document and happily table it - the smiling assassin comparing Aboriginal people to Iron Age Italians and Neolithic British to justify the reason Aboriginal men beat women, in a domestic violence sense, is because it is part of your genes. I do not stand here on a right-based race issue ever, but that is a disgrace. You should hang your head in shame. I am not going to call for the minister to resign, but he should apologise for that. That was an absolute insult to the Aboriginal race. This is not taking away from what Peter Sutton did as a scientist. He may come up with those things as a scientist, but for you guys to own that opinion in the conclusion of a report to justify child neglect, child abuse, and domestic violence, is completely abhorrent. There is absolutely no excuse.
I call on him to apologise and retract that from the record, because that is appalling. That is an international outrage. It is just abhorrent. If you tell an Aboriginal man: ‘You are nothing but caveman; that is why you beat your wife’, by putting it in the conclusion you are justifying it: ‘It is all right; he is just a black man with a big club under his arm’ - what do they call it? – ‘a big turkey leg or something walking around nomadically’. As policy-makers, we deal with this institutionalised racism as we try to make change, and that is the reason for this bit of fluff.
With all due respect, you have white bureaucrats running around writing reports and plans. Tighten welfare. You want Aboriginal entrepreneurs; tighten welfare. The general population is about 2% entrepreneurs but I bet you any money, you tighten welfare, and you will have many more Indigenous entrepreneurs in the Northern Territory. You will get up to 5%, maybe 6%, because people will be entrepreneurs.
We recognise the problem with tourism in the Northern Territory. People in Darwin - the alcohol reforms put in place - people in the Top End are now starting to realise how bad they are. You still do not have alcohol reforms such as we have in Alice. You can still buy alcohol before 2 pm. You do not have problems buying fortified wine. If I want a glass of Green Ginger wine, or one of the aunties wants sherry so she can cook with it, you can do that here; you cannot do that in Alice. You cannot do that until 6 pm and there are limitations; you can only get one bottle and so forth. I have lost my train of thought …
Mr Elferink: Condescending white …
Mr GILES: … that is right, it is condescending. If you tighten welfare people will get out there and will do. I know you are not the people who control welfare, but you can lobby for change. This is why the right needs to control it, and why the Liberals need to do it, because you will not do it.
If I had spoken about Neanderthals, Neolithic British, and Iron Age Italians, you would have me for breakfast. You and all your lefty, hairy arm pitted mates around the country would have me for breakfast. I cannot fathom how you could do that, I really can’t.
When talking about Yuendumu, we should also look at the number of people from the Yuendumu region, Warlpiri or otherwise, who are in our gaols. We had a big debate yesterday about how the minister for Corrections is putting criminals on our streets, and I know the member for Macdonnell supported that bill; I cannot understand why. These alcohol reforms are turning people who are substance abusers into criminals. If you work and you live on a town camp and go home for a drink, you can be locked up when it is your home, because you cannot drink on town camps. The Minister for Health has a funny look on his face. If you live in a town camp and you go home from work, you are not allowed to have a beer. It is against the law. You cannot have a drink in the river. You cannot have a drink in public. You cannot go into what is commonly referred to as an animal bar because that has now been toughened up too.
If you are an Aboriginal person in Alice Springs and you work and do the right thing, where can you have a beer? If you do not have a house to live in because there are not enough houses, you cannot clean yourself up to go into Gillen Club, the Feds, or the casino. This is a two-speed, race-based policy that sees Aboriginal people commit a felony, or break the law, and go to gaol for those reasons.
Now we see, as part of that legislation, that the minister wants to train people, give them a temporary licence when they have had their licences suspended. How moronic is that? People should be trained, and they should be trained in gaol to drive their cars. I am not sure if everyone else agrees. It is not a policy; it is my personal opinion. Instead of sending trainers out to Yuendumu, or training people at Yuendumu to teach people how to drive, you wait until they are in town, pick them up when they are drunk, put them on a community work order with a tag around their leg or wherever it might be and teach them to drive in the streets. Are we not chasing our tail? The local implementation plan has an outcome: ‘We will try to train people in Yuendumu to drive’. I guarantee you train more people in Community Corrections in Alice Springs to drive than you train in Yuendumu. You will train them afterwards and spend all that money doing it, rather than before, or out of their community.
I did not speak yesterday on crime but it amazed me. Sure, you are locking up people who should not be locked up. Teach them to drive beforehand. Deal with their substance abuse beforehand so they are not locked up in the first place. There is a point when substance abuse - and it is a problem - they become criminals because they are breaking into houses or businesses to take grog. People who have been violated in their home and been broken into should not have criminals living on the same street. That is not right.
You have the whole system mucked up, so now you are going down the wrong end again, and there will be criminals on every corner. Whether those people should be criminals or not is a fair question, but putting aside the question of whether they should be because you have the policy wrong, there are now going to be criminals everywhere. The reason criminals are on our street is because your gaols are so full, and your gaols are so full because you have your policies wrong.
I made an interjection yesterday to the minister for Corrections during Question Time about South Africa, and the interjection was right. You are locking up black people more than during apartheid in South Africa. Statistically, that is what it is. You should hang your head in shame. It is not the caveman. It is not the Neolithic British or the Iron Age Italians. It is you mob who are causing this. You cannot take it back to some genealogical example.
So, when we talk about people who in some voices would say escaped from Yuendumu, some would say escaped from the violence, others would say moved, and others were just tourists who wanted to go to Adelaide, serious policy considerations need to be put into place. There is a very good argument for people leaving communities and outstations to bigger centres so they are serviced more cheaply, from an economic sense. There is the other argument that people should be able to live where they want to live, whether that be Yuendumu or otherwise.
I do not condone people camping in parks and leaving rubbish and the like, but when people choose to be tourists and go to Adelaide and want to live there, some people should have seen that as an opportunity. Not everyone does, but some people should have seen it as an opportunity. At the time, as I have said in the first part of this motion, I did not publicise it. I was called out there for help. I was called out to Seven Mile for help by the Aboriginal elders, by the senior blokes out there – and women, but I spoke to the blokes. I went out and they said: ‘Adam, the member for Stuart will not help us’. They told me a whole load of stuff and I will not repeat everything. They said: ‘He will not help us; he will not return our calls’.
The member for Lingiari, who, I believe, likes to keep Aboriginal people here so he can trick them to vote for him, would not answer the phone; would not respond. They needed help. They come to the bloke who stands up and takes the hardline approach of no more sit down money, get rid of welfare. They said: ‘Adam, can you help me?’ ‘No worries, mate. What do you need?’ I did not spend a dollar, I did not give them any money, I did not call a bus company; none of that. They needed help and moral support. I gave them ideas, that was all. You run with it yourself. I was there as an ear. I was there as a person. I was there as a local member and more importantly, I was there as a person who cares. These people were in difficult trouble.
I also have an electorate in town which covers the CBD, Warlpiri Camp, Hoppy’s Camp, and eight or nine town camps. I knew the violence that was going to happen in that town. I know how hot things get. The member for Macdonnell and I have spoken about boiling points in town. We know the troubled times. Those people moving did not solve many problems, but it provided breathing space for issues that were occurring. For the Deputy Chief Minister to get involved and try to politicise it, there is shame on those people. They went to Adelaide of their own accord. Six cars drove down. Are you trying to tell me I drove the cars for them too? I do not care what you say. You guys are a waste of space and the community has stopped listening to you anyway. The only thing you have is bush votes and now you are calling them all cavemen. You are in a great deal of trouble. Those people should have been shown respect like everyone else. You have disrespected them by calling them cavemen and referring to Neolithic and Iron Age times, Iron Age Italians.
You should be condemned for your approach to the people of Yuendumu. You should be condemned for your approach to every growth town and every outstation. The question by the member for Macdonnell today in Question Time about outstations was right. Here you are, mendicant again, going out cap in hand seeking money from the feds to support outstations. You do not even have a policy. You cannot even tell us which ones are which; how many houses are in each; what condition they are in; how much you fund each one; which ones you do fund; which ones you do not; which ones you charge rent for; which ones you do not; how much the shire gets for each one. You do not know what that is. There is no insurance on any of them. Nothing is under control and you are saying: ‘We need more money’.
The Northern Territory, going back to the previous debate, is in a diabolical way. There are four industries: tourism, in big trouble; live cattle, killed off with the support of the Chief Minister; and mining - resources rent tax 2% of royalty increased tax last year and now the carbon tax coming which is not going to hurt mining, it is going to hurt everyone in the Territory. The fourth big one is Aboriginal affairs. You are receiving all this money for Aboriginal affairs and you get nothing right. The Johnson report says there is serious concern about the capacity of the Northern Territory government to deliver, particularly in its core areas of housing and education.
It is only this far until this place is gone. If the federal government says it will do housing, and will do education through direct funding, what is left? There will not be a Northern Territory parliament. You can talk about statehood all you like, but if you do not get Aboriginal affairs right, there will not be a Northern Territory - we will be under Commonwealth administration. People talk about it all the time and everyone is afraid to say it - juggle statehood and all those types of arguments - but if you do not get it right it will be gone because you live off the breast of Indigenous dollars with the bureaucracy. You take that Aboriginal money away on its run out of Canberra, there is not much left! They are your four main industries! They are the life-blood of everything else that operates. The northern Australia stuff; you do not have a vision, you do not have a vision for Indigenous affairs, and you do not have a vision for Central Australia. It is just fluff some bureaucrat on the fifth floor writes.
You are the only person, member for Johnston, who can tell us what you really think in your passion, your vision, and how you see things want to go. You have seen the mistakes of the past. There is not one other person over there - I am thinking about everyone - who has shown any vision for the Northern Territory – not one! You are the only person. Perhaps you should take on Aboriginal affairs in the last 12 months of your tenure.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I am serious! We want someone who is going to show commitment, courage, and drive to articulate a vision, scuff away the mess, and do something. These LIPs look all right; they are a piece of paper; that is all they are. Get out there and do something!
I condemn the government on the way it has treated the people of Yuendumu …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
I condemn the government for its treatment of the people from Yuendumu who travelled to Adelaide. Moreover, I condemn it for its treatment of the people of Yuendumu broadly, and the people of Lajamanu, Yuelamu, Nyirripi, Mount Liebig, Kintore and our broader Northern Territory. I condemn the government and look forward to hearing the debate. I would like the member for Johnston - I do not think anyone else can do it over there - to articulate a vision of how he sees things could improve and what he sees as opportunities without the constraints of bureaucrats, advisors, and so forth, and share with us how you think things can change.
You must be sick and tired of me ranting about these things. Rant is terminology from your side; however, I say these things because I passionately believe them. How many other people around Australia have the guts to talk about removing sit down money and getting rid of welfare because it is a curse, when it is going to bite them on the backside? How many people? Get up and have your say. I look forward to hearing everyone’s debate so I can sum up and we will take a vote.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have great pleasure speaking on this very important motion put up by the member for Braitling. I do not think there is another person in this House with the same commitment …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members not to have phones turned on in the Chamber, thanks, member for Port Darwin.
Mr TOLLNER: It is great to see a member with such commitment to alleviating the problems in remote communities. I do not think there is a member here with that same passion apart from the person directly behind me, the member for Macdonnell. It is wonderful to see the way these guys research, and are prepared to stand up and express a point of view. If only we had similar commitment from the minister for Indigenous Territorians, or other Indigenous members in this place. Instead, they seem to be consumed with maintaining the status quo; keeping things the way they are.
It is also interesting to note that the minister for Indigenous Territorians is also the Minister for Statehood. The greatest single impediment to the Northern Territory gaining statehood is the issue of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Currently, half of the Northern Territory land mass is controlled by Canberra. We will never be a state while that situation continues, and I find it appalling. I find it wrong-headed that this government - and the previous Martin Labor government - will not take seriously the effort to talk with federal politicians about having that act patriated to the Northern Territory. The government is happy to rattle on about its support for statehood, but it will not support one of the fundamental foundations of statehood; that is, government being in charge of the land mass that it administers.
If we want Canberra to administer the land mass that is Aboriginal land, maybe we should just throw our hands in the air and say: ‘All right, we will leave it to Canberra’. Why even bother having a Minister for Statehood or a minister for Indigenous Territorians when the vast majority of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory live on ALRA land?
Like the member for Braitling, I was amazed and gobsmacked at the response by governments when the Yuendumu people decided to go to Adelaide. I would be surprised if anyone would ever contemplate a reaction from state or territory leaders such as we witnessed if a group of non-Indigenous Australians decided to pack up and go to another city. Mike Rann’s screams about a couple of hundred Indigenous people leaving the Northern Territory and going to Adelaide was almost beyond belief. I used to think this was a free country but evidently not. ‘Blacks out the back’ is the motto, it seems, of the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. ‘Leave them out in the scrub to fend for themselves, but the minute they turn up in Adelaide - gee whiz - we will scream blue murder; just not on’.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was highly embarrassed these people would consider leaving the scrub to go to an urban centre; he was so offended by it. The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, was so offended that these guys would have the audacity to leave a remote community and go to Adelaide. Goodness me! What is so offensive about an Australian leaving one part of Australia to travel to another?
The policy of Labor is the back to country policy. They have a strong view that blacks should be out the back - hide them out in the scrub; that is where they belong. They say that all the time. It is all about making sure blackfellas head bush. ‘We have to stop the urban drift. We have to stop Aboriginal people coming to the cities’. Put schools out there, health centres, all of this - it does not really matter that there is no employment or economic opportunities for these people, as long as they stay out bush. ‘Keep them out bush; out of sight, out of mind’ is the motto of the Australian Labor Party when it comes to Aboriginal people. It is rather disgusting. It is rather racist. Much Labor policy is based around race. We have the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, we have Aboriginal health centres, we have Aboriginal only schools, Aboriginal justice systems. We have apartheid here in Australia, and no place more so than the Northern Territory - apartheid.
On child protection issues, what is the first response of the Labor government? Set up an Aboriginal child protection area, as if Aboriginal kids are somehow so different to non-Aboriginal kids, Aboriginal kids do not need the same sort of love and nurturing as non-Aboriginal kids. We need a separate dumbed down bureaucracy for Aboriginal kids as opposed to non-Aboriginal kids. It is all rather appalling, and the first time anyone from our side of the House says anything about it, Labor screams racism. It is their normal reaction, and it is appalling.
I have been reading recently, particularly some of the works of Helen Hughes. For those people in this place who do not know or have not heard of Helen Hughes, she is an eminent Australian, an Emeritus Professor in Economics based at the Australian National University and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. She worked at the World Bank for almost 20 years and was a member of the United Nations Committee for Development Planning. She is currently focused on researching remote Indigenous communities in Australia. She is a person who is highly regarded in many different areas of economics. She was awarded the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal. She was awarded the Centenary Medal for service to economic policy, particularly to poverty alleviation and economic development. When you want to understand some of the concerns in remote communities, someone who has a gong, an award for service to economic policy, particularly poverty alleviation and economic development, it is hard to look past Helen Hughes.
Helen Hughes has written a range of articles over the years on many different topics, but her research into Indigenous expenditure is illuminating. She does not simply research Indigenous expenditure; she breaks it down between urban Aborigines and people living in remote Australia. She says every man, woman, and child in remote Australia has much more money devoted to their cause than Indigenous people in urban Australia do. People in urban settings do not have - there is not a great deal of difference between the outcomes, lifestyles and the like of mainstream Australia.
For people in remote communities, it is vastly different. She says that people in remote communities receive in the order of $100 000 per year, per person - $100 000 per year, per person - and yet if you look at the statistics in remote areas, and you see the way people live - and I have referred to many Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as hellholes. I do not know any other way of describing these places other than as hellholes. The minister for Indigenous affairs seems to have a great problem with that. She cannot bring herself to see that they are hellholes. She says: ‘Oh no, they are beautiful places’. If they are so wonderful, why is the minister not living in one of these communities raising a family there? Why isn’t she? The obvious answer is that many of those places are hellholes and, in many cases, you would not send your worst enemy to them.
The member for Braitling talked about education. Helen Hughes says the following about education in remote communities:
That is what Helen Hughes has to say. She has identified that money is not the answer. Yet every time we come into this place and talk about these issues, the one and only response we get from government is: ‘We have spent this amount of money. We are putting X number of dollars into this program. We have record levels of expenditure’. As Helen Hughes identifies, spending money is part of the problem. It is not part of the solution. We are not focused on results. We are focused on expenditure and how we expend more money and you see it time and time again in all areas of government Indigenous expenditure.
Then she says:
What an indictment! You grow up in a remote community. You have a failure rate of 94% and when you do finish school you find you are unemployable anyhow – that you cannot read and write and you cannot add up - because we have separate education curriculums for Indigenous people, which is what Helen Hughes identifies. These people do not go to a mainstream school. They do not have a mainstream education. They have separate education, somehow different to everyone else. The same as they have separate health systems. The same as they are about to have a separate child protection system, where everything is dumbed down, and made simpler. Yet we have a government that seems to think that is okay.
As I said yesterday during debate on a similar topic, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Not these guys; they just dig harder and faster and find more ways to spend and waste money. Every time we come in here, government is questioned about some aspect of Indigenous expenditure, and what is the first thing we hear? ‘The CLP, for 27 years, disregarded these people. They never spent anything. Look how much money we are spending.’ In 27 years of CLP government, I never heard one story of a child under the protection of government dying in a front yard. I did not hear half the horror stories that come out.
In different times and places, you hear dreadful stories, but the way they are coming on now is a tsunami of strife, of grief, and our only response is to spend our way out of it. It is the mindset of the left, of the Australian Labor Party caught up in the paradigm of the noble savage. Send them out to the bush where they can hunt, gather, eat witchetty grubs, live on yams, and somehow they will survive better than if they turn up in a mainstream town, get a proper job, send their kids to school, and eat Weetbix for breakfast. Goodness me, it is heart breaking; on and on the cycle goes.
The minister says: ‘We do not want to politicise this issue; this is bigger than politics. You cannot say these things’. Why? ‘We do not want the scrutiny. We do not want people calling us out on these things. We do not want people calling places hellholes’.
My good mate in this town who happens to be an excellent writer and is well-known to some members in this chamber, Mr Nicolas Rothwell, writes for The Australian. I saw an article he wrote about Galiwinku, a beautiful location. It really is a piece of paradise, but this is what he says about the township of Galiwinku:
And:
That is Galiwinku. Think what you like about Nicolas Rothwell, but he writes the facts well. He does a good job of drawing mainstream Australia’s attention to concerns we in the Northern Territory have about the lifestyle conditions of Indigenous people we rub shoulders with every day. This government says that is all right. We will do a renovation on a house. We will not paint the walls; we will not do anything really. We will slap a bit of paint on it. We will pay a contractor $200 000 or $75 000 for some menial work and the problem is solved.
When we originally cooked up the idea of the intervention - and I have said in this House before that it was an emergency intervention - it was a response to emergency of need in remote communities. Those hundreds of millions of dollars allocated for housing were for building shelters for people. Quick, fast shelters where we could roll out a program in an emergency response. It was not about building $300 000 or $400000 houses, or $800 000 or $900 000 houses being built now. It was about getting emergency accommodation on the ground quickly because it is an emergency.
A Labor government takes over and says: ‘We agree with the intervention. We do not agree with the way you are going about it. We are going to consult’. I draw the Chamber’s attention to what Gary Johns, former Labor minister in a former federal Labor government, has to say about consultation. Gary Johns says:
What an indictment. This is an indictment of the system by a former Labor minister in the federal parliament. He has his eyes open enough to see what is going on. People are being consulted to death and yet we have a minister in the Northern Territory parliament with the hide to turn up in this place and say: ‘We are doing things differently than the CLP ever did. We are consulting with people. We are talking to them’ - as if that is some great claim to fame. Gary Johns says people are being consulted to death. We have plane loads, bus loads, federal, state, non-government organisations, charities going out and consulting with these people. What they want is real action. They want real change to take place in these communities.
We have a government that says it does not believe in outstations, and is not going to fund outstations but, all of a sudden today, it informs us that homelands policy is a very important thing and we are going to keep funding them. Currently, these people are getting $100 000 per person in some form or other of government expenditure. As Helen Hughes said in her article, we would be better off getting the family of four - $400 000 per year – and putting them up in a nice home in Vaucluse and sending them to a posh private school. They would have greater hope of living a decent and fulfilling life than they would do sitting out the back of some of these joints, sitting under trees, playing cards, smoking cigarettes, waiting for the sun to go down so the next day they can get up and do exactly the same thing.
We wonder why alcoholism, petrol sniffing and drug taking are rife in these communities! By God, I have to tell you, if I was brought up in one of those joints I could not wait to get my hand on a can of full strength unleaded petrol. I would be sniffing away. I would probably neck myself. What a horrible place to grow up; in a house infested with rats and mice, having your toes gnawed off. We can crow about spending all this money, and be upset and worked up when a handful of them decide to take their lives into their own hands and move to a place like Adelaide. We are all horrified!
It is a disgrace. It was a disgrace of the Chief Minister to react the way he did. The first thing the Chief Minister should have come out and said was: ‘It is a free country. If you want to travel around, you can’. The first thing Mike Rann in South Australia should have said was: ‘It is a free country’. He did not. It is just horrific - absolutely horrific.
I will finish off with some words of Helen Hughes. Again, she talks about the fact that ownership of land is the basis of all economic development:
Mr Elferink: It is actually another name for socialism.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly. The member for Port Darwin has it right; it is another name for socialism, or communism. Here we are in Australia, in this marvellous freewheeling, free trading, and free enterprise country, where everyone gets a go. We are signing free trade agreements left, right, and centre with countries all around the world - and you can see the benefits on the ground in Australia. Financially, with respect to resources, we are better off than most countries in the world – and what a beautiful place to live!
Yet, right in the heart of this country we have a communist based system and the people living in it live in Third World conditions. In any case, Helen Hughes said:
Doesn’t that sum it up in a nutshell? But it all seems so difficult. The reason it is so difficult is we have this enormous Aboriginal industry out there. We know who they vote for: they vote for the people who keep them in jobs, the people who have policies called back to country. That is who they vote for, and that is the motivation of the Labor Party right across Australia. It is a racist party, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know, they introduced the White Australia Policy. Interestingly enough, it was the Liberals who got rid of it, but nothing has changed. We go down this road, we create more Aboriginal agencies and consultancies, more talking, spending more money, and things get worse and worse and worse. I say shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on such an important motion. I am absolutely glad to support it, and I will stand up and support it as best I can. I encourage my colleagues on this side, and the other side, and Independents, to support this motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion the member for Braitling has brought to this House. As the member for Fong Lim said, he has been a brave politician inside and outside this House, calling for welfare to end. We have seen many other people hop on the bandwagon of what the member for Braitling has said. He used it to run in the federal election against Warren Snowdon, and was defeated. Many Aboriginal people now see where he comes from. He has made friends with people like Lindsay Brooking and Dicky Downs, and many other traditional elders in Central Australia. He explained to these people what he means by welfare, and that welfare is keeping them trapped, in not being educated, not being healthy, or housed, and being reliant on the many agencies that the member for Fong Lim just spoke about, that just come into these communities and consult.
There are jobs advertised in MacDonnell Shire, and there was a consultation with FaHCSIA last week at Alice Springs Town Council with those interested in having a conversation with the federal minister. There was a lady in the audience - and this is on Alice News website - who said that in MacDonnell Shire there are up to 55 jobs advertised and they cannot fill them because of Centrelink. It was a really interesting remark made by this woman. There are 55 jobs and they can only fill a small portion of that 55.
That is a real indictment on welfarism, and that is what happened: it is a gravy train of misery. I have stood in this House and said that it is a gravy train of misery. Why is it a gravy train of misery? Because we employ many people for the benefit of our poverty. The fact that we are not educated, the fact that we are unhealthy, the fact that we live in appalling conditions; we need to get off welfare.
I take this opportunity to say to the member for Braitling, he has brought fresh air into the ears and minds of many Central Australian people. Many people are on board, listening to the things he is saying because of the simple reason that people are over consulted and do live in poverty.
I have had two nephews in the past month who suicided, that I have had to bury. One was just last Friday. One of the questions I put to this House is shouldn’t we be talking about the suicides happening amongst our young kids in remote Aboriginal communities? The member for Fong Lim spoke about how our kids are all on ganja in our remote communities, but we are too afraid to talk about it. As politicians, as mothers, as uncles, aunties, grandparents, we are too afraid to talk about it.
This huge problem is causing so many problems in our communities with our young children and I would like government to give us statistics of how many children or young adolescents suicide in the Northern Territory. I would like a breakdown between regions - urban, rural and remote. Let us start talking about the issues. We do not have to sensationalise it. We do not have to go chasing the parents and naming the children and going to the communities to get the news but we should take this opportunity to talk about the suicide rate. Non-Indigenous people have started talking about their problems with people in cities and rural towns and things are starting to be done in that area.
Regarding the effects of mental illness with ganja amongst our kids, I would like the Minister for Health to give me statistics of how many Aboriginal kids go into Cowdy Ward and Ward One in Alice Springs with mental illness, paranoia, and all the symptoms of psychosis. How many of these cases are ganja related? We have to take these matters very seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will get on to the motion from an Indigenous point of view. Family disputes on communities are very disruptive. Not only do they disrupt people’s normal working day, it disrupts children going to school, and brings whole communities and regions to a standstill. We have to deal with these issues by Aboriginal people talking to Aboriginal people about changing the circumstances that lead to these disputes. The courts, magistrates, and legal services should play a role in these matters because it is usually violence or a murder in a community that leads to these disputes. It should be possible to get legal agencies and the legal services together to start explaining to people that interpreters are part of a system, and employed to make two parties understand one another.
When the legal system says a person is not on a murder charge but on a manslaughter charge, you have to understand that in an Aboriginal language we do not have a word for manslaughter. These are all the things we have to take into context when we start dealing with Aboriginal people involved in disputes in remote Aboriginal communities because it all comes out of disputes resulting from violence inflicted on a person, either in Alice Springs or in the communities.
As we speak, there is a community in my electorate we will probably hear about tomorrow on the news about some form of violence. A 14-year-old lad committed suicide two days ago in that community. It is really sad that these communities continuously go through this process of sadness and ugliness through these disputes. It is up to all of us to get together and start talking to these people about the harm they bring on themselves, their children, the whole region and community. It disrupts a child’s life at school, it disrupts a child’s life at home, because kids are put inside cars to go to the nearest community, or they flee to places like Adelaide.
Yes, people have a choice, they can move around. However, one day that person has to come back and if anyone is a good hater, let me tell you, Aboriginal people are good haters. They will wait for you. It does not matter how long it takes. You might go to Adelaide and live there for 10 or 20 years, but you are going to come back. You might have a grandfather, a mother, a father, auntie, or uncle who still resides at that community. That dispute will flare up again.
This is a long-term education strategy required in our regional towns and communities. We have the perfect opportunity with the roll-out of shires because you can link that to the municipal services of towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Katherine. One rule applies across the whole region.
I have spoken before about this. It is an education system so when people move from the shires into municipal towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Katherine, you have a standard of behaviour expected when you live inside the town. You cannot come in and start drinking, behaving, and killing each other in that town, and making a nuisance of yourself. That is part of an education strategy for all of us to put that message through so these people understand and accept that when they move from place to place, there is one rule. If we start this separating people all the time, they are not going to learn that.
I have said that every time we pass legislation on child protection we should have an automatic education strategy that goes out to the community immediately saying these are the changes, so people understand that in this House we make the laws and they are laws passed. They do not know that, so we need to put material out so people are educated. No, we do not seem to do it. I keep asking this all the time. That is the only way people will learn and we cannot just give lip service.
The members for Braitling and Fong Lim both said people are sick of it. They are over consulted. There are 60 or 70 agencies walking through a community in a week. They talk to the same people.
I have been requested by my constituents to ask whether the recent consultation that FaHCSIA had with all the communities about the second intervention, if they can get the minutes of those meetings back from the federal minister because they do not believe the bureaucrats at the meetings will take back what they said. Many bureaucrats at those meetings would not answer anything on Northern Territory housing. They said it was not their responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government, even though they give the money to the Northern Territory government. It was half a consultancy, half a conversation with the people, and the people are adamant. They have asked me to write to the federal minister and ask for minutes of every one of their consultations to come back so they can verify what they said is what the minister gets. They do not trust the bureaucrats.
If simple things like rent going up and their houses not being done properly on remote Aboriginal communities could not be answered by them, who is going to answer the questions? We can only bring so much into this House and we can only accept so much. What I have done now is send every transcript from Hansard of answers from ministers directly to my communities. I have done that with the Santa Teresa pool, and I would love the minister to see the e-mail I received from that community. The spin and propaganda is okay inside this House, but when you have people trying to work and trying to get the message out to these communities, that is what I will be doing every time now. Every time a minister gives me an answer, I will be sending that answer back to the community so the community can read what the minister has said on the questions I have asked on their behalf. We have to take these issues seriously.
The other area I wanted to get on to was the Families as First Teachers. Families as First Teachers go to four of my communities and the lady that does it is a beautiful woman; she is a good friend of mine. She goes to Papunya, Mount Liebig, Haasts Bluff, and Areyonga. So, those kids only get four days. She leaves Alice Springs on Monday at lunchtime. She goes to one community for one day, another community for the second day, third day, fourth day, and then she is back on the fifth day. What kid is going to learn with one day of education a week? Minister, you have said that unless a child goes to school every day they are not going to be educated. So, why is it different for our children out in remote Aboriginal communities that they cannot get five days? These are the children - not this generation, or the next generation, we are talking about the next generation. The passage for these children should be very simple. It should be five days, exactly what you said in this House.
The standard of housing in remote Aboriginal communities – Santa Teresa is a classic example. Can Santa Teresa ring up Centrelink, or terminate the contract with Territory Housing, and say: ‘I am not paying you rent anymore because of the way these houses are not finished’? In some of those houses, as you would have seen, there are no tiles and there is water leaking. They should not be made to pay rent until someone goes back to fix those houses. Is it fair that these people pay rent? These are some of the answers I hope, minister, if you are talking to this motion, you can give me, so I can go back and tell the people from Santa Teresa they can legally terminate their contract so they are not paying rent for houses that are substandard. We have obligations to look after these people. You cannot just say: ‘They can live like that, but they can pay the top rent, because we will go back in six months time to try to finish the houses’.
Haasts Bluff is another classic example where only nine or so houses were done. They said: ‘We will be back in June to do the rest’. June has come and gone; it is August. If you run out of money, then you need to say to those people: ‘We do not have money to do the rest of the houses so do not wait around for us, move on with your life’, so people are not expecting you to keep coming tomorrow.
Papunya is another one. It just happened that when one of the houses my sister was living in was handed back to her, it was handed back with half a house dead and half a house live with respect to electricity. She was running extension cords from the live side to the dead side. I just happened to be there with two people. I spoke to someone who fixed it up on the Monday - because that was Friday - so Saturday, Sunday, Monday they fixed it up. That was how the house was handed back to her - half dead, half live. She did not know any better. She just ran an extension cord from the live side to the dead side, but she was expected to pay the full rent for a house that is not repaired properly ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the second member who has had a mobile phone ring in the Chamber in the past hour. If people have phones in here they must be turned off, please. The next phone that goes off, the member will be on a warning. Sorry, member for Macdonnell.
Ms ANDERSON: That is okay. These are some of the messages we need to get back so we can tell these people whether they have the right to cancel these contracts. Is there some kind of legal advice these people can get? Can the people of Santa Teresa get a lawyer so a lawyer can help them fight Territory Housing so they do not have to pay the top rent for the houses they live in? You would have been better off not sending the crew in there because the houses were actually better before the houses were done. It is really terrible. It is sad to see the spin and the propaganda we put on how services are operating.
If we are going to have growth towns and consult with these people, when is all this going to happen? Or, is this just like the documents says: a lip service to get people encouraged for this year? We know we are going to an election next year and nothing happens until after the election. We have to be very careful that people are not living on our dreams, so we can have children moving on in their lives, so they are not waiting around for these pretend houses that are going to be built.
Hermannsburg was another one where they had consultations to have leasing. They were told at a public meeting the housing will be done next year. Then there was a story in the Centralian Advocate saying no, no, sorry, it is not going to be done until the year 2013 - that kind of stuff. When I go out there, people talk to me. They spoke about a person who works in the Chief Minister’s office. Is it right that you have a bureaucrat who works in the Chief Minister’s office, running around in the Chief Minister’s time, in the Chief Minister’s vehicle, campaigning in my electorate, and trying to take over the outstation of my mother? Your candidate does not even know who they are talking to!
I am talking about Des Rogers who works in the Chief Minister’s office. He goes blindly and talks to people at Hermannsburg, talking to my brother and talking to my sister, and trying to take over the outstation at Red Sandhill. My mother, who is the owner of that outstation, whom he has not spoken to, is in Royal Adelaide Hospital with a broken hip and a broken arm because she fell inside the grave of my nephew two weeks ago.
I ask you, Chief Minister, if you are listening to this, stop your candidate from trying to steal someone’s outstation, and declaring himself as a candidate. At the moment you have him running around on Territory taxpayers’ money. When my mother comes back, he will be running back to the Chief Minister’s office all right.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): What a revelation, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had more time to point out the sinister nature of this government, I would dwell on that, but what can I say? I am now torn between the temptation to attack government on the revelation we have just heard, or talk about an issue which is vitally important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than engage …
Ms Anderson interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I would not be at all surprised. I used to go to Red Sandhill once upon a time when I was the member for Macdonnell, but I was, of course, the member for Macdonnell at that stage, and legitimately.
A member interjecting.
Dr Burns: … you did not campaign when you were a policeman either.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, very good gentlemen. I will pick up on that interjection. Did I campaign when I was a policeman? Yes, on weekends, on my days off. Did I travel around those communities? Yes, I did, in a privately-hired four-wheel-drive …
A member: And they voted him out.
Mr ELFERINK: I was there for eight years, and I am proud of the time I spent there. What I did not do was spend time on the police force’s income campaigning, and that is the important difference. What I find curious is that, through that allegation, somehow the minister thinks it absolves their candidate, their ministerial staffer, from responsibility because he thinks blame might rest anywhere else. By your measure, two wrongs make a right. Not good enough, minister.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I remind honourable members that whilst this debate has ranged far and wide, this is a motion calling on the Northern Territory government to be condemned for its actions in relation to its residents at Yuendumu.
These sorts of disputes, when they occur, and they do occur in the Northern Territory, require a response. The first duty of government in all instances is to ensure people in the community are safe. Before we do health, before we do education, before we provide money to any number of programs or candidates, or whatever else, the primary role of government in any sphere is to provide security. In a federal system, the federal government, or Commonwealth government in this case, provide security with respect to external threats. State governments, as a rule, tend to provide security at a state level in the form of civil police forces.
In the United States, all three tiers of government provide security. People are often surprised to discover the United States has something like 3500 police forces, and most of them are local government employees. Security is important because you can have the best health system in the world, but if it is too dangerous to travel to the hospital then it is pointless. You can have the best education system in the world and the same applies.
What struck me about the Yuendumu situation was, whilst extra police were sent, it was insufficient to take command of the situation. Although sent, they were in many respects nobbled by instructions that limited their involvement in what was going on, which was the wrong thing to do.
If the Northern Territory government wants to do its job effectively, it must be prepared to secure the liberty of citizens who come under its protection. My mind goes back to a situation similar to Yuendumu, in the late 1980s, when there was a similar riot at Wadeye. We were in the station when the call came in – I was working in the watch house if memory serves me – ‘We need troops out at Wadeye’. So, I rang the missus and said: ‘Darling, I will not be coming home for dinner tonight.’
We boarded two light aircraft, which immediately took off. We had all sorts of equipment on board. We had riot shields, batons, all manner of equipment, including firearms. When we flew into Wadeye, I remember looking out of the window of the light aircraft and seeing a column of smoke over the community of Port Keats as we called it in those days. There was radio work back and forth, and the Task Force, which had arrived a little earlier, had secured the airstrip. We landed, abandoned the airstrip, went to the police station, secured the police station, and fortified it because of what was happening around us. We laid out our weapons and equipment on the floor of the police station, made sure we covered all points of access and egress and, essentially, put sentries in place; we secured our position. We then commandeered a couple of four-wheel-drives and began to take back security of the community. That involved patrols; making arrests; grabbing any person with a weapon and arresting them on the spot; and it involved on-the-spot searches. Whether all of these searches were lawful, I do not really know. I suspect they were on the fringes of lawfulness, but they were necessary, and we did what we had to do.
We arrived in the late afternoon and continued to patrol throughout the night. We stopped people, searched them, seized weapons, and started making arrests. By midnight, the community was quiet. By 6 am the following morning, the school was ready to be opened. As far as I can recall, it was opened. The community was starting to go about its business and we had by that stage, and it is well over 20 years ago, but I think we had, quite literally, dozens of people in custody. There were assault victims and people were being driven out of the community in custody. We were doing records of interview. We were processing prisoners.
Many of the people we were picking up later in the piece were drunk and, thanks to the good Lord, we did not have to resort to some of the equipment we took with us. The shotguns were in the cars, but the ammunition was never loaded into the breach, and we never had anything more than our riot shields jammed in behind us. What we did, although I did not realise it - I thought we were just restoring law and order, which was our job. From a government point of view, the response was no doubt expensive, but necessary, because the majority of Port Keats people were not engaged in the conduct that saw the club being destroyed and violence occurring in the community. What we were able to do was restore order. To my surprise, there was a certain amount of gratitude from some in the community that we had gone in, and gone in quite hard. We had firmly asserted our authority in that community and, consequently, we were able to leave the community the following day. We were tired; we had worked. By the time I flew out, I had been awake for about 36 hours. We flew back to Darwin. There was no requirement for subsequent reinforcing because the gazetted membership, plus a few we had left behind, was sufficient to mop up the operation.
I look at what occurred in Yuendumu, and whilst some police were sent, the response from government was: ‘We have to deal with this as a cultural issue. We have to deal with the family sensitivities and those sorts of things’. Hogwash! Even when I was the member for Macdonnell, I avoided involvement in cultural issues because I am not an Aboriginal person or, more importantly, I am not trained in the cultures and customs of those Australians or Northern Territorians who live in those places. However, my hierarchy of understanding of what is important remains intact.
From a governance point of view, if we do not have law and order instilled when the place is in a state of uproar - London, and what is currently happening in England, is a good example of what has to happen. You do not engage in political niceties. You reassert the authority that maintains law and order in our communities and you do that in Darwin, you do that in Alice Springs, and you should be able to do it in Yuendumu without fear of offending people. What is offensive is a star picket between the eyes or a knife in the guts. That is offensive and yet our response is pull back, we have to deal with this issue, be really subtle, etcetera. Not from a restoring order point of view. You must restore order.
I once used an analogy in this House when Clare Martin was in opposition. I said if someone is attacking you or attacking your community and you have a baseball bat with the declaration of human rights written on it, what do you do? Use the baseball bat or do you read out the declaration of human rights. Clare Martin said that, of course, you use the baseball bat. You use it first, only to restore order, and then you read the declaration of human rights. Deal with the other stuff afterwards, but you restore order first and the response in Yuendumu did not do that.
We ended up with a situation where we had people who, for all the world, looked like refugees. They have every right to travel to Alice Springs, or Adelaide for that matter, but I am left with a clear impression from the reports I read and the news on television that these people did not want to go. They were forced out and it bothers me deeply that our capacity as a government to maintain law and order, so these people could go about their lawful business in Yuendumu, was not sufficiently strong to enable them to do that. That is why we had refugees in our own country. You can excuse that anyway you like, you may make any sort of excuse for that but, as a government, you have failed in your primary duty when you cannot assert the good order of Her Majesty the Queen in your own jurisdiction. That is what happened in Yuendumu, and because we are all walking on eggshells around Aboriginal people we have failed in our primary duty to keep people safe, no matter who they are.
The former government, when they stuck us on aeroplanes and flew us out to Wadeye in the late 1980s, ensured Wadeye, within a day, was restored to sufficient order that the normal services provided to that community could be provided. Was everyone happy? No, they were not. Was the community in a state of calm and inner peace? No, it was not, but there was a sufficient presence of the Northern Territory government to make anything other than orderly conduct beyond the bounds of rational consideration. Most of the villains were already in custody by the time order was restored.
I am unembarrassed to say that, occasionally, to assert the authority of government, in the worst scenarios you need to use force. Indeed, in the very worst of scenarios - and God forbid any government has to make such decisions - that includes the use of potentially lethal force. It is not because I relish the concept that I would advocate either. However, if you are not prepared to do it - you are too busy walking on eggshells to make a rational decision about the need to restore order - you have deprived yourself of the capacity to govern for the people of the jurisdiction for which you have taken an oath of office, particularly when you have the title of minister.
The contrast between what I witnessed in Wadeye all those years ago, and what I read and saw about what was happening in Yuendumu, could not be starker. Whilst Wadeye was, if you like, an aggressive response from government, it produced a result which was law and order. That is not what I witnessed in Yuendumu.
Madam Speaker, until we start to understand the importance of getting our priorities straight in this important area, when government loses sight of that hierarchy of needs, it is a government doomed to fail. It is a government doomed to create refugees within the borders of its own jurisdiction.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words on this important motion. Given Indigenous people make up a large percentage of the Northern Territory population - in fact, we have more Indigenous people here per head of population than any other state or territory in Australia - it is one of the most important issues we could be dealing with.
What happened at Yuendumu was, and still is, tragic. To think people had to travel to Adelaide to raise the ire of the general public in Australia as it hit the media around the nation. Only then was there an offer by this government to bring them back. If I am right, it cost about $300 000 to bring these people back to Yuendumu. It goes to the core of the problem with Indigenous affairs. I have said before - I said it yesterday - governments of all persuasions over the years have tried. This Northern Territory government often talks about money as an outcome. I can tell you this is certainly an outcome; that is, spending money! There is no doubt - no doubt - that there are billions and billions of dollars spent on Indigenous people over the years. Where are we today?
If 30 years ago, Indigenous affairs had been handed to a private company, which was provided with the same amount of money, what could it have done for Indigenous people today? What they would not have done is go down the road of welfare. What they would have done is plant seeds, fertilise those seeds, and let them bloom. The bloom is jobs and economies. Take these once very proud people and give them back what they so much deserve; a life. At the moment, a life lived under welfare conditions in some of these communities is - ‘tragic’ is not the right word.
Australia is not a Third World country. Yet, if you took cameras to some of these remote areas and filmed some of the conditions people live in, you would think you were in a Third World country. You would know you were in a Third World country. It is not through the lack of money being spent on Indigenous affairs; it is how it is spent, managed, and wasted - wasted through bureaucracy. As I said, it has taken governments of all persuasions over many years. What annoys me is we have Indigenous members in this parliament, and have had for many years – not just this Assembly, but for many years. There have been Indigenous people involved in Indigenous affairs for many years. I do not know how those people can sit here today and think that what they have done has achieved what they hoped.
I will refer shortly to an article in The Australian about Dr Johnson’s report on our $3.5bn a year failing to lift Aboriginal conditions from the 1970s. It is not a lack of money. It is how it is spent. We, as a group of members, are supposed to be the leaders of our society today. Parliamentarians around the country, no matter what state or territory you come from, are viewed as the leaders of their particular states. We continue to debate something we know has been so wrong. How is it that we have houses built, as has been discovered here in this House, where perhaps $3000- or $4000-worth of work has been done, and yet it may have been signed off for as much as $75 000. How does that occur without maladministration? How does it occur under the eyes of what we call experts who are supposed to be watching, managing, and keeping a tight eye on public money? Or is it simply wasted because people think it is public money? Are things charged out at twice the amount of money the average person would pay because it is government money? I am not sure how it works. I am not sure how it seems to cost so much money and achieve so little.
No doubt, running remote areas costs far more than the same services delivered in a township of more people, and services get cheaper as the populations grow; that is a fact. I will touch on a few areas with respect to Yuendumu and my shadow portfolios. One is education, and it saddens me today that we have governments willing to spend money on education, willing to spend money on infrastructure, so you would think it was the right thing; spending money on infrastructure, spending money on services. It is not until you start to drill down to how those services are manufactured on the ground, what they are actually delivering, and what it is costing the taxpayer to deliver those services that you start to question, how is it possible? How is this amount of money going to make a difference? Government has spent money on school infrastructure, and that infrastructure in some areas is very good.
I recall speaking to a principal of a remote school who did not think resources were an issue. He thought this government was providing enough resources and yet they were struggling to get students to school. We all agree with government that we need to get children to school to be educated. Without an education, it is for nought. I recall saying yesterday that education needs to lead to a job.
Back to the schools, how do we get these children into schools? I have looked at programs where they provide breakfast for children to encourage them to come to school, and you think, that is a good initiative, that is a way of attracting kids to school, that is going to get them there. There is another argument that you are taking away the responsibility of a parent to provide their child with breakfast before they go to school. Is it that nanny mentality, that welfare mentality, that you, as a parent, do not have any responsibility because we are going to provide your children with food at school? I know the intent. This is where this report hits. The intent that governments are trying to achieve is honourable, but is it the right direction.
It is probably something we would all agree on, but it is the results from that work that I continually worry about. Are we building schools in remote areas that the community want? Are we meeting the needs of the community or are we meeting the needs of a government? Are we meeting the needs of the children of a community, or are we meeting the needs of a bureaucratic department to tick off the boxes, to fit that particular way of things.
We have all heard before that we often work in a square world and perhaps Aborigines live in a round world. There are differences on communities. There are different expectations such as the culture. There are so many things about the Indigenous way of life that is sometimes not suitable or not reflective of how we work in the larger towns. Perhaps the infrastructure we are putting in is not what was required. It is the box, it fits, it is a school, it is a building, but is that what was required to encourage these children to go to school? You build the schools, you build the bridge, and you expect the community to walk over the bridge. I was speaking to a wise person recently who said the difference is that the community has to own the bridge to want to go there.
I have heard the Education minister, Dr Burns, suggest things we could possibly do. I have thought long and hard over this, and government has the backing of a department and often you look behind and that is all you have in opposition. You do your own research, you take your own journey, and investigate how you might want to do things better. It is true, and I will admit right here, for the first 18 months in this job it was about lighting fires and running. When people raised issues with you, you found ways to get traction, whether in the media, or writing to a minister, to try to influence some change to fix that. About 18 months ago, the journey changed for me. With every issue raised with me, not only was the job of an opposition to try to get that traction and influence the change if you felt change was necessary, you looked at it, took a step back and thought: ‘If I were the minister, how would I fix this problem?’
It is all great and fine to light fires and run, but how do you fix it? Oppositions are often accused of having all this loud music and not coming up with anything tangible, anything that is actually going to solve the problem. For me, the journey did change and every issue faced requires research to find out how you might improve on that particular issue. That journey will continue but, for me, it has been a great lesson, and some of the decisions you might have to make are not easy ones. You cannot do everything you might want to do. There are budgets that will constrain you. There are pressures and competing interests that will constrain you.
When we talk about Indigenous affairs, about places like Yuendumu and others, it is not about money because money does not seem to be the object, but rather how the money is used at the coalface. Is the curriculum in our remote schools the right curriculum? Could we introduce more cultural activities in the curriculum to attract children to school, to get the community to own it? It is no good telling a child they have to go to school. They have to understand there is a need so they want to go to school. If we can get their parents to understand that, to give them something they actually want to go to, not because they have to go, perhaps we might be that bit closer to getting kids to school in remote areas.
In environmental areas, in Parks and Wildlife, there are so many opportunities for Indigenous people. I look at the Territory Wildlife Park and think could we not have Indigenous dancers down there; could we not have Indigenous foods being prepared for tourists as they come in there; could we have accommodation at the Territory Wildlife Park as a business-government relationship. Could we have eco-accommodation where people could interact in the park at night, eating Indigenous food and exposed to the culture of Indigenous dancers?
We could give people a product we already have here in the Northern Territory; which is why people come to the Northern Territory. They do not come to the Northern Territory to ride on roller coasters or for water parks. They come here to experience what the Northern Territory is all about. Our Indigenous people are part of that. That is why people come here. You cannot tell me there is not space for Indigenous people within Parks and Wildlife, within aspects of caring for our land through the environment. You cannot tell me we cannot provide opportunities for Aboriginal people through education and through jobs. It sickens me at times that we have to have so many things - even the member for Stuart said in presenting the heritage bill today - there was a requirement to have at least two Indigenous people on the board. We should not have to have that recommendation, it should happen.
We have so many separate services. Why do we have separate services? We should have one, and our goal for attendance rates should be 100%. There should not be an attendance rate for Indigenous people and an attendance rate for white kids. We should have one goal. We continue to have these separate services, separate arrangements, and separate agreements – what are we creating. We are creating two societies; we are creating two individual groups of people. That has got us where? It has got us to where we are today and we know it has not worked. There have been some great things done but have we improved anything since 1970? Have we improved the lives of Indigenous people today or have we created a mentality of welfare that is going to explode in the decades to come unless we get this right?
There is one thing I agree with: you guys on the other side, it is not all your fault. It is the fault of three levels of government in this country. Too many things to do with Indigenous affairs cross over into three separate levels of government because someone can always blame someone else, whether it is local government, state or territory government, or federal government. If we are talking welfare we know it is a federal issue, but unless we get some of these things sorted out, we do not have a hope in hell of fixing some of the Indigenous issues unless we can get - we talked about bipartisan - it has to be bipartisan across three levels of government not one.
You cannot do it on your own. The federal government cannot do it on its own, local government cannot do it on its own, and it pains me to say we need a task force because I am sick and tired of hearing we will send it off to a committee. For goodness sake, we need a committee to fill a pool with water. However, if we have a task force to look at Indigenous affairs in this country there are a couple of things it should be. It should be across three levels of government. It should not be just one.
Part of it is land tenure. I heard the member for Daly speak yesterday. What would you do about it? Well, we have to sort it out. I do not declare I have all the answers; however, we have enough experts in this country to sit down in one room and say: ‘That is the goal. We have to sort out land tenure’, and from there we can start to work on economies in these places. From there, the kids that we educate can have a job at the end of the day’. If we do not work together on this, and if we do not sort this out, this is going to be devastating for Indigenous people and the future all based on the fact it is welfare-related. If this task force looks at one thing, it should look at the Indigenous service industry in this country.
Recently, we learnt that in Katherine alone there were 52 non-government organisations taking money from the public purse to deal with Indigenous disadvantage. How well are things going for Indigenous people in Katherine, or Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek, and in some of the more remote areas of this Northern Territory? Not so good. It is not about money, but how much of the money is spent in that service industry? The service industry would certainly create jobs, but they are preying on the disadvantage of Indigenous people and that is a sad indictment. I do not want to get biblical, but even the Bible says you can teach a man to fish or you can show him how to fish …
Dr Burns: The Bible says that?
Mr CHANDLER: It is something biblical.
Dr Burns: Someone said it.
Mr CHANDLER: No, no, someone did say it.
Dr Burns: Making fishers of men, that is in there.
Mr CHANDLER: I actually have the wrong quote. I was meaning to say another quote.
Dr Burns: I think you have the wrong book there.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I could have done. Maybe that was from the book of climate change. That is another religion, another subject.
I am going to finish there, Madam Speaker, because I said the wrong quote from the wrong book – God will strike me down; he is going to hit me ...
Dr Burns: I will forgive you.
Mr CHANDLER: Now I do not even know the quote I was going to say, but it is from the Bible. I have really lost it now.
However, I finish up with saying, it is not about money; it is how it is spent. We need to work together to sort this out.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am enthusiastic about speaking in this debate because it started with a very important topic: Yuendumu and issues around Yuendumu. The debate has broadened considerably. I have listened carefully to the debate tonight. I am not sure whether I can do justice in the 20 minutes allocated.
The member for Braitling challenged me to speak and lay out my views in this parliamentary Chamber. Some of what I say here this evening will be personal views and personal experience. That is in the spirit of what has been said here tonight, particularly the last speaker, the member for Brennan, talking from the heart, saying what he felt, and making observations about things. That is fantastic,
I came to the Territory some 30 years ago. When I first came here, I thought the answers were pretty simple, and I probably had many of those answers. As time has progressed and I have become older and more experienced and seen a bit more, I do not think the answers are that simple. At one level they might seem to be, but I do not think they are. That does not preclude or stop us from endeavouring and striving to change situations that have been spoken about here tonight to get some results.
I point out to members opposite, as I listened carefully to what you said here tonight, there are many paradoxes in what you have said. There has been a theme about money is not going to fix the problem. That is something I agree with, although you need money to build infrastructure, put staff in, and get outcomes. However, it is not wholly about money. Certainly, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and land tenure has been a theme and I will return to that in a minute.
The member for Brennan, and a number of speakers from that side, talked about the folly of having two separate systems and questioned why we do not have a unified system with no separateness. A few sentences before that, the member for Brennan talked about schools and the bridge, and the community having to own the bridge. There seems to be a paradox in what he said about not just plonking a school in there, but having a school which flexibly meets the needs of the community, is tailored and responsive to the needs of the community - particularly an Indigenous community - and responding to that. I see a slight paradox there.
We started at Yuendumu and we have ended in education. I will come back to Yuendumu. What we are trying to do, particularly in the growth towns by extending the school year by 10 weeks into the Wet Season, is provide education when the kids are in the town, rather than in the Dry Season when populations disperse. We are trying to be flexible.
As I listened to various speakers, I could not help but reflect on my own experience, mainly at Maningrida, and how I went there 30 years ago. It was a different place to what I had experienced elsewhere in Australia in language, culture - a range of things.
I commend the book Encounter at Nagalarramba to members, which I will table. Unfortunately, the picture in it is not very large. It is a compendium of photographs by an ethnographer, Axel Poignant, which is an easy name to remember. Axel Poignant went to Nagalarramba, near Maningrida, in 1952. Maningrida became a settlement in 1957. Ted Egan and Jack Doolan, who was a member of this Assembly at one stage - a bit of a legend, many stories about Jack Doolan - were the native patrol officers who established Maningrida in 1957. There had been contact in the early 1950s, and I believe Ted Egan was involved when they tried to set up a trading post on the Liverpool River, but Nagalarramba is across the river. These are beautiful photographs and they show people in everyday life. I am not trying to idealise the noble savage; I know the folly of that. Here are unique pictures of families going about their family life, hunting and gathering, working hard, and people involved in ceremonial life. They are beautiful pictures which I commend.
What I reflected on through my interaction with Maningrida over 30 years is that many of the people in those photographs were known to me, both as young adults and little children who I came to know very well when I moved there in the 1970s. What gets me about this - and I am talking about one particular place in the Northern Territory; I do not know much about Central Australia or the Katherine region, but I do know a little about the Top End - was the fact there was an entirely different economic system.
Helen Hughes, an economist, was mentioned here today. I am not an economist, but what I saw there and my experience even in the 1970s was a different economy, a hunter-gatherer economy, where people had obligations with food and a range of things; people had complex relationships. Most of it was based on the land. I am not trying to romanticise this, but we need to remember with Aboriginal land and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the people are the land and the land is the people. This is an important relationship. I might agree somewhat that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 may have been, or might be an encumbrance to economic development as we see it. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, brought in, incidentally, by Malcolm Fraser, was about trying to preserve those relationships that existed in Arnhem Land in particular, and throughout the Territory; these important economic and social relationships, but much has happened.
There has been the welfare era, and the era of self-determination. There have been many different policies, as you alluded to, member for Brennan, imposed in many ways on Aboriginal people, that have not worked. There have been shining examples of self-determination, but there have certainly been failures.
There have been policy failures, which we all acknowledge. I talked about this in Alice Springs in relation to the book King Brown Country: The Betrayal of Papunya which, apart from anything else, shows those policy failures in the Central Australian context. What we are talking about is people with an entirely different economic and social system. We are talking 1952; we are talking 1957, if you are talking about Maningrida, and the years since. We are talking about two or three decades. We are talking about children who grew up at Nagalarramba as full-on hunter-gatherers, and expected to make incredible change, socially, politically, and economically, into a wider system.
I do not have a problem with separate systems in a way. We all have the same aspirations. If those systems support people to achieve equity - social, economic, and political equity - these things are important. I am not going to criticise them; some have been failures, some have been successes. In education, debate has raged about bilingual education for kids for whom English might be their third language. It would be completely stupid of the education system to say: ‘We are going to exclude any reference to those languages’. That is not what we are about at all. We have to focus on English and that has been the controversy. Where I stand as Education minister is we use those other languages in any way we can to convey the concepts to the kids, to communicate with them, so ultimately they are literate and numerate in English. That is what I think. If that means people saying you have a separate system - I am calling it ‘multilingual learners’ – if that means a separate system that some people tag, they can, and they can criticise it, but I believe it is a vehicle. I want to see vehicles by which these kids can learn, prosper, and grow. That is my philosophy. I might agree with you about many aspects of welfare because it has, in many ways, been corrosive for Indigenous people. I will put my view publicly that, in many ways, welfare has been destructive for Indigenous people.
The member for Braitling has, once again, been somewhat of a paradox. He talked about no more sit down money and welfarism. Yet, a couple of months ago, he sent me an e-mail about public housing, about people who felt that because they had lived in public housing for 40 years or so, we should either give them the public house or sell it to them very cheaply. I am not in the business of doing that. As I wrote back to the member for Braitling, public housing is for people who are in need and what we should be doing as government, is ensuring those who are in most need have priority in obtaining public housing. Those who have jobs, and some of them might have well-paid jobs, who have a mindset they always want to be in public housing - the member for Arafura has spoken about it, even in her own family, about people moving through that, owning their own houses, and getting equity in their own houses.
Like everywhere else, there are avenues for people to do that. So I heard a number of paradoxes tonight, not least of all from the member for Port Darwin when he compared the 1990s Wadeye riots and the police response at Yuendumu. I was somewhat amazed, and he seemed to be suggesting that in the 1990s Wadeye riots somehow the CLP government had directed police to go in hard with firearms and everything else to restore the peace and, in relation to Yuendumu, this government had directed police to go in soft and not try to restore order. I hope that is not what he was saying, but he appeared to be suggesting that. That is suggesting that government cross the barrier of the separation of powers and politicians direct police about which way to act.
I am concerned about the attitudes put forward by the member for Port Darwin if the CLP did get into power. The member for Port Darwin said if you have a baseball bat in your hand with the human rights declaration written on it, what should you do? Do you use the baseball bat first or the declaration of human rights? I think, ‘Yes, I understand that in a situation the community has empowered police to use whatever force is necessary to maintain the peace’; I get that. However, to suggest that somehow politicians and governments direct what approach police should take in an operational sense is quite inappropriate. I will be going through the Hansard record closely tomorrow to see what he is saying.
We have certainly had baseball bats tonight from the member for Port Darwin and I know the member for Araluen, during the election period, went to attack dogs and the attack dog squad. We are getting a picture of life under the CLP and I am concerned about that. I look forward to having a debate with the member for Brennan about education. He is obviously pondering many important issues.
Coming back to Yuendumu, obviously, payback was at the bottom of it, and I will come back to that cultural aspect. Payback has been part and parcel of Aboriginal culture for a long time. When I first came to the Territory I witnessed it and it made me quite afraid. It is not pretty, but the elders in the community controlled the payback. In the community I am referring to the ‘offender’ was in the middle of the oval with people at either side throwing spears at a rapid rate. When things started getting a little hot - it was all pretty controlled - the elders stood within a certain distance of the bloke who was the target. That meant people - because they did not want to be throwing spears at them, so the situation came up, it was dealt with, it went on. What I observe now, as the member for Macdonnell said, there is much violence, there is payback, and some of that payback may be associated with further alcohol abuse, and there is a self-perpetuating cycle of payback. There is a cultural basis to it and it is something we have to deal with. In that instance, this government has made it plain we will not tolerate - we understand about payback, but we will not tolerate violence of any kind. There are no separate laws about this; there is one law for everyone. We abhor violence. In that respect there is agreement across the Chamber about one law for everyone.
Regarding service provision, there is a legitimate, valid, and important place for separate services. I allude to Central Australia and Congress. When I was Health minister - I am interested in these things, and the facts and figures on the successful way Congress deal with chronic disease would make any general practitioner in the wider community feel a little envious. The way it deals with diabetes, heart disease, follow-up specialist visits, and laboratory tests, and the rest, is impressive. That is something Congress has done in Central Australia. We have Danila Dilba in Darwin and other Aboriginal medical services. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water like the opposition seems to be doing. There are many separate services doing a fine job and we should not let ideology cloud our vision and generalise about service provision.
Coming back to ALRA, one point I omitted before - the member for Fong Lim talked about ALRA. When John Howard had control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, why didn’t the member for Fong Lim or John Howard change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976? When he had control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, why didn’t he change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976? Maybe over dinner one night the member for Port Darwin or the member for Braitling can enlighten me on this. The Howard government did not do it when they were in control of the Senate - they did not repatriate it back to the Northern Territory. That is an interesting question.
In regard to Yuendumu, the member for Braitling raised issues about people wanting to leave and the varying motives behind that. I agree that people are Australians and they should be able to go anywhere in Australia they want. Our Chief Minister put that view …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, colleagues.
The Chief Minister certainly made that plain publicly. I heard him on radio and possibly on television several times saying exactly that: they are citizens of Australia …
Mr Giles: You know what you got up to.
Dr BURNS: They are citizens of Australia. He got into a blue with Mike Rann about it; that people are citizens of Australia. He certainly told Mike Rann that these people are citizens of Australia and they have every right to go. If they want to go to South Australia, Sydney, or anywhere in Australia, they have every right as a citizen and I agree with that.
The member for Braitling probably had a chuckle about Mike Rann and the numbers. Jay Weatherill will be the Premier of South Australia and I wish him well. He is a very nice bloke. He is on the left. I sometimes wonder about the member for Braitling. He seems like a cross between Noel Pearson and Norm Gallagher in his politics. It is always interesting to hear the cascade of thought, views, and opinions from the member for Braitling. He never disappoints us with a dull point of view on anything. For that reason, I value his contributions to this House.
We could argy-bargy all night and say you stirred up more trouble, and you should not have become involved. You put your side of the argument. As government, we have always encouraged people to come back to Yuendumu to settle their differences. As the member for Macdonnell said, it is an incremental process; it is going to take some time. We will continue to encourage them to come back and live there. There are houses allocated and I hope that community can get over this problem and move on.
As I said, some of these things involve deep feelings between families. As government, we have tried to mediate as best we can but, ultimately, it is up to the families to come together. I am sure they are joined at a number of points by marriage, by country, by ceremony, by a range of things. I hope, through those avenues as well as their own leadership, they can settle these differences. I am told some people in the families involved did ask him not to proceed with this motion. I do not know whether that is right. Perhaps he can tell us in his wrap up whether that is so. Dragging family disagreements into the parliament is probably not a good thing to do.
In summary, from government, personally I have enjoyed this debate. It is about a serious matter, but members have put forward a variety of opinions, and I have found this debate to be quite stimulating. However, at the bottom of it, there was a serious incident at Yuendumu. What we are trying to do, as government, is get families to try to resolve those issues and move on.
Madam Speaker, I do not have any more to add to that. I will listen carefully to the member for Braitling in his wrap up.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am no Norm Gallagher, but thank you very much. It has been a good debate. It has been interesting. Some people have spoken freely and freshly on their thoughts and opinions, not deliberately representing party lines, but party philosophy and the way we see things.
I did write a few notes and I will not continue all night with this. I was surprised the local member did not speak on this. I thought he might have, especially being Minister for Central Australia and one of the people who attacked me in the media for alleged involvement, along with the Deputy Chief Minister. The member for Stuart had his thoughts on cultural payback, which are different from the member for Johnston, and he is often willing to express them.
It was interesting to hear from the member for Johnston about Nagalarramba and his learning from the experience. I understand time is difficult and things change, and that is why we have these debates, so we can grow and learn, change policies and ideas, and seek to make improvements.
The member for Johnston spoke about three particular areas. It is not all about money – no, it is not all about money, it is about policy and driving change. He spoke about land rights and separatism. In regards to separatism, it is not saying people who operate in a separate environment are not doing a good job, but it is important not to lower the bar. Government set a target of 21% for middle years’ education and only achieved 15% last year; it is just not good enough. That is lowering the bar, which is when it becomes separatism and institutionalised racism.
He spoke about many areas; welfare, self-determination, and land rights. Welfare is certainly deemed a failure. I do not think land rights have been a failure, but it requires reform. We have never really tried self-determination; people have never had the opportunity to drive reform themselves. Wherever people had opportunity to drive reform, people at my level and the member for Stuart’s level - those people should be driving reform and I am disappointed he did not talk – very disappointed.
We have moved to an IT era, and IT is going to change Indigenous livelihoods in Australia substantially and no more so than here in the Northern Territory. I was disappointed to lose the portfolio of ICT to my colleague, the member for Drysdale; it held many opportunities. Question Time today was farcical with the minister for ICT and his answer; he is not taking it seriously. That is not a deliberate dig; it is exactly how it is.
When I was in charge of ICT, I was driving our side to a policy position where we were going to encourage the government - whether they used NBN or whether the Coalition came in and used similar technology, but wireless technology. I support wireless technology because that is the right way to go; not for some Coalition philosophical belief, I just believe it is the right way to go. We have backhaul lines up and down the Territory and across some of these big highways. There is an opportunity to manipulate, through politics, the federal government of whatever persuasion, to build infrastructure along those arterial routes so private companies can install mobile phones and radio telecommunications. That would improve the free flow of information up and down the track and across arterial routes.
All growth towns should have 3G or 4G, or whatever capability they can these days with IT advancements. More and more kids in these bush communities, like everywhere else, are on Facebook, downloading from the Internet, and all these things. People are learning, exchanging information, and partnering up with people from all around the world, and that is going to be the information era for Aboriginal people from remote communities. That is going to change so fast. We are in the middle of it now. We are already hearing complaints, and I am sure the member for Stuart, as a minister and as a member, hears complaints from senior people in communities he goes to, as I do, including urban centres, of teenagers causing fights and riots through sending each other text messages. There are negatives about it, but putting aside the negatives, there are positives where people are exchanging information and learning from one another. We will see Indigenous advancement progress substantially through IT.
The NBN, particularly in remote communities, connecting every house, I do not think is a wise move because of the mobility of the population. The importance of wireless integration for people to have compatible relationships across the Territory and around the world is important, and for that reason I support wireless.
Jobs are about the NBN. There is a fundamental reason why we should be investing more into wireless because the dollar will go further. We can have greater connectivity with a greater population in the Northern Territory, so wireless technology is the way to go in the Northern Territory.
The minister made comments about public housing and my personal thoughts on long-standing Indigenous tenants and public housing. I will not delve too deeply into that for fear of crossing over the policy line. The minister spoke about Nagalarramba people in 1957 being hunters and gatherers, and there are people living on the outskirts, or within our town of Darwin and other areas in the Territory, who have been in public housing since that time. Back then, those people were not able to access jobs or houses as freely as other people were. Those people started from a long way back. They have been given a hand up approach to move forward and my personal opinion is there needs to be some recognition of the hardships those people fought in coming to that era. Those people had nothing; no education, no jobs, and I see the Deputy Chief Minister shaking her head …
Ms Lawrie: At your hypocrisy - quite gobsmacking!
Mr GILES: I will not go any further; it comes into policy position. There needs to be some recognition of the difficulties Indigenous people faced back then. Some people still face that today, but from back then, as that transition from - taking the words of the member for Johnston - hunter and gatherer, there has been some of that around.
My colleagues, the members for Fong Lim, Port Darwin, and Brennan, and the member for Macdonnell all made valuable contributions and I appreciate their support of this motion.
It is disappointing that the member for Nelson did not involve himself in this. He holds strong views, but many of those views do not seem to matter too much to the member for Nelson these days. It would be good if he held his principles rather than kowtowing to the government on everything. The member for Nelson might say: ‘Get your stuff in order’, and I would say: ‘Our stuff is in order’. How long can an Independent hold a minority government in place when you have outcomes of 15% of middle year Indigenous students attending school after a target of 21%? How long can an Independent hold a Labor minority government in power with the child protection issues that are going on and the mistreatment of Aboriginal children?
How long can the Independent member for Nelson hold this minority Labor government in power with its failures on housing affordability, and affordability in general, in the Northern Territory? How long can the Independent member for Nelson sit back while our tourism industry falls apart, while the live cattle industry is on its knees partly thanks to the Chief Minister supporting the Gillard government live cattle ban? How long can the Independent member for Nelson stand by while the carbon tax comes in, the mining resources rent tax comes in, the royalty payment on mining comes in, to penalise our mines so much they are all looking to move overseas with that sovereign risk? More importantly, how long can the Independent member for Nelson provide the foundation for this poor-performing, maladministered, mendicant, minority Labor government of the Northern Territory?
These are serious questions and I challenge the Independent member for Nelson to look at his agreement with the Chief Minister and research what maladministration is. He stood in this Chamber today talking about SIHIP and the CTC third report. He recognises there are problems and deep down he knows SIHIP has been maladministered but he does not have the gumption to get off his seat to say that, and withdraw support for this government.
I challenge the minister for housing to explain comments he made in this Chamber on Monday when he was asked questions about houses at Wadeye: what is a rebuild and what is a refurbishment, where is the money going, and why the contractors are going back to fix the housing works, and so forth. There was direct reference made by him and me in different ways about house No 232. According to the New Future Alliance documents I have here, which I will seek to table later during my speech, it clearly states that house No 232 in Wadeye is a rebuild. That means, on average, it had $200 000 spent on it. Anyone who saw that house and the photos I tabled in estimates would recognise that you would be lucky to have had $10 000 spent on the house, let alone $20 000.
I will read from Hansard what was said. This is the minister’s response in relation to the refurbishments:
After a point of order, he went on to say:
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows he cannot accuse a minister of deliberately misleading.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he did; however, be very careful in what you say. You do make allegations by way of substantive motion, thank you.
Mr GILES: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. … clearly, according to the New Future Alliance document, that was a rebuilt house and should have had an average of $200 000 spent on it, and if it did not need any more than $75 000 it would only have been a refurbishment. There is no way that house had $20 000 spent on it. Where he said the alliance contractors were doing such a fantastic job they decided to go back and do more, that is rubbish! That is clearly misleading, because in the Senate estimates …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: You need to be very careful how you word that. I would like you to reword that last sentence please. You are alleging he has misled people.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps, I can assist, Madam Speaker. I do not think there was an allegation of him misleading the House, but misleading Territorians, and that is often said in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not know about that, member for Port Darwin. If you can just reword that, in a helpful way, thank you.
Mr GILES: It is hard to reword. I withdraw the last comment, Madam Speaker, and will explain. It is difficult to reword because the federal government, upon appearances in the Senate by Senator Scullion, was forced to send its own people in to inspect the houses and has now forced the contractors to go back. Not because, as the minister says, they are doing such a wonderful job and want to go back and do extra work. When he said it is a refurbished house, it is not right. He said these were refurbished homes, not rebuilt homes. It was a rebuilt home, so he is wrong. He is mistaken or he has misled parliament, one or the other. I ask him to explain whether he got it wrong or he misled parliament.
House No 232, which I seek leave to table, Madam Speaker …
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: … clearly indicates, by the New Future Alliance, it was a rebuild. To many, that would not seem technical or interesting, but on average it is $75 000 for a refurbishment and $200 000 for a rebuild. This is part of the problem with SIHIP and where the money is being swept away. I estimate at least 40% of the SIHIP package is going to administration or waste. It is not hitting the ground. The minister knows it; it is part of the problem with the alliance contracting model. It was not a gun-to-the-head Brough approach. You chose it because it is in the MOU; that is where the money is going. It was either a mistake or misleading. I am happy to be corrected, but that is what the alliance documentation says.
Many oppositions look for opportunities to target government. I look at my colleagues here, and I see the shadow minister - soon to be minister for Health - holes all through the health system. We have the child protection shadow here - holes all through child protection. We have the shadow Treasurer here who is going to become the Treasurer with bucket loads of debt. We will not know where to turn because of Delia’s debt ...
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, yes. … to refer to the Treasurer by that title, thank you.
Mr GILES: Debt?
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr GILES: Sorry. We have the Treasurer’s debt. We have the problem with the live cattle trade, we have education outcomes, we have tourism falling apart, we have procurement problems - where do I stop? The poor people in multicultural - and I have already spoken about ICT and how the minister for ICT is not doing anything. I stand here in Infrastructure with a port falling apart, the roads not being rebuilt properly, regional development not happening in an economic sense, and Indigenous policy - the biggest failure of government. Where does the Independent member for Nelson have to look?
Mr Conlan: The expert Independent.
Mr GILES: The expert Independent who holds this minority government in place. I mentioned before my respect for the member for Johnston. We do not agree on everything, but I respect that he has more of an experienced opinion to be able to speak freely on different things. Everyone else on that side holds a portfolio that is failing. Yet, the Independent member for Nelson seems to think this is a government that deserves praise and to be held up. I have a message for the member for Nelson: it is time to withdraw your support. It is time to review what maladministration is, as written in your agreement with the Chief Minister. The time has come for the end.
Whether he withdraws his support or whether we go to an election, I am happy either way, because the time has come. No one in their right mind, with a high degree of morality, a principles-based person, could stand by and let child protection get to the way it is, or let the education standards and outcomes come to such poor levels. We have the lowest school attendance in the Northern Territory ever. You have killed the live cattle trade, courtesy of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister. You have killed it. Who even knows who the Tourism minister is on their side? We do not hear a peep.
Mr Conlan: Oprah Winfrey.
Mr GILES: Oh, that is right. We had the $400 000 helicopter ride. What has that done for tourism? You try to talk about American numbers coming in and out, well, that happens through Pine Gap every year. Good call that one!
I look over there and see an absence of talent, an absence of performance, and a bit of a waste of space ...
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Unanimous support for another 10 minutes, Madam Speaker – unanimous!
While these oxygen thieves sit over here and lie back in their chairs - those who are here - bereft of intelligence or performance, I will come back to one of my funny topics. I do not think the member for Greatorex heard my opening remarks ...
Mr Conlan: Oh no, please.
Mr GILES: Member for Greatorex, at the opening of this debate condemning the government about its performance in handling the situation with the people from Yuendumu, I reflected on my public arguments with the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann - the current South Australian Premier, Mike Rann. At the time, I called him a racist because he wanted to kick the Aboriginal people out of South Australia, while he was very happy to have 300-and-something illegal maritime arrivals come in as refugees or otherwise. He had fun saying that I was a Rugby League player and I wore my IQ number on my back. I said: ‘Well, getting insulted by Mike Rann is like getting hit with a bit of wet lettuce’. The chickens have come home to roost. While Mike Rann was on his overseas trade mission it turns out that his political support is written on his back. He is now the fullback, wearing number one as Jay Weatherill gets ready to come in.
Madam Speaker, I would like to put the motion. It has been great to have the support of the member for Macdonnell, and particularly my colleagues. The member for Nelson, we will wait and see. Perhaps he still supports poor performing child protection systems; erosion of the live cattle industry; debt, debt, debt; poor educational outcomes; tourism going backwards; the health system in disarray; business floundering; no plan for ICT for the Northern Territory; and an Indigenous policy framework and platform that seems to be going nowhere fast and doing nothing but putting Indigenous people into the corrections system.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as a result of the division, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Sentencing Act to provide for a court to make victim protection orders in certain criminal proceedings to protect victims of a crime from having any contact with the offender for a period of 20 years, or such longer or shorter time as the court might order, including the lifetime of the victim or offender.
Government does not believe this bill is necessary. We have legislation already in place that does everything this bill sets out to do. What is proposed in the bill can already be achieved through a variety of orders. In the case of an offender released from prison on parole, pursuant to section 5(5)(b) of the Parole of Prisoners Act, the Parole Board can make a parole order subject to conditions. These conditions could include prohibiting contact with or coming within a certain distance of the victim. For a person on bail, similar orders to the Parole of Prisoners Act can be made under the Bail Act and, in fact, non-contact provisions are routinely made when a person charged with a sexual or violent offence is granted bail.
We have the Domestic and Family Violence Act. If a domestic relationship exists between the victim and the offender, a domestic violence order, DVO, may be obtained under the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
We have the Justices Act. If there is no domestic relationship, a personal violence restraining order, PVRO, under the Justices Act may be obtained. DVOs and PVROs are court orders that can be sought by the person wanting protection or by a police officer. Either order can be renewed if necessary.
For offenders who have committed sexual offences against children, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act provides that a court may order an offender found guilty of specified offences, a reportable offender, to be placed on extensive and detailed reporting obligations for periods of time from eight years up to the remainder of the person’s life. A failure to comply with those reporting obligations is punishable by a maximum term of two years imprisonment.
If a court is satisfied the reportable offender poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, the court may also make a child protection order prohibiting the reportable offender from certain conduct. That prohibited conduct includes contact or association with specified persons; being in specified employment; engaging in specified behaviour; and, from entering or remaining in a specified place, even though the reportable offender has a legal or equitable right to be at the place. A child protection order can remain in force for five years. Failing to comply with a prohibition order carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The bill proposed by the opposition differs from the existing law in three ways. By providing that the order must have effect for 20 years or another period specified in the order, it could be easily circumvented by a court. It is unlikely a court would make a blanket order for a 20-year period if given the option to make the order for another period. It is far more likely that the length of the order would be tailored appropriately on a case-by-case basis. The member for Port Darwin implicitly acknowledged this in his second reading speech when he referred to the 20-year period as: ‘simply a default period’. If the intention of including a 20-year default period is to advocate a tough on crime stance, it is simply empty rhetoric. In any event, from a policy perspective, it is preferable for a court to make a non-contact order for a reasonable period and extend the order if there is a need to do so. Making a blanket 20-year order would not provide for appropriate judicial oversight.
Placing the onus on the offender to remove him or herself from public places at the request of the victim, even when the offender is in that place lawfully and without any intent to be in the vicinity of the victim; placing an onus on the offender to leave public places if the victim arrives, is not realistic. Although the bill provides the offender must comply with any reasonable request to absent himself or herself from the proximity of the victim, there is no guidance as to what would be a reasonable request. Would it be reasonable, for example, if the offender is having a meal in a restaurant with his or her family and the victim arrives and demands they leave immediately 19 years after the order was made? If the offender is at the football, does the victim arriving at half-time mean the offender has to leave? If an offender were charged with a breach, the question of what was or was not reasonable would be a matter that would need to be determined by the courts. It could be envisaged that if a 20-year order was made such matters would invariably be defended.
Requiring the victim to make the application, not the DPP or police, is an important point of difference between the opposition and the government. We believe this argument places too much responsibility on the victim of what are very serious offences to either make the application personally or engage a legal representative to do so. If the victim is a child, there is no capacity for an adult to seek the order on behalf of the child. The existing law already protects vulnerable victims from the offenders who initially harmed them and, in the case of child sexual offenders, protects not only the people harmed, but potential victims as well.
Madam Speaker, there have been no reports published, no groundswell of public opinion, and no gap in the current law. In fact, there has been no call at all for a law of this type. This is merely the whimsy of the member for Port Darwin. The government does not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was asked some time ago to look at this bill the member for Port Darwin has introduced. I did that, and I received a media release from a Raelene Webb QC, President of the Northern Territory Bar Association and Mark Johnson, who works at William Forster Chambers. The media release says:
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am particularly surprised. When I announced the Country Liberals were going down this path, and the bill was brought into this House, something I did not expect occurred. I received three telephone calls, all anonymous, from women who said they hoped this bill would get up because, in spite of the arguments from both the Independent member for Nelson and the Attorney-General, the not necessary component of this legislation seemed to not necessarily extend to those women. Those women who telephoned wanting to remain anonymous said they had had experiences similar to the ones outlined in the second reading speech, and they felt as if they continued to be victims because they were not protected. If it is indeed true - and I accept to a large extent that it is true; that there are current mechanisms within legislation to afford these forms of protections - then they are not being applied by this government.
That is what this bill is intending to do. With this bill, there would be policy under a Country Liberals’ government. Not only would the legislation enable it to occur, but it would be sought as a matter of course unless the victim indicated otherwise. It would be policy that during the sentencing process, an application for an order exactly like this one would be sought for the period outlined in this bill unless it was determined by the court that, for example, the victim did not want the order for whatever reason, or the victim wanted the order to go for a longer period. That is the reason this discretion was built into the act.
However, if these orders do exist as outlined by the Attorney-General, the question is: ‘Why do we not use them?’ Why do we not protect the victims of these horrendous crimes beyond the sentencing practices currently imposed? It is not happening in the courts. That is the experience of the women who contacted me. That is the experience of other people who spoke to me, whose relatives have been raped, and who indicated to me that when their relatives walk into pubs they have the same experience. It is a clear message that the Country Liberals want to send to the women, children, and families of our communities: we are on your side if you are a victim.
I was disappointed with the almost churlish attitude of the Attorney-General in relation to this: ‘Oh my God, here we go; I have to condescend to talking to the House again’ attitude we so often see from this Attorney-General. Sadly, this government did not accommodate or in any way acknowledge the suffering of these victims. The Attorney-General was so anxious to point out: ‘All this already exists, why are you wasting our time with this?’, that she forgot to think about victims. The opportunity to attack, if you like, the member for Port Darwin was entered into with way too much relish to remember that this is not about the member for Port Darwin or the people in this Chamber; this is about rape victims in our community.
Whilst I am unsurprised by the government’s attitude towards this bill, and while I am disappointed in the member for Nelson’s position on this bill, I take heart from Victims of Crime NT, which cast an approving eye over this bill. I take heart from organisations like Bravehearts, which took the time to contact me from Queensland to express their support for this bill. I know where my preferences lie.
Whilst the member for Nelson wants to quote from the Law Society and whoever else, one of the great concerns I have about the legal profession is they tend to be a little removed from victims. Victims are something you deal with as part of the court process and, if you can make them ancillary to the process, so much the better.
Whilst I am a lawyer, I will not forget the victims in our community. They will always be the priority in these types of matters. Should there be a change of government at the next Northern Territory election, I let the people of the Territory know right now there will also be a change of law. That law will reflect what I have brought before this House. It has been defeated this once, but that does not mean it will not come back.
Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I hope the victims who are created take heart that whilst they might not enjoy the comfort of this law, there will be victims in the future who will.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
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 Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If it may assist the House, whilst I realise that the strict interpretation of the standing orders is 9 pm, perhaps we can go into adjournment now. I cannot see much point in bringing something on for five minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: I think it depends on the person whose business it is.
Mr ELFERINK: That is a fair call.
Madam SPEAKER: We will call General Business and we will see how the member for Braitling is feeling about that. Is it the member for Braitling who has the call? No, it is the member for Port Darwin actually. You have continuation of 13 minutes.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, Madam Speaker, if it may assist the House …
Madam SPEAKER: You can speak for five minutes now.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, what is the topic, Madam Speaker?
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, regarding crime in Alice Springs, here is a suggestion to the House: do something about the way we do welfare in Central Australia. It is as simple as that. We have so many problems and whilst I realise it is not within the boundary of the Northern Territory government, the product of welfare being paid into the hands of the idle produce the results we have seen. The devil finds work for idle hands and what the federal government has done is fund it.
A member: Is that in the Bible?
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know whether it is or not. It is just an old expression. Using that expression, I find it curious that whilst the devil may find work for idle hands, it is unnecessary for the federal government to have to fund it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion and I agree with Mr Giles on this. There do have to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry. Member for Braitling.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: I have crossed paths with you again. That has to be the third time today, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. Apparently you have already spoken on this, so resume your seat.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak for the remaining one minute? I will just check to see if you have spoken, Leader of the Opposition. You may speak, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Not long.
Mr MILLS: Right, okay. I went to Alice Springs not so long ago. The failure to address the needs of Alice Springs citizens has caused them to come together in a quite impressive way. That is impressive, and it is good that they have come together, but they came together out of grave concern that their families, their livelihoods, the community they love, and the future for their children, is at risk. Antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs should not receive a superficial response such as: ‘crime is a problem, let us have more police’. That is too simplistic, but it needs to occur in the first place.
Just as we see - Madam Speaker, how much more time is there?
Madam SPEAKER: Until 9 pm, Leader of the Opposition. At 9 pm I will ask you if you want to continue your remarks and you have up to 10 minutes or you can just have it adjourned until the next time we debate this.
Mr MILLS: Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker. Debate has occurred over whether it is an issue of more police or if there is a requirement to have more thoughtful consideration of the underlying issues and address those and thinking that those are two separate issues …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes or do you wish to adjourn this?
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I wish to adjourn and continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we now complete the item of business before the Chair and the Assembly does now adjourn. Is there anyone who wishes to adjourn?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of the success of the 2011 Darwin to Dili yacht rally held in July. I was fortunate to attend the event in Timor-Leste on behalf of the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government. While there, I met with counterparts in the Timor-Leste government, including Mr Joao Freitas, the Minister for Education; Mr Gil Alves, Minister for Tourism; Secretary of State for Professional Training and Employment, Mr Bendito Freitas; and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Mr Liborio Pereira.
The Darwin to Dili yacht race was Australia’s first international yachting event when it was first held in 1973. The last official rally between Darwin and Dili was held in 1974. The Timor-Leste government decided to recommence the rally in 2010 with the help of the Cruising Yacht Association of the Northern Territory and the proud support of the Northern Territory government. Minister Knight, and a representative of the Timor-Leste Minister for Tourism, Commerce and Industry, officially launched this year’s event from Cullen Bay on 9 July. I was pleased to be aboard the boat when the shotgun was fired.
This year, six yachts participated in the event, including the rally’s first international entrant. All entrants successfully completed the rally. The rally provides an important opportunity to strengthen ties with our neighbours in Timor-Leste and to assist Timor-Leste achieve stability and greater prosperity through support for their tourism development strategy.
The recommencement of this historic event, after a break of 35 years, is a continuing source of pride to the government of Timor-Leste, CYANT, and the Northern Territory. It is noteworthy that the original trophies are used for the awards. They survived Cyclone Tracy in someone’s garage. The award ceremony for the event was a highlight attended by the Timor-Leste Minister for Tourism, Mr Gil Alves, along with rally entrants, officials, and organisers from both Dili and Darwin. It was a big hit with the locals as well, and it was great to see such enthusiasm and local support for the event. I certainly enjoyed it. My wife, Elizabeth, was also able to accompany me on this trip.
Six yachts participated, including the rally’s first international entrant, the French-owned yacht, Sun Dance. Lorna Marlise, skippered by Matthew Baker, set a new rally record arriving in Dili at 1710 hours on Tuesday, 12 July with an elapsed time of 78.17 hours. The corrected handicap time for the Lorna Marlise was 55.89 hours, which assured it first place in the multihull division. In the mono division, Scot Free II, skippered by Barrie Morgan, took line honours with a corrected time of 72.77 hours. Fleet person of the rally was awarded to Mr Ray Jones, skipper of Parlay, for carrying on board his yacht 10 large boxes of medical supplies to be delivered to the historic humanitarian sailing vessel VEGA. Jim Grierson from Cattitude also received an award for providing rally communications and support throughout the event. Jim is certainly a character.
This year, each entrant in the Darwin to Dili yacht race donated $100 of the entry fee to support a new marine education scholarship established by the rally to promote skills development and capacity building to support Timor-Leste’s marine tourism industry. The funds raised have been matched by the International Labour Organisation through AusAid funding and private donations. This will enable eight young Timorese to take a coxswains course delivered by the Timor-Leste Maritime College under the auspices of the Timor Australia Development Facility, a first aid course sponsored by Compass Charters, and an English language course run by the ILO. This is a wonderful example of how a small amount of funds can be leveraged to make significant contribution to the development of skills and workforce training in Timor-Leste.
The organisers of the rally are to be congratulated for their hard work which ensured the success of this year’s event. There are a few people I would like to particularly mention. From the Timor-Leste government: Mr Jose Quintas, Director of National Tourism; Mr Aquilino Santos Caeiro, Director of Tourism and Promotion; Mr Alberto Pereira, Dili Port Authority; Mr Gregorio Pinto, Immigration; and the staff of the customs service. From the Timor-Leste Tourism Centre, a big thank you to Mr Robert Crean and Ms Kym Miller, both Territorians at heart - spent much time in the Territory - doing a great job in Timor-Leste, and a wonderful link between Timor-Leste and Darwin.
From the Cruising Yacht Association of the Northern Territory, I make special mention of the terrific rally coordination by Mrs Anne Kemp, and the important behind-the-scenes work by Mr David Woodhouse and Mr Chris Davenport. Special mention must also go to the participants of the rally who committed their time and expense to participate in this year’s special event, and to the magnificent yachts: Lorna Marlise, Cattitude, Scot Free II, Parlay, Skookum, and international entrant Sun Dance. The hard-working team from the Department of Chief Minister also supported the event, in particular Brendan Doran and Katherine Walker. There is much enthusiasm to see this event grow, particularly in Dili. The Darwin to Ambon race is important, and I believe this event will become more and more important as years go by.
I was also glad when we were in Dili to not only have some good conversations with Robert Crean, but also inspect the Jape Plaza in Dili. The Jape family is well-established here in Darwin with large business interests. They came to Australia via Timor-Leste and their development is absolutely great. It is the single, largest private sector investment in Timor-Leste at present. They are showing much confidence and it is a great facility.
I encourage all members to build their relationships with Timor-Leste. Try to get to Dili as much as possible. Madam Speaker has organised some parliamentary visits but, as a parliament, we should be trying to reach out to them and have a close relationship with Timor-Leste. I commend it to members. There are strong business, social, and cultural links between Darwin, the Northern Territory, and Timor-Leste. I was also glad to discuss some of these matters with President Ramos-Horta at the function at the Portuguese Timorese Club in Darwin on 23 July 2011 - I think the member for Sanderson was there also - where the President made a gracious speech about the important relationship between the Northern Territory and Timor-Leste. It is very important that, in a bipartisan way, we try to maintain that relationship.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to report the outcomes of my visit to Dili.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I raise a serious issue relating to health and the administration of health in the Northern Territory. To lay the foundations, the Country Liberals have been critical of the inadequacy of the government’s public health warnings and campaign such as mosquito control after outbreaks and deaths due to Murray Valley Encephalitis. Also, the government’s failure to notify the public that counts of Legionella in this building, Parliament House, in the cooling towers in 2009 exceeded safe levels. They are a couple of examples, so there is a precedent for this type of issue, and the failure of this Northern Territory government to notify people about serious health concerns.
I will read the following, which was obtained by the Country Liberals under freedom of information:
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that was accessed through freedom of information, so the telling parts of this document are that two clients have been identified as having significant clinical deterioration and 12 clients have undergone minor clinical deterioration. We have 14 clients whose medication was removed from their prescription through this MedChart prescribing program. The MedChart prescribing program is essentially a web-based electronic medication management system replacing our everyday paper-based prescriptions. The disturbing part of this also is the fact that no public health warnings were made by the Northern Territory government. Not one public health warning was made to those people in remote communities who require this particular medication, who utilise that web-based MedChart program and, as a result, those people have experienced significant deterioration in their health. If not discovered by the opposition through freedom of information, this may never have seen the light of day.
How many people out there who utilise the MedChart program, this web-based electronic medication management system called MedChart which, by the way, is a key plank of the e-Health. We saw today a dorothy dixer question to the minister for ICT about the effectiveness of e-Health, this is a key plank of e-Health. Clearly, there are some problems with e-Health, not insignificant problems either, problems that are contributing to people’s health, potentially life-threatening problems, as stated in this Hot Issues document sourced under freedom of information where it says: ‘Two clients have been identified as having significant clinical deterioration’. It is just another example of this reactive government. The next step is this open disclosure training, another example of the government needing a disaster before putting into place sensible policies to assist Territorians.
The failure to notify the public about a serious malfunction within e-Health is a serious problem. The department knew about this. The minister knew about this. This is a document sourced through freedom of information. The minister has seen this document. The department has seen this document, yet the department has failed to notify the general public of the Northern Territory that there are significant problems with MedChart, the Primary Care Information System, otherwise known as PCIS; there are serious problems with it, problems so serious that it has resulted in two clients being identified as having significant clinical deterioration. Another 12 clients have undergone minor clinical deterioration.
It is not just a coincidence because in this document it says that in both instances, those two with serious clinical deterioration and the 12 with minor clinical deterioration, the medication error, the failure to provide their medication, cannot be excluded as being a contributing factor to the deterioration of their state of health. It is a failure to notify the public about such a serious malfunction within e-Health and MedChart; the prescribing system that is of grave concern. Such a failure has potential life-threatening consequences as we have seen in two of these cases.
Again, it is part of this culture of cover-up. You have to ask yourself, where does this end? You have to ask yourself, how many more cases are there of this? This was found in a pile of freedom of information documents trawled through by the opposition, sourced under great expense, and there it is, a glowing example of the culture of cover-up alive and well. This is so serious that it has people’s lives at stake, potentially life-threatening. Two clients had their health seriously diminished as a result of this program fault through MedChart and PCIS. If that is not bad enough that there are problems with this prescribing system, we have a situation where the Minister for Health and the department who knew about this failed to inform Territorians that there is a problem, failed to inform Territorians that they may not be receiving the appropriate medication they require to continue a healthy life.
Two clients have had serious deterioration in their health and 12 have had some minor deterioration in their health and the contributing factor is directly related to the failure to provide that medication. The culture of cover-up appears to be alive and well and the minister should be ashamed of himself for once again standing in this Chamber and telling us how wonderful e-Health is.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the people of Yirrkala and its homelands, and the people of Nhulunbuy and indeed people well beyond our region were deeply saddened by the news of the passing of Mr Maymuru, a senior man of the Mangalili clan last month. A special memorial service was held at Yirrkala on Thursday, 14 July, ahead of more formal preparations for a full ceremonial burial for this amazing man. This service attracted many people, including people who had travelled great distances to be there. It was a clear sign of the high esteem that Mr Maymuru was held. I was both greatly honoured and humbled to be invited to speak at Mr Maymuru’s memorial service, and was one of a long list of people who paid tribute to him.
It was an incredibly sad occasion as he was taken from us too soon, all too suddenly, and with no chance to say goodbye. The memorial service was an important occasion to allow people to come together and to share their feelings of grief but also to remember and celebrate the many wonderful things about the extraordinary man that Mr Maymuru was. He was remembered for many things, from being a brilliant artist to a talented sportsman and athlete, but perhaps most importantly as a strong Yolngu man and leader. Mr Maymuru was one of the most hard-working people I have ever known. He worked hard, he worked passionately, and he worked tirelessly, not only for himself, but for others and especially for the rights of Yolngu people and for the rights and future of young people.
There was barely an organisation he was not involved with: Dhimurru, Laynhapuy Homelands, NAAJA, Northern Land Council, the East Arnhem Shire, Miwatj, Landcare, ATSIC, and Yambirrpa School Council and, at the time of his passing, he was the Indigenous engagement officer with FaHCSIA working with the government business manager at Yirrkala.
He never made any secret that he bitterly resented the intervention into the Northern Territory, especially on the premise on which it was driven. I will never forget, as the candidate in the lead-up to the last election, sitting around the table at a board meeting of Laynhapuy Homelands, him thumping the table and saying angrily: ‘You show me where the child abuses are in my community and I will deal with them’.
Meetings would interrupt his working day, like many of the strong leaders of the Yirrkala community: meetings about the intervention, about homelands, about education, about leases, and about young people, to name a few. He would make it his business to be at those meetings and would always speak up on behalf of his community, never afraid to offer a strong view or to challenge the views of others and often in very colourful language. No one was ever left in any doubt as to where Mr Maymuru stood, but he was statesman-like and gracious and at the conclusion of a meeting he would shake hands and commit quite genuinely to working with others to try to resolve matters and work together to find a way forward.
After working all day he would often be found with the night patrol working to get children off the streets and back home to their families and their beds because he knew that was and is the safest place for them to be so they could be ready to go to school the next day. Education, he knew, was the most important thing in a child’s life to provide them with a pathway to the future.
I offer very sincere condolences to Mr Maymuru’s family; his wife, Barb, and children, Michael, Dominic, Luke, and Araluen and their children, his brother, Graham, and his sister, Nhaminapu, on their loss of a much-loved husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother. I also offer condolences to the friends, the work colleagues, and the wider community on the loss of a strong and passionate leader and advocate for Yolngu people.
Mr Maymuru was one of a kind, and one of the kindest people you could ever know. His passing leaves a big gap in the lives of his family, in his community, and in all of us. May he rest in peace.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight on three matters.
The first is the subordinate legislation relating to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Synthetic Cannabinoids) Regulation 2011, a product more generally known as Kronic. Kronic is a product of a synthetic cannabinoid contained in products which is mixed with herbs and smoked to produce a similar effect to cannabis. I understand that with the tabling of Regulation No 33 of 2011 that the product known as Kronic will no longer be available for sale from Friday.
Nevertheless, with the banning of that product, I understand new products containing different components have now become available. Kronic will be banned from Friday and, as part of the process with the problem, retailers and small businesses in the Northern Territory have not been advised of this banning and have excessive supplies of stock. By banning this product without running a community campaign to educate retailers in particular, that a stock has been banned and supply is now prohibited, small businesses will be out of pocket and will be in a position where, without knowledge of the banning, could commit an offence under the act.
I encourage the Northern Territory government tomorrow, being Thursday, to provide education to small businesses in the Northern Territory, swamp the media airwaves so small businesses and purchasers are aware of the ban and understand that this product will become illegal from Friday.
The second issue I would like to speak on is my statement today as the new shadow Transport minister and restating the Country Liberals’ position on the open speed limits. The Country Liberals, within 100 days of winning government, will bring back open speed limits to the major highways in the Northern Territory after a thorough assessment is done on the safety and suitability of our road infrastructure. That is because the roads have deteriorated because of under-investment by this negative Labor government in the Northern Territory. I reiterate that the Country Liberals will bring back open speed limits to the Northern Territory within 100 days of winning government, after we reassess the roads and bring them up to conditions that is deemed safe to do so.
In relation to the bushfires around Alice Springs, my concerns and my heart go out to the people who are in a difficult situation with bushfires surrounding them. I have been made aware the bushfires are encroaching on Alice Springs. They have gone through the Golden Mile; many people have evacuated. My understanding is the fire is now lapping at the door of Larapinta, part of the Braitling electorate. I hope the people in that area are safe. I hope their families are safe, their animals, and cattle are safe. I wish the firies and the volunteers who are fighting those blazes all the best. I wish I was there helping. Unfortunately, I am in parliament.
The Northern Territory Labor government was warned about the possibility of fires in the Northern Territory. We had a Wet Season last year with 800 mm of rain. The ground cover has put Central Australia, in particular, at risk. Concerns were raised during the estimates process about how well prepared the Northern Territory government was to fight the fires, and how well resourced the Bushfires Council and the staff within Bushfires NT were to build firebreaks and be ready to put the fires out. These concerns about insufficient resources to build firebreaks in Central Australia with only one grader available to build those firebreaks have been raised over a long period. The transportation and movement of that grader is insufficient, so the grader sits between Elliott and Tennant Creek. What we are seeing with these fires is a result of inaction and an inept approach by the Minister for Central Australia, and Environment minister, Karl Hampton. Now, we have bushfires burning across Central Australia, people are in fear, property is being burnt, and cattle are being lost.
Families should not be put in this position. When they were warned, they were asked to invest, they were asked to provide resources. Karl Hampton sat on his hands and did nothing and, now, Central Australia is burning - and it is not good enough. He should be out there explaining to the people who live in Central Australia on the Golden Mile and in Larapinta who are being evacuated from their houses, worrying about what tomorrow will bring. It is a terrible situation and the Minister for Central Australia should hang his head in shame. The Minister for Central Australia, Karl Hampton, knew about the risk of fires and did nothing about it – did not resource Bushfires NT, did not resource the Bushfires Council. He has had report after report provided to him, telling him of the dangers, asking him to do something, and he has failed to act in the interests of Central Australians, which is something that I and my colleagues in Central Australia have come to be all too aware of; that is, the minister failing to do his job.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on two topics. The first is that a baby participating in a government-funded television advertisement on family violence was allegedly subjected to real violent behaviour to elicit an authentic and believable fear response. People involved in the production of the advertisement, who wish to remain nameless, say they were disturbed that the government-funded production crew seemed unconcerned about the potential effects the violence might have on the infant.
The point of the production of the advertisement was to illustrate that family violence is never acceptable. Then, an infant involved in the production of the advertisement was subjected to violent behaviour. By condoning this infant’s exposure to violent behaviour, the government has failed to demonstrate their absolute rejection of family violence – on or off the screen. The government needs to behave in a highly ethical manner on the issue of family violence, and they have failed to do so by adopting unethical practices in the production of this advertisement.
The government needs to undertake a full investigation of this matter. An investigation should not only include talking to the mother of the infant, but the production crew, who will inform you that the child was present and indeed witnessed the violent behaviour of the adult male actor, which elicited the desired distress response in the child. We have it on sound advice that the child was directly exposed to the male actor shouting and behaving in a threatening manner, as can be seen in the family violence advertisement. We have it on sound advice that the child did witness this behaviour and cried as a result. I call again for the government to immediately remove the advertisement from the television.
The second topic I would like to talk about tonight is the issue of childcare in Alice Springs. The demand for childcare in Alice Springs is at a crisis point. There is a critical shortage, which is affecting families and businesses, and stifling the Alice Springs economy. In response to what I assessed as being a crisis, I organised a meeting of all childcare and early childhood education stakeholders in Alice Springs.
The first meeting was held on Wednesday 1 June 2011. The purpose of this meeting was to work together to develop more childcare options in Alice Springs. I invited Mr Paul Fitzsimons from Charles Darwin University to chair this important meeting. Those invited to attend included individuals and representatives from the various childcare agencies in Alice Springs: Gap Childcare Centre; Congress Childcare Centre; Alice Springs Childcare Centre; Sadadeen Childcare Centre; YMCA Childcare Centre; Braitling Childcare Centre; Lil’Antz Childcare Centre; Charles Darwin University; the Under Three-year-old Kindy; Family Day Care; Alice Springs Town Council; and the Mayor of Alice Springs. I also invited the various preschools in Alice Springs: Bradshaw Preschool; Gillen Preschool; Ida Standley Preschool; Larapinta Preschool; Rona Glynn Preschool; the manager of the Alice Springs Hospital, one of the major employers in Alice Springs; Northern Territory government representatives from childcare licensing; and federal government representatives including from DEEWR.
I decided, for the benefit of Alice Springs, to approach this in a bipartisan manner. All elected members of Alice Springs needed to be involved to achieve the best possible result for Alice Springs. I extended an invitation to the Minister for Central Australia, the Minister for Education and Training, Dr Chris Burns, and the federal member for Lingiari, as well as my two Country Liberal colleagues, the member for Braitling and the member for Greatorex. The Minister for Central Australia, the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, and the federal member for Lingiari were not able to attend the first meeting; however, they sent their respective representatives. This was a successful meeting, with over 30 people in attendance, and much enthusiasm and commitment demonstrated.
The second meeting of this group was held on 3 August 2011, with the same level of enthusiasm. I asked Ms Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government to chair the second meeting. The Minister for Central Australia was able to attend this meeting, and I asked him to address the meeting. The group was also addressed by a representative from DEEWR and the Northern Territory government childcare regulator and licensing body. The group is now moving beyond the information collection phase, and a working group is meeting in the next two weeks to develop an action plan to define exactly how the need for more childcare places will be addressed.
I applaud the commitment of the people who have become members of this group, their time and commitment to childcare and early childhood services in Alice Springs. These dedicated people are committed to this process, helping desperate families, helping desperate businesses, and making our community more responsive to the needs of working parents and other people in our community who are desperate for childcare.
I have also written to the federal minister for Childcare, Kate Ellis, asking that she consider providing federal funds for the establishment of a new childcare centre in Alice Springs, and federal funds to extend existing childcare centres to increase their capacity.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Alice Springs is an incredible community of genuinely caring people who freely give of their time again, again, and again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak on three topics tonight. One is about the rural centre plans. I was pleased to launch these plans today with my colleague, the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick. These rural centre plans are an alternative to the proposal by the Northern Territory government - draft rural village plans. The idea behind these rural centre plans is to show we can develop the rural area in a logical and planned way, which will allow some small block development whilst at the same time retaining what many of us believe is an important lifestyle; that is, the rural lifestyle and these plans show the way to do that.
We have identified a number of rural centres that have been around for many years, but we clearly identified a boundary around these centres. Our proposal is to allow small block subdivision, blocks of 4000 m2 down to 800 m2, including multiple dwelling land to be developed within those centres. Those centres would be:
Howard Springs, which to some extent is limited because it is mainly private land, which is already subdivided;
We put forward these plans as a reasonable and positive alternative to the government’s plans. Some people in government and some developers were concerned that these plans would knock development on the head. Some in the CLP thought we would be going against the CLP’s greater Darwin plans. It does not do that. It actually fits in nicely with the plans the CLP have put forward for the greater Darwin region and it fits in with the concepts the government has.
The one thing that differs from both of those plans is that we want to retain the rural lifestyle and we want to retain the minimum lot size as 1 ha and there has been constant pushing by certain developers to reduce that lot size down to 0.4 ha. These plans allow 0.4 ha blocks, but only within district centres.
If people would like a copy of these plans talk to me or the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick, and I thank her for her efforts in the development of these plans. She is a genuine rural person at heart. As you would have heard from the discussion about how much Palmerston rubbish ends up in the Howard Springs tip, she has been a long-term resident and she knows how passionate many people in the rural area are about retaining that rural lifestyle.
The second thing I would like to talk about is a letter I received tonight from Pelly Road residents. I will read it as it is and people can make up their own mind. It says:
Dear government departments,
That highlights the concerns these people have.
The last issue I would like to talk about is the member for Sanderson has brought forward this issue on smoke alarms. On 23 February 2011, the Chief Minister said:
Further on he says:
He goes on further to say:
That has not happened. I had word today that the government might be looking at regulations, but the government has supported, in principle, what the member for Sanderson has put forward. I put it on record that if the government does not change the legislation, either in regulation form or bring forward its own motion, I am happy to support the member for Sanderson if he puts in the amendments the government has asked for, if they see areas that need to be fixed up. The government has supported the member for Sanderson’s legislation and should get off its bum and put its legislation forward otherwise I will support amended legislation from the member from Sanderson.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I would take a quick trip down memory lane for those with short memories. They appear to be the members for Casuarina and Johnston, and perhaps even the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister.
I say this because, in the last few days, we have seen ministers of the current government come here and tout what a great job they have done and take ownership of many things, which perhaps they do not have full ownership of. In fact, we even saw a debate in this House where we censured the government because we had moved from a point of bipartisanship to where the Chief Minister chose to steal the light and claim all for the cattle trade was his. He was even refusing to include the Leader of Opposition in going to simply the loading of a cattle ship. He claimed ownership that he had fixed all when, in fact, he had not, and he had come to the table kicking and screaming.
I take you down memory lane because, obviously, you need to be reminded. This is a media release dated 28 July 2008 by Mr Terry Mills MLA, Leader of the Opposition, ‘Planning Palmerston Hospital’ – and I will read the whole lot:
There were some extra figures added on the back of that release:
They are great figures considering they are either untrustworthy, or the governments in those states, both Labor at the time, are somewhat untrustworthy, because in South Australia an 800-bed facility will only cost $1.7bn, whilst in Western Australia, under a Labor government, a smaller 650-bed hospital would cost $1.75bn. How can we use figures that are so dramatically different? How can that be trusted as an example, and at the time examples were given as to why the $100m figure was suitable?
It is ironic that, although the Country Liberals do not have government, the peer pressure of the Palmerston residents on this Labor government, the fact that their clinic, although slow in reopening, slow in delivering all its promised services, has shown a dramatic need for a hospital. It has proven our case that in 2008 when we promised a hospital, it was needed and, without doubt, if it had been a CLP government at the time, we would have been in a fantastic position to negotiate and deal with the federal government, of any kind, to get funding quicker and sooner. But it was a plan. Back in July 2008, Labor did not have a plan for a hospital. In fact, they called it a cruel farce. No wonder he is no longer the Health minister.
It is ironic that only this year, after much pressure and threats of re-elections of new federal governments failing around this country, the Labor Senator from the federal government has come out and said: ‘We will do a $110m hospital’, and we applaud that. We recognise that is a good idea, nowhere near as many beds, and an indication today of an emergency department and some other specialist facilities, no specifics, no plan, but some anyway. So, we can trust there will be something there, of no number, perhaps more than one, maybe not more than two, you never know, but we commend the fact that yes, you have seen that, in 2008, our plan, our vision for a hospital was needed in Palmerston.
It is a shame the then minister called it a cruel farce and has not had the decency to stand in this House and withdraw his comments and say: ‘No, you were in fact right to plan for a hospital’. The Country Liberals planned for a hospital. The Labor Party found no other choice, when they looked at the needs of the Palmerston and rural areas, than the need to start planning for a hospital now. It is ironic that in less than 12 months our plans would have been completed, initial stages would have been proceeding, and perhaps with the extra support we now have in the Northern Territory, and in Palmerston and the rural area, we would be moving to building this hospital. We started the plan for this hospital in 2008, and it would be decent of this government, if it is going to take an idea, to recognise that it was a good idea planned by the Country Liberals in 2008.
I remind you again, the former Health minister, duly sacked, called a hospital in Palmerston a cruel farce. He deserved to be sacked.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about seniors’ issues. I note on 2 August, the Minister for Senior Territorians issued a media release claiming 200 senior Territorians gathered for an official launch - and that was great.
The calendar for Seniors Month is out, albeit it could have been out a few weeks earlier to give people a chance to book some of the events. Seniors just love to participate in the range of events on this calendar. My office has received numerous complaints that many of these events were booked out on the very day the event was registered, which indicates to me that some of these events are being pre-booked prior to the calendar being printed, released, and put up on the Internet. Many seniors, who are quite savvy in relation to the use of the Internet, got hold of this, got online and on the telephone, and tried to book things within 30 minutes of this calendar being released, and were told that events were booked out.
This occurred last year, and I am led to believe by reliable sources many people contacted the minister’s office and complained, and said they tried to book these things and were told within hours they were booked out - in fact, some within minutes. It is Seniors Month and given the number of seniors we are trying to retain in the Territory, and attract the grey nomads here - these people come here and they really enjoy the Territory lifestyle.
In relation to tourism, one would hope these people leave the Territory with a positive image and they go back to wherever they come from in Australia, take their caravans, their four-wheel-drives, and sit around barbecues down south and talk about their experiences in the Northern Territory. It saddens me that some of the people who have been up here for a number of years during the Dry Season are finding history is repeating itself, and they are frustrated by not being able to participate in many of these events.
The events I clearly recall last year were the harbour cruises. Local seniors, many of whom struggle and live from fortnight to fortnight, are facing ever-increasing costs - and I will get to that matter because that has, again, been raised with me, not only by locals, but tourists, especially senior tourists who are travelling on limited budgets. They have a budget for travel, but with the global financial crisis and shares going up and down, many of these self-funded retirees struggle. They are finding it difficult with their income - one month being reasonable and next month it is way down. They are concerned about their budget.
When it comes to Seniors Month and the things we try to do, the things they come here to enjoy and participate in - as some of them have been doing for many years - they find they just cannot get on some of these trips. I ask the government and, in particular, the minister through his department, to look at these issues and see if there is a way to prevent these things occurring next year. It is a bit of a pattern with harbour cruises.
Another one is a World War II sites bus trip that leaves Darwin and goes to the Adelaide River War Cemetery, and stops at various places along the way. I am led to believe by a couple of people who contacted my office that they rang up immediately this came out and found the whole trip was already booked out. So, there is a problem. Of course, what happens is these people form a dimmer view of the Territory. If we try to get some of these things right and not have history repeat itself, they will take a positive image back.
While these people are in my office and on the telephone enlightening me about some of the issues and problems, they also mention many other problems. There are people who come for four or five months and, sometimes, even six. They leave the southern winter and provide valuable resources to our community in the form of volunteers. They bring expertise, many of them having recently retired. They bring a voluntary capacity with them, and they fulfil all sorts of roles, part-time jobs in the tourism industry. They are usually reliable, they turn up, they do not mind putting the time in, and they enjoy the weather, the social aspect of working here and the mixing in the tourism industry and other industries.
However, a range of issues has been raised and the minister for Seniors might consider this and raise it with his Cabinet colleagues. These people have time to read the paper, many of them are on the Internet reading media releases, they read interstate newspapers, they read the NT News, and they look at a range of other things to gain information. They are seeing increases in the cost of living, the cost of rents in caravan parks is going up and caravan parks are filling up.
Rents are so high that caravan parks are filling up with people who have to live in caravan parks because they cannot afford to live in a house. Supply and demand kicks in and the price they have to pay overnight, weekly, or monthly increases. They cannot stay for five or six months and set up camp permanently because of changes in legislation regarding permanent caravan residents. They look at the rising waiting lists in hospitals and what is happening with public transport. When they look at these things - the health issues – many of these people as they get older are concerned about waiting times, they are concerned about response times for ambulances, they get out and about, they would like to have the comfort and confidence that there are not going to be long waiting times and delays at the hospitals. These are the things they talk about; these are the things they complain about.
They also enlighten me when I have lengthy conversations with these people. They are on the Internet and websites. There are caravaners and grey nomad websites and they use Facebook. Many are quite savvy. They are on Facebook and they are posting notes and comments on what they believe to be the current situation. Whether it is real or perceived, it is what they see as the current situation. Their perception equals reality.
As a Territory, we try to offer a positive and different experience from that down south or our neighbours in Queensland and Western Australia, and it is something we need to take seriously. It is an emerging issue and an emerging problem and if we do not deal with it as a community, and if the government does not deal with some of these issues, we are going to start to lose many of our grey nomads to places like Western Australia and Queensland.
When the legislation was mooted in relation to not being able to stay in caravan parks any longer than 90 days, a number of seniors told me they will go elsewhere. They have been coming to Darwin for 25 years, since they have retired. They are now older and go where it is easier. They are getting to the stage where it is too difficult.
Many of them object in principle to handing over their ID for alcohol purchases. They are offended by that; they think it is the only place in Australia, they think we are crazy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a range of issues that affect seniors and, given it is Seniors Month we should take into consideration their needs. We should be working collaboratively to improve their lot, attract them again, and they will go back and express a more positive view of the Territory to their friends and encourage their friends, relatives, cousins, and neighbours to visit the Territory and therefore …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Mr Mark Renner and Mr Matthew Kingham. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Alice Springs Hospital – Reinstate 300/301 Bus Route
Alice Springs Hospital – Reinstate 300/301 Bus Route
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 60 petitioners praying that the previous 300/301 bus route from Alice Springs Hospital be reinstated. 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 the difficulties public bus patrons have attempting to catch the 300/301 bus from the Alice Springs Hospital to the southern areas of Alice Springs, including the Old Timers Nursing Home and Village. This journey involves catching a bus from the Alice Springs Hospital to the interchange and then waiting at the interchange for a connecting service. This wait can be between one and two hours and is particularly arduous and uncomfortable for the many elderly bus users. In the case of the last bus from the hospital, there is no connecting service at all to areas south of the Gap.
MOTION
Council of Territory Cooperation – Terms of Reference – Extension of Reporting Period
Council of Territory Cooperation – Terms of Reference – Extension of Reporting Period
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That paragraph 1 of the resolution of the Assembly dated 4 May 2011 referring the animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory to the Council of Territory Cooperation be amended as follows:
- Omit ‘August’ and insert in its stead ‘October’.
As I said yesterday, this motion is extending the reporting time frame required for the final report of the subcommittee on Animal Welfare Governance in the Northern Territory to the Assembly to October 2011. Furthermore, it is my understanding from the Chair of the committee that an interim report will be presented in the second week of the August sittings.
Madam Speaker, I commend the work of the committee; it has been working hard and had a number of hearings. I can understand why it wishes to extend the time frame; however, it is acceptable there be an interim report given to this parliament, and I understand it will probably be next week. Furthermore, I understand there is agreement within the committee for this to occur. I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
HERITAGE BILL
(Serial 169)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to address shortcomings in the existing Heritage Conservation Act and to provide an improved framework for heritage management in the Northern Territory.
This is the culmination of an election promise made by the Labor Party to conduct a thorough review of the Heritage Conservation Act. At that time, many people keenly felt the loss of the Hotel Darwin, which was demolished, to almost universal dismay, in 1999. It was felt the shortcomings in the Heritage Conservation Act had contributed to this event and that the act required review. The then minister, my colleague, the member for Johnston, spoke about this in the Assembly on 16 October 2003 when he announced the commencement of the review of the act. Minister Burns noted the existing act invests a great deal of power in the minister, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places, and limited provisions for interim protection of places under threat.
An extensive public consultation process took place in 2003-04 that found there was strong support for addressing these issues, as well as for protection of a wide range of places and increased penalties.
In May 2004, the Heritage Advisory Council finalised a recommendations paper which it provided to government. A key recommendation was the establishment of a Heritage Council with statutory decision-making powers; that is, a Heritage Council which would make most or all of the decisions currently made by the minister. The government gave careful consideration to the recommendations paper.
A draft bill was released for public comment in February 2010. Thirteen written submissions were received from individuals and organisations, and the Heritage Advisory Council provided an extensive response. Respondents welcomed many aspects of the draft bill but it is fair to say that many respondents thought the draft bill still contained significant shortcomings. The government listened to these concerns and made significant changes to the circulated draft bill - changes that are for the better.
I now turn to the draft bill before the Assembly and describe its features in detail. I said earlier that the existing act has been criticised for investing a great deal of power in the minister, has lengthy and rather complex procedures for registration of heritage places, and limited provisions for interim protection of places under threat. Government has taken the view that it is elected to govern, and it is reasonable for the minister to have the final say with respect to important decisions such as whether a place ought to be heritage listed. Having said that, I am pleased the draft bill proposes a new approach to heritage listing processes that directly addresses the criticisms to which I have just referred.
The draft bill imposes time lines on all stages of the listing process, so all parties involved can be sure that decisions will be made in a timely manner. The process starts with someone nominating a place or object for heritage listing. The draft bill indicates that within six months of a nomination having been accepted by the Heritage Council, the council has to consider a report which assesses the significance of the place or object and decide whether or not the place or object is worthy of heritage listing. If so, the council is required to seek comment on the proposed heritage listing in a manner similar to the existing act. When the process reaches this stage, the act allows the place or object to be provisionally declared as a heritage place or object in order to protect it until a final decision is made. The owner is advised of this and asked to comment on the proposed heritage listing.
There may be concern about this aspect of the draft bill in respect of the rights of the owner, and I will address those concerns. I stress it is very rare for the heritage listing process to be instigated without the knowledge or support of the owner. However, it is true the situation may arise where an owner unexpectedly receives notification that his or her property is being considered for heritage listing and provisionally declared as a heritage listed place under the act, thus restricting their actions in relation to doing work on that property.
An owner may object to this situation; however, they are assured of a couple of things. First, their views about whether the place ought to be heritage listed are sure to be taken into account - the act requires this. Second, time lines or limits apply to this part of the process, so owners can be assured a decision about heritage listing, one way or the other, will be made in a reasonable time frame. The longest possible time for a decision to be made from this point would be about four months but, in most cases, it would take less than this.
Finally, it is still possible through various avenues under the act for the owner to be allowed to do certain work during this period if it is agreed this is appropriate in the circumstances. In summary, the government believes the process for heritage listing which I have just described is a balanced and reasonable approach that goes a long way to addressing criticisms of the existing act. It tips the balance of power away from the minister to some extent, and automatically protects places and objects that are considered worthy of heritage listing without imposing an unreasonable burden on owners, and ensures the whole process takes place within reasonable time frames. The way in which the draft bill deals with the work approvals also helps to deal with concerns about all effective power resting with the minister.
In addition, it improves the system in other ways. Under the existing act, only the minister or the minister’s delegate can make decisions about work and there is no distinction between major and minor work. The draft bill makes it clear that there are three categories of work: (1) exempt work for which no permission is required; (2) minor work which the Heritage Council makes decisions about; and (3) major work which the minister makes decisions about. This makes things clearer and much more workable and, in part, deals with the criticisms of the existing act: that too much power rests with the minister by tipping the balance towards the Heritage Council.
It is not possible for there to be a foolproof definition of the differences between major and minor work, but the draft bill attempts to deal with this issue as well as possible. The government’s expectation is that if a decision in relation to proposed work to a heritage place or object is likely to generate controversy or concern on behalf of the owner or another legitimate stakeholder in the eyes of the public, the minister should deal with the work application.
I will move on to other features of the draft bill. The draft bill features an expanded Heritage Council with 11 members made up of the following:
the Chief Executive Officer of the department responsible for the administration of the act, or a nominee of the CEO;
The minister, as far as practicable, must also ensure that at least two of the appointed members are of Aboriginal descent. This expanded Heritage Council introduces for the first time representation from local government and property owners, while still allowing for people nominated from within the community to fill the majority of positions.
The draft bill also features a mechanism that provides automatic protection to classes of places such as remnants of the Overland Telegraph Line; shipwrecks and plane wrecks; and gravesites. The draft bill allows the Heritage Council to make recommendations to the minister about classes of places that it believes ought be protected. The minister must seek public comment and makes a final decision.
During the public consultation process that followed the release of the draft bill in February 2010, concerns were expressed that such a mechanism may impose an unreasonable burden on property owners. I will now address those concerns.
The existing act, since its commencement in 1991, provided automatic protection to two classes of places that occur widely throughout the Northern Territory, being Aboriginal and Macassan archaeological places. Included in the former category are rock art sites, artefact scatters, stone carvings, and middens - tangible reminders of the occupation of the Northern Territory by Aboriginal people for tens of thousands of years. Macassan archaeological sites are mainly the remains of trepang processing sites along the coast. These distinctive sites are unique to Northern Australia and remind us that long before permanent European settlement in the north, there was regular contact with our Asian neighbours. All parties involved for almost 20 years have understood that such sites are important and ought to be protected, and the system has worked pretty well to date.
The draft bill allows for continuing protection of Aboriginal and Macassan archaeological places, and a mechanism which allows for a very modest expansion of this concept. The purpose of the mechanism is to protect places and objects where there is a high degree of consensus about their value, but where protection of individual sites may not be practical, in some cases because the existence of the site may be unknown. A perfect example is plane wrecks from World War II. Few people would question the significance of such sites. Several have been protected under the existing act. However, there are many that have not, and not all such sites have been located. Automatic protection of these sites is highly unlikely to impose an unreasonable burden on a landowner or proponent. The draft bill will enable the minister to consider automatic protection for these sites upon the recommendation of the Heritage Council, and after a public consultation process.
In summary, it is a sound proposal that has the potential to extend the protection of places considered important aspects of our heritage, without creating an undue administrative burden, or any unreasonable burden on landowners.
I turn to the issues of penalties and enforcement. The drafting of the bill is in line with current practices by using a system of penalty units, and has substantially increased penalties compared to the existing act. For example, under the existing act the maximum penalty for causing damage to a heritage place is $10 000 or one year’s imprisonment for an individual. Under the proposed new act, based on the current value of penalty units, it is $53 200 or two years imprisonment. On the ground enforcement will be assisted by fines of up to $13 000 based on the current value of penalty units for failing to follow directions issued by a heritage officer in the course of their duty. This effectively addresses concerns expressed during the consultation process in 2003-04, that penalty units were not sufficient and ought to be increased.
The draft bill has expanded rights of review, which will be widely welcomed as being in accordance with the present day expectations about such matters. The existing act has appeal rights in relation to decisions to declare or not declare a heritage place, revoke or not revoke a heritage listing, declare an interim conservation order, and issue a direction to repair. However, appeals can only be a matter of law and in the case of land affected by such a decision are only open to the owner or occupier of the land in question or of that land directly affected by the decision. There are no appeal rights in relation to proposed works on a heritage place or object.
The draft bill retains the right to appeal against all the decisions that are currently appealable; however, standing to appeal has been extended. For example, in relation to a decision to declare, or not to declare, a heritage place, any person who has made a submission at the time that comments were sought, may appeal. The draft bill also allows for a review of decisions by the Heritage Council and decisions in relation to proposed work on a declared heritage place, whether the Heritage Council or the minister took that decision. These reviews are merit-based and made to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal with the intention of allowing the matter to be heard in a forum that is less intimidating and costly than going to court. Other aspects to the draft bill are designed to address minor issues with the existing act and generally produce legislation that is in accordance with modern standards.
I have outlined all the key features of the draft bill and I would like to reiterate those:
a new process for heritage listing which introduces time lines at all stages of the listing process and allows for interim protection of places assessed as being worthy of heritage listing;
improved processes for carrying out work including the ability for the Heritage Council to make decisions about minor work;
an expanded Heritage Council which includes representation from local government, property owners, and which requires the minister, as far as practicable, to ensure Aboriginal representation;
the capacity to list classes of places, thus extending the protection of places considered important aspects of our heritage but difficult to list individually;
increased penalties and improved provision for on the ground enforcement; and
expanded rights of review.
This constitutes a real step forward in improving the framework within which the Northern Territory government, working with the community, manages the unique and diverse heritage of the Northern Territory. This bill is a culmination of a great deal of consultation with the community that reflects the government’s commitment to a great Territory lifestyle through valuing our heritage and our history.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the Assembly. I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 166)
(Serial 166)
Continued from 4 May 2011.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to have the Transport portfolio back. I thoroughly enjoyed doing Transport last time and it is great to have it back. The last time I was involved in Transport, we put forward a number of amendments to the Traffic Act to try to lower the numbers of drink-driving and make improvements across a number of areas. While they were knocked back, it had a great deal of impact.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling has twisted his microphone. He might want to …
Mr Giles: It is broken.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, could you use the seat next to you?
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is fantastic to be back in the Transport portfolio. I enjoyed working in Transport previously. We put forward a number of positive reform agendas, which were knocked back by this government because it is reluctant to take on good ideas.
Once having the Transport portfolio back, I went through the Notice Paper and identified this traffic amendment bill. I thank the minister for urgently setting up a briefing for me yesterday with the department. I thank the departmental staff who came to that briefing. I understand this bill moves the Northern Territory to national uniform legislation in line with the trade measurement system put forward through COAG.
During the briefing, it was explained, as I read through the second reading speech and the bill, that we are moving to a model of blood analysis, or BAC, to breath analysis. I did not quite understand the methodology of that with the national uniform legislation because nothing appears to change. I now recognise that instead of the blood alcohol content measured in millilitres - now to 210 litres - I understand how that works and recognise this is a procedural motion for the Northern Territory parliament to bring us in line with the rest of the country. The Country Liberals will not be opposing this bill.
I found it interesting that the Northern Territory was supposed to come online with all other states by 1 July 2010 but, once again, we seem to have fallen behind. We seem to often fall behind under this government. It does not matter if it is crime, domestic violence, child protection, or alcohol reform …
Mr Conlan: Child protection.
Mr GILES: I hear the interjection from the member for Greatorex about child protection. Child protection is difficult because, as the government says, it is all about the cavemen genealogy dating back to the prehistoric Neanderthals - that is how they see this. It is very hard to bring about change; it has only been about 3000 years and the government has not been able to get it right. How is it supposed to get uniform legislation around a national trade measurement system from COAG in 10 years? It is going to be very difficult for these people; it is in the genes …
Mr Wood: Getting back to the bill.
Mr GILES: Getting back to the bill. I hear the interjection from the member for Nelson; he has been part of this government for several years.
It is important for us to bring about these amendments by 1 July 2010 and here we are in August 2011 and the government still has not got its act together.
It is no wonder break-ins in Alice Springs are 307% higher since March 2005. It is no wonder we see an increase of 26% in assaults and 28% of break-ins in Palmerston since September 2009. In Darwin, we are seeing a 47% increase in assaults from September 2006. That is an increase from 577 to 847. Think about the families and businesses that have to protect their house even more because this government has dropped the ball. Yes, it has dropped the ball on crime, break-ins, and sexual assaults and this is another example, in traffic, where it has not complied with what it was supposed to do under COAG and bring in line its national uniform approach by July 2010.
Many people are asking where the Country Liberals stand on some of their transport policies. I have spoken at length, as have my colleagues, and we stand by our previous policy, our previous commitment, to open speed limits in the Northern Territory. This is a government which took away open speed limits. This is the nanny state which tries to bring about regulations and reforms and control people’s lives. We do not tolerate that on our side, and we are united on open speed limits. I have our open speed limits sticker here. I will put it back on my computer to show our transport policy; in that we support open speed limits. I know we are united on this side.
The member for Johnston is the namesake of the Johnson report - as received under FOI by Channel 7 from federal Cabinet. The report says the capacity of the Northern Territory government is a particular concern. We all hold that concern here in the Northern Territory. Rest assured, Territorians, a Country Liberal government within 100 days of coming to power will undertake an assessment of our main arterial roads to ensure we can bring about the open speed limit. This government has failed to invest in the road infrastructure in the Northern Territory. We have to check that to ensure it is safe.
I do not hear any noise coming from the other side about open speed limits. I thought they might have raised some concerns and opposed open speed limits. Clearly, they must be on board. Clearly, they must like the stickers that are now on the computers saying – and I have many more if people on the other side would like to support our open speed limit policy. I know the minister likes to speed. We are all about open speed limits on this side - within reason. Ensure the roads are safe because the government has let them go. Rest assured, Territorians, we stand by our principles. We are united on this side of the parliament and will bring back open speed limits …
Mr Wood: I find it hard to believe you are united.
Mr GILES: We are united. We are united in stickers, member for Nelson. We have our open speed limit stickers. There are plenty of other stickers to go around. This is the one that says: ‘I hate Delia’ - with a picture – ‘from Burnsie’. The member for Johnston likes to talk about our unification but, I can tell you, they are deeply divided on their side. Matty Bonson provided us with a couple of opportunities this week and here is another one.
We will not be opposing this legislation. We recognise coming together for national uniform legislation is important. What is important is to recognise the delays by this government. It was supposed to be online by 1 July 2010; it is not online. It is good to see us coming together now. I reiterate that we understand why it is so bad at getting things done because there is a litany of failures - whether it is domestic violence, crime, land release, or fixing the port. These things are well documented and highlighted in the Johnson report received from federal Cabinet. That Cabinet document says they are concerned about the Northern Territory’s capacity to deliver - we are all concerned.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to sum up. I thank him for the briefing yesterday; he arranged it straightaway. I look forward to working at length with the transport officials, because they are very good officials; I enjoy working with your transport officials. Thank you, Brenton, for yesterday. Minister, I look forward to shadow-boxing with you over the Transport portfolio until the next election where we will, hopefully, take government and bring about open speed limits, which I am sure you will enjoy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also make comments about this legislative instrument. It is some time since I read it, but I understand this is part of an alignment system with national standards. A blood alcohol reading relies on a simple assumption about the transference of alcohol from the bloodstream into the lungs. When we drink liquor, we excrete it by different means. One is exhalation and another is urination, but 90% of the alcohol that we excrete is broken down into its constituent chemicals by the liver. Up until the …
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but I am not going to argue with a doctor of, what was it, pharmacology, on this type of issue. I will be guided by whatever interjection he cares to share with me.
In a blood alcohol reading it is assumed that 5% of alcohol in the blood is excreted through the lungs, which means a two-step process to achieve a blood alcohol reading. When you go into a court and discuss a blood alcohol reading, you are actually describing 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. You come to that point through the assumption that the breath taken from the lungs is precisely that 5% amount, or thereabouts; I cannot remember the exact amount, but it is around 5%. The consequence is a two-stage process to get from a blood alcohol reading to a reading of blood alcohol concentration based on a person’s breath.
I understand this legislation removes one of those steps because, from memory, and I hope the minister could nod if I am correct, this particular source of alcohol is on the breath, and it is taken from an amount of 210 litres, so it is 50 mg of alcohol per 210 ml of breath. I pause briefly to wonder about an odd figure of 210 litres of breath to produce 50 mg of alcohol but, of course, if you round it down to 200, we would be talking about 0.055 or 0.045, or something of that nature. By changing the litreage of breath expelled in the lungs, you can effectively sell this as an issue in the public domain, being under 0.05%.
It was not so long ago in the Northern Territory that the legal limit to drive intoxicated was 0.08% and, in fact, probably still would be if the federal roads funding sabre had not been rattled. However, times have changed. We have moved on, and now we are taking a change to direct, here in the courts today, an assertion by a prosecutor that a defendant before the court would be regarded to have exceeded 50 mg of alcohol per 210 litres of breath. It removes that stage, and I imagine that is why the national authorities have gone down that path. It will no longer be an offence to drive with a blood alcohol concentration, but it will be an offence to drive with a breath alcohol concentration of more than 50 mg per 210 litres of breath. It sounds technical, but in terms of accuracy, it is probably a better way to come to that result, and I suspect that is why the national structure has been built.
However, it does give me cause to comment that drink-driving is an important issue in our community. There is absolutely no doubt that the community expects the government to set a low benchmark. We are not quite as bad as Norway which, I understand, is a 0.01% or 0.02% limit, or some other European countries, or some Southeast Asian countries, if memory serves me. What it does mean is we set a low benchmark for blood alcohol concentration, and try to send a signal that we take these sorts of offences seriously. Indeed, the right to have a driver’s licence is a right taken away by court if you offend against these limits.
It ill behoves this government to one day try to soften the laws surrounding disqualified driving, and the next day say it wants to tighten up how these laws operate. It demonstrates the schizophrenia which has infected this government and how it lurches from one policy position to the next; hoping to meet national benchmarks, albeit late, in one breath and sending a signal that we do not take drink-driving seriously in the next. This is one of the reasons people of the Northern Territory are becoming tired of this government. It is a tired government; it does not think about what it is doing; there is no consistency in its policy approach, and it always works to make the whole community responsible for the actions of a few.
Should there be a change of government, we will be returning to a concept where a person is held responsible for their own actions. I note the shadow minister for Transport pointed out our policy position of reopening the speed limits, not because we want people to drive dangerously, but because we, as a government, trust people to judge the way they drive effectively by themselves. Never has it been a law in the Northern Territory that you could drive as recklessly as you liked. The open speed limits said that in the right conditions and environment you were able to judge a speed that was safe for yourself and the vehicle you were driving. This government determined by putting a carte blanche 110 speed limit across the Northern Territory with some exceptions for the Stuart Highway, the Victoria Highway, and the Barkly, I think, which said to people: ‘You are too stupid to determine how you should drive a car. We are going to impose a speed limit’. What we have seen in this process from the Northern Territory government is the start of the introduction of the nanny state and the nanny state has been growing and growing under this government’s tutelage since that time.
Yesterday, the next manifestation of the nanny state was realised by this government, where not only does it say everyone is responsible for their actions but, in the case of repeat drink-drivers who end up in gaol, you are actually going to be less responsible for your actions because we are not going to make you complete the period of your disqualification. If you are picked up and disqualified as a normal person, and you do not go to gaol, chances are you are not going to do anything other than serve out the full term of your disqualification. If you do go to gaol, what we are going to do is shorten the period of your disqualification. No longer is the whole community responsible for the actions of a few, but the few are becoming less responsible for their own actions. That is a philosophy which Territorians and I are getting tired of.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a technical change for a reasonable legal reason and, as a consequence, we do not oppose the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill and thank the department officials for the briefing.
It is bringing it into consistency with other states in Australia and is fairly straightforward, but I was interested in the discussion about nanny state. It is a subjective discussion which depends on your argument. If you are arguing for something you think should not be regulated, then we are a nanny state. If you argue for something that should be regulated, we think that is for the good of the community, and this is a classic example. Many people would say they can drive on the road after about five beers. They say there is nothing wrong with that. We bring in legislation to protect people on the road from those drivers and one could say that is a nanny state.
When I first came to the Territory, I do not think there was anything called a blood alcohol test or breath test. I do not remember ever getting pulled up by a policeman saying blow into a bag in 1970. We introduced those laws because of the number of people dying on our roads. We could argue the case about what are the causes of all these accidents, but the facts are we have restricted how you drive on roads because we are concerned about the number of fatalities, injuries, and accidents that cost us, as a community, much money. The more accidents, the more money we pay through higher insurance to insurance companies. The more people who end up in hospital, the more money taxpayers pay to make them well or care for them for the rest of their life. If people have died, the more we pay to the family left to survive without a breadwinner, which can be a cost on the community.
It is easy to say nanny state; I have some sympathy for that as well as we can become overregulated. However, the facts are, and unfortunately we saw it on the weekend, people have died on the road, tragically. I imagine a number of people in this parliament knew the people who were killed.
We have issues in relation to fatalities on NT roads. I did not support the change to the open speed limit. I have since listened to people involved in the trauma of motor vehicle accidents. I have discussed the effects of colliding with a tree at increasing speeds no matter how good your car is, and I have spoken to people who have accepted that 130 km/h, which is higher by 20 km/h than any other state …
A member: South Australia is trying to introduce it.
Mr WOOD: I am not against the 130 km/h speed limit but you have to remember the original speed limit was an open speed limit on every road not marked in the NT, which meant if you drove down the Daly River road, which was never suitable for open speed, you could …
Mr Elferink: No, you could not. That is the point I made.
Mr WOOD: You could if you wanted to and believed you were driving safely. That is a subjective decision; whether you are driving safely. The reality is we put speed limits on roads in suburbs and the rural area to reduce the chances of an accident. As we know, the higher the speed - especially if two cars collide - you have double the impact. The chances of surviving those types of accidents are remote. Some good friends in my electorate, a young couple who were involved in a head-on collision on the Arnhem Highway have taken a long time to recover from their injuries. They were very lucky to survive.
Whether we have open speed limits, whether we are breathalysed if we drive on the road, whether we should have licences, is that not a nanny state? Why can I not just hop in the car and drive? We are regulated; we are limited in our rights to drive. What is nanny state legislation and what is sensible legislation that is beneficial both to the community - do not forget other people drive on our roads - and what is beneficial to us.
It is an argument for people to discuss. We should not be flippant about it. You can hang your head on a slogan and you might find that is not the wisest decision to make. Just because you do not want to say you may have made the wrong decision does not mean you should not be willing to accept maybe a wiser decision should be made in lieu of the facts before you.
What we are dealing with today in relation to the breath testing for alcohol is part of a range of legislation which is trying to make our roads safer - and we need to keep that in mind. Slogans are good, but slogans need to be kept in perspective when we deal with the reality of the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. There should be a study of all our Northern Territory roads on a continual basis. Some roads might be suitable for higher speeds, and some roads may be more suited to lower speeds. That is part of a process, which could be the responsibility of the people involved in the structure and maintenance of roads. We should not make a statement that says ‘open speed limits’ without a great deal of understanding of what the effect would be.
There is another important amendment in the bill which has not been mentioned today. It came up in the second reading and said this bill provides the Registrar with the power to exempt a class of driver person; for example, police officers and certain road rules while in training. From memory from my briefing, that was to do with times in training when police have students with them and they may have broken the regulations. This has clarified some of those concerns. It is good to see that change has been included in the amendments to this bill.
The member for Braitling has broadened this debate, but the debate around the benefits of this type of bill, and the protection of people on our roads, should be the centre of this debate, rather than heading off on a range of other subjects which might be important but not particularly relevant to this bill.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and am interested to hear the minister’s comments.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to the debate. First, I will do a sum up and then I will deal with the members who have contributed.
The Northern Territory legislation relating to drink-driving needs to be updated in line with the Council of Australian Government reforms. A new Australian Standard for the measurement of breath alcohol content has been adopted nationally. This means the equipment currently used by Northern Territory Police to measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath has to be modified to comply with the new standard.
As the member for Nelson picked up in his usual good summary of the bill and the debate, there are a number of other housekeeping matters which have been attended to in the Traffic and Other Legislation Amendment bill. These include:
providing the Registrar with the power to exempt a class of driver person; for example, police officers from certain road rules while in training;
The miscellaneous amendments are, in the main, merely clarifying the current situation so there may be no doubt of the intent of these provisions.
It is important, to sum up, that the new breath alcohol measurement standard implements a reform that was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments and prescribed under the Commonwealth National Measurement Regulations 1999. These regulations were updated in 2009 to pick up the newly-agreed national measurement regime using litres of breath for breath analysis. The states and territories agreed to implement the new standard by 1 November 2011.
After that date, all breath analysis devices must comply with the new standard when they are recalibrated. All jurisdictions have been moving to the new regime over the last couple of years. It was interesting to hear the member for Braitling - and welcome back to the shadow for Transport; a very challenging but enjoyable, exciting portfolio area. It is good to have you back. The amount of oxygen you use in this Chamber, with the latitude you express, we might have to examine your carbon emissions because you are probably travelling way beyond the acceptable level in this place. However, it is a welcome back, and I thank you for your support. Once again, you have chosen a one-line media grab about government taking too long. The explanation I have just given shows you we are in pace with the rest of the country, and that is what we do, Madam Speaker.
The member for Braitling did go on to acknowledge the Department of Lands and Planning’s Transport division, and not only the briefing yesterday, but looking forward to working with them, and that it is a great thing. That is a positive thing and I acknowledge that. For the member for Braitling, with his diatribe about government and not meeting time lines, I will give him an update of what the Transport group has been working on in recent times, as well as the bill we have before us today.
The Transport group has been working on a raft of legislative and industry reforms over the last four years focusing on improving road safety including:
heavy vehicle task force process and report;
Alice Springs deserves a mention there. Undertaking the level crossing review was important for community safety in the Territory.
increased traffic infringement penalties for certain offences, including speed and not wearing seat belts; and
They are major bodies of work undertaken by the Transport division of the Department of Lands and Planning, delivering not only road safety, but community safety. How the member for Braitling gets the phrase ‘nanny state’ in, I will never know, but that will be an ongoing debate. This government is delivering road safety and safety for Territorians, and the member for Braitling is debating a nanny state.
I will also touch on the member for Braitling’s reference to my traffic infringement. Well done, member for Braitling, you have not forgotten it, and I have not forgotten it either. It is a regular conversation point of mine, especially when I am speaking to young people. I have a very good example where I received a traffic infringement, and I tell them all about it. I use it as an educational tool. I took my punishment, as I deserved, and member for Braitling, we will continue to debate that. I have my position on it, you have your sensational grandstanding, and we will continue to - I think the term was shadow-box. I prefer to debate as our policies are quite different, and from the statements made by the new shadow for Transport, the Country Liberals’ policies are very different. I am sure Territorians will judge them accordingly.
It is great to have the member for Port Darwin included in the debate. He not only entertains the House but also adds to the debate. I enjoyed that opening with your very good understanding of the legislation. In response to your comments about the offence of drink-driving, the offence has not changed, member for Port Darwin, to say it succinctly. The limits for alcohol in the breath test as opposed to alcohol in a blood test remain the same. There is no difference in the levels; these remain as they are currently.
Your reference to our government shortening the period of licence disqualification - you might have been referring to the major legislative reform in the House yesterday around the new orders. In relation to driving offenders, recidivist driving offenders, those orders are very much tied to a solid education and awareness package. In debates yesterday, I spoke about understanding the nature of our community, the differences in our community, and the disadvantage of our community. If government does not take a proactive stand and drag these people into an environment where education, awareness, and training is delivered in a sensitive and innovative way, they are never going to take that step towards learning.
It is not about shortening disqualification periods. It is about making people accountable for their offending behaviour, making people understand their offending behaviour, and then sending them back to the court. The member for Port Darwin understands that and demonstrated that clearly yesterday: sending them back to the court and having the judicial system make those decisions. If everything is travelling appropriately, I am sure a magistrate or judge will make that decision, which will relate to having a person on a strict legal contract. It does not give them the keys to drive on the outside of that courthouse. It puts them on a strict regime where they have to prove to society that they have addressed their offensive behaviour, their offending behaviour, and, in a sense, their criminogenic behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the support from all members of this House. This is important legislation. It addresses road safety and provides an opportunity to tidy up elements of the Traffic Act. I could talk much more, but no doubt there is other important business on the Notice Paper today.
I thank the Department of Lands and Planning’s Transport division for their hard work, especially when we look at those major legislative reforms over a long period, working with government and delivering road safety for Territorians, and real outcomes in the community. Thanks to all the staff. As you have heard, it will not only be me enjoying working with you, it will also be the shadow for Transport from the Country Liberals who will be sharing in that journey.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Note Paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Continued from 24 February 2011.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Northern Territory government’s response to the third CTC report.
One of the difficulties in discussing this third report is that it came out in November 2010, the government responded on 24 February 2011, and six months down the track we are asked to respond to the government’s response at that time. There is some danger that the government’s response might be different - I hope it would be different in some cases - to its response at that time, but the response I have is the response I will respond to.
The Northern Territory government used a slightly different approach to this response than previous responses. It has not used ‘noted’ anywhere, and in past responses recommendations were either ‘agreed’ or ‘noted’. It has agreed to nine and supported two of the 15 recommendations and provides some of the related information. The response is another example of CTC’s frustration with rhetoric not matching the reality of what happens.
The key issues are that the response says things are agreed, and details provided, when the details were not provided. I refer to recommendations 4, 6, and 11. Information was promised to be forwarded before the next hearing - recommendations 5 and 9 - and it is unclear what this means, but it is assumed when the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services next appears at a CTC hearing. There is no scheduled hearing for DHLGRS. Why does the CTC have to wait until another unscheduled hearing? If the government has agreed to provide something, it should be forwarded immediately.
Responses to some recommendations are less comprehensive than they could be. The summary style information does not fully address the recommendations. Examples of this are in responses to recommendations 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14.
I would like to go through the government’s responses to each recommendation.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind if I welcome these children?
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Miss Temira Wallis and Mr Brian Hyke. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Thank you very much, member for Nelson.
___________________
Mr WOOD: The first recommendation the CTC put forward was that SIHIP construction only be of housing designs that would deliver the longest possible useful life and low maintenance requirements, to which the government responded:
- A requirement for all new houses delivered under SIHIP is that they are designed to achieve a built life of 30 to 40 years.
It further responds by saying: ‘design elements and construction procedures includes fixtures, fittings, and equipment’ and talks about standardisation. It talks about an alliance design team applied to SIHIP to maximise the build life of the completed dwelling. However, it says at the end that solid wall solutions would be preferred solutions in communities where new house designs are yet to be finalised. That is exactly what the CTC was inferring by asking the SIHIP construction be made of materials that will have a useful life and low maintenance requirements.
That recommendation came from inspecting the Wadeye house damaged by a family member, not a tenant. He damaged the house walls, which were hollow. A number of houses put up by New Future Alliance are of hollow wall construction and our concern was if that situation and the cost of those repairs were duplicated, government would have expensive repair bills because the houses could not stand up robustly to potential damage. The issue we have, and the government has said in its response: ‘solid wall solutions will be the preferred solution’. We agree, however nothing has been done to change that. The New Future Alliance is still putting up hollow wall houses. We were saying solid concrete, like Thamarrurr or Territory Alliance build, which are solid wall and would last longer.
In relation to fixtures and fittings - since this report came out we inspected houses at Milikapiti and Pirlangimpi. One issue is the usefulness of installing so-called flick mixer taps. Whilst one of the responses is this is better for people with disabilities, the issue the CTC had is that most of the existing houses - you have to remember these refurbishments only cover some of the houses in these communities, not all of them – is you have installed taps which: (1) are expensive to repair; (2) are expensive to buy; and (3) do not match the other taps in those communities. With repairs and maintenance, especially if it is the council’s job, consistency is desirable. It would not matter if the houses were being refurbished, but someone should talk to people on the ground who maintain those houses; that has been a failing.
A similar issue arises with stoves. It was pointed out to us at Milikapiti that the new stoves are sealed stoves, making it costly to replace what we would call a coil - but they are not a coil, they are a sealed unit. Most of the other houses have stoves with a so-called open coil top that might cost $20 to repair. All those houses have that type of stove already. What has happened with the alliance program - using guidelines of people in the department saying this is the more appropriate type of stove to use - different types of stoves are now being put into those houses, which are not the same as the existing houses. They are more expensive to repair. The idea of uniform fittings in houses makes sense and saves money. The argument is these stoves are more robust. One of the issues we raised is ‘let us see’. Let us keep a check of these fittings and see if they are more robust – and only time will tell.
The second recommendation was:
- … that the Northern Territory and Australian governments urgently consider transferring SIHIP refurbishment funding from alliances to shires or other local government organisations to undertake refurbishments.
The response says that the Northern Territory and Australian governments have committed to pursue ‘best for program’ outcomes in all delivery aspects of SIHIP. It also says the Territory government has agreed to pursue this with the Australian government. What is disappointing is: where has that pursuance gone? The federal government has announced a second tranche of money for new houses and refurbishments. I have just spent time looking at SIHIP houses in Central Australia. I have said before that all shire service managers said to me: ‘We should be maintaining those houses’. I am interested in finding out from the government if it has really committed itself to changing this. If not, what is the problem? Is it the federal government’s intransigence in turning this around?
I spoke to minister Macklin when she was here for the Palmerston meeting. I had an opportunity to talk to her about this issue and said: ‘The councils believe you will get better value for money if they look after the refurbishments’. So far, even though the minister in Hansard said he thoroughly endorsed this idea, it will be interesting to hear if there is any chance of this happening.
The third recommendation is:
The CTC recommends that SIHIP program managers provide the CTC with details of the ‘programmed way’ DHLGRS repairs and maintenance funding is being used to complete SIHIP refurbishments.
The government’s response is:
- Executive Director of Remote Housing will provide further details to the CTC of plans to ensure the coordination between SIHIP refurbishments and the repairs and maintenance program.
The key phrase in the accompanying notes seems to be: ‘works are then coordinated with repairs and maintenance service providers to achieve best results to meet community housing needs’. Is an example of this how the repairs and maintenance refurbishment work is allocated on Melville Island? This did not appear to be working well for the shire or the tenants. There appeared to be a blurring of repairs and maintenance money, and what are refurbishments and the funding of them. There has been much debate about how much money - what is the value of the $75 000 when it comes to refurbishments. There is concern that councils have to pick up what the alliances do not have to do. That is an important area which requires discussion. I will come back to that in relation to something else later on.
The fourth recommendation is:
- The CTC recommends that it be provided with full details of all conditions and service requirements of housing repairs and maintenance funding paid to shires.
The government agreed saying:
- Details have now been provided to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Service level agreements are in place for all shires. The service level agreements set the conditions and service requirements and incorporate regular performance monitoring and reporting. Details of the service level agreements with the shires have been provided to the council.
If specific shire detail is required, this can also be provided with agreement of the specific shire.
The response to that, minister, is that the CTC received, originally, a pro forma SLA form; that is, without the requested details. The information had therefore not been provided. Copies of the service level agreements with shires were again requested in a letter to Dr Burns dated 14 March 2011 following a trip to Melville Island. The CTC has only received two SLAs for Tiwi and MacDonnell shires. Others have not been forwarded as the department says other shires did not respond to their request and therefore they do not have permission to release them.
In Clause 19.1(d)(ii), page 16 of the Property Management Agreement, it says: ‘obligations on confidential information in the agreement will not be breached if disclosed to a range of bodies, including a Legislative Assembly committee’. The question is, why were the signed agreements not provided, as there was no legal restriction on their provision to the CTC?
Recommendation five states:
- The CTC recommends a scope of works be published for the three Tennant Creek town camps where infrastructure works are under way.
The government’s response was:
- The scope of works in Tennant Creek will be provided to the council. Infrastructure works in Tennant Creek town camps are to an urban subdivisional standard, including roads and drainage, and Power and Water Corporation guidelines and requirements. The scope of works in Tennant Creek will be provided to the council by the date of the next hearing.
Recommendation six:
The CTC recommends:
At this time, remote shire councils do not have subdivision guidelines, and SIHIP are (sic) utilising guidelines developed specifically for the program.
It is acknowledged that shire councils are important stakeholders and program managers will consult with and involve shire councils in future works planning.
At a meeting of the Shire Council Environment, Transport and Infrastructure Reference Group (Shire Council Infrastructure Directors) in Nhulunbuy on 5 November 2010, standards, design, construction, and asset handover was (sic) discussed with SIHIP representatives.
Current SIHIP infrastructure planning and approval processes include standard design and approval processes involving the Department of Lands and Planning and the Power and Water Corporation.
That information is okay, but it does not deal with the recommendation in (b) that details be provided of the planning processes followed for designing SIHIP subdivisions and who participates in the processes.
I understand from the local member there were issues at Maningrida recently regarding the standard of subdivisions. Are the standards of the subdivisions the same as in Litchfield Shire? Hopefully, not the same as Pelly and Lorikeet roads. Are the standards in the towns the same as what would be required in a growth town? We have not received that detail we asked for and I ask government to look at this area immediately.
Recommendation 7 states:
- The CTC recommends that all cases of apparent malicious and wilful damage to public housing be reported to police, as part of the tenancy and asset management systems.
The government agreed to that.
- The policy in relation to malicious and wilful damage is aligned with that applying to urban public housing, whereby instances of malicious and wilful damage are reported to police.
The usual rules of evidence apply as to whether the police will decide to move to prosecution or not.
The question remains: if this is the policy, why was it not followed in the Wadeye case last year? I ask the minister, when responding, to find out what happened in that case regarding the damaged house; what was the outcome?
Recommendation 8 states:
- the CTC recommends the Northern Territory government honour its commitment to provide a detailed financial report on SIHIP each quarter.
That was agreed and provided – that is what the government is saying - a detailed quarterly report is provided to the CTC. While additional information was provided, detailed financial information was not provided. We are never going to see that detailed information under this process. The alliance process makes it difficult to get information about exactly how much money has been spent on houses. The argument is that this is part of a package and has been difficult. That is the reason we asked for detailed financial information. We want to see if there was $75 000 spent on a house and that information is extremely difficult to get, but that is important. We did receive our June 2010 spreadsheet in a timely manner, which had been a concern previously.
Recommendation 9 states:
- The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government provide details as to how the outcome of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated.
This is agreed by the government.
- DHLRGS chair the Healthy Homes Working Group under the board of management within the regional operations centre.
Condition assessment before and after the program will provide a basis for analysing the improvement in housing amenity across communities. Regular reporting to the board of management is in place and ongoing monitoring through the local implementation plans tracker.
DHLGRS agrees to provide further detail on this to the council prior to the next hearing.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan and Madam Speaker. It is unclear what ‘before the next hearing’ means and is unacceptable where there is an agreement to provide something, especially when no hearing is scheduled for DHLGRS.
Recommendation 10:
- The CTC recommends DHLGRS develop memorandums of understanding or agreements with all shires to improve coordination between governments and establish a single contact
This is agreed by the government:
- The department now has a single point of contact for the shire councils.
DHLGRS has undertaken a functional assessment that has identified improvements that are achievable within the organisation structure, aimed at improving the engagement between the agency and all shire councils, predominately aimed at increasing the capacity of regional offices to provide a first response to council issues.
As part of the functional assessment, the DHLGRS has put in place a new senior executive director of Local Government and Regional Services. This position and its underlying local government functions will act as a single point of contact for local government.
I highlight the last sentence: ‘a single point of contact’, but the organisation outlined appears to give more than one point of contact. There seem to be two or three - a senior executive director, her staff, and regional officers. The department’s organisational chart in the 2009-10 annual report, page 12, does not help either. Within the senior executive director’s division there are two discrete areas; one called local government and one called shire support. How regional officers fit into the organisational structure is not included so it does not clarify how all this works together as a single point of contact.
Recommendation 11 states:
- The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government:
I understand there have been changes to the CDEP program since then. The government has agreed to continue the CDEP program; however, an update would be useful because this is a major issue for councils and members of the CTC who are concerned about future employment in these areas. I will not read the response government gave on that issue, but an update - this is nearly six months old - on where we are at with CDEP would be welcome, minister.
Recommendation 12 is:
- The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government provide a report to the CTC on the number of current local jobs in local government by shire and community and the number of jobs that existed prior to local government reform.
We need that information to determine whether local government reform achieved the benefits promised by government. This is supported by the government:
- The NT government agrees that there is a need for improved reporting on local government workforce data and DHLGRS, LGANT and shire councils will develop a template and reporting framework to deliver workforce data, including Indigenous employment data. Data collected from shire councils will be reported by DHLGRS.
The only data that is available at this time however comes from some preliminary doctorate research conducted through the Charles Darwin University, based on an assessment of council records pre-July 2008 and in the first half of 2009, that shows a significant growth in council employment from 1660 persons with the former community government councils to 2300 persons with the shire councils in both core and agency-related services.
The response is that under the department’s property management agreements – SLAs - shires are required to report monthly on Indigenous employment in repairs and maintenance. Will that be included, and how and when will that information be collected and reported?
An issue with the government’s response is - are we able to get a copy of the Charles Darwin University report if it has been completed. The department or local government must have figures on how many people are employed. Community local government councils were going for quite a while; I would have thought they go back enough years for data to be collected.
The other side of the coin is to ensure there is a break up between employments by agencies, as distinct from employments by councils in their core functions. It is not accurate to say councils have more people; you have to compare apples with apples. Councils, generally speaking, stuck to their core functions, although some councils came to grief looking after agencies. We need to identify what is core function employment and what is agency employment.
Recommendation 13 states:
- The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government provide information about ongoing additional funding it has identified that will assist shires in delivering the full ranges of services.
Just now, this came up in debate in relation to swimming pools. The government’s answer is interesting:
- No additional funding will be provided at this time.
Funding for local government is a national issue that has been highlighted through a number of state and national local government financial sustainability evaluations. Local government in the Northern Territory is limited in its revenue raising capacity due to the small population base, the huge areas of land and, in the case of the regional shire councils, the prominence of Aboriginal land.
DHLGRS will negotiate for the development of shared understanding of service levels and standards and seek agreement on the costs of the required level of service delivery to ensure that there is a realistic expectation of service standards within existing financial resources available to shire councils.
In evidence on 14 September 2010, DHLGRS CEO said:
- We are wanting to get longer-term revenue streams locked in so that they can see a revenue stream coming in. We are working with our Treasury to ensure that where shires want to take a loan to invest, to improve their footprint, they can do that providing they can demonstrate the capacity to repay. There are a range of things we are working with and on, but in terms of their actual revenue base, that is going to be something that is going to take a little while to sort out.
What is happening about getting those longer-term revenue streams? If I have time, I might come back to that. I want to quickly move to the last two recommendations.
Recommendation 14 states:
- The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government urgently establish a Northern Territory statutory leaseholding entity or negotiate with the Australian government for the transfer of the Office of Township Leasing.
This is an area where government should provide an update to the House. It has been raised here as part of the debate. Where is it at? The government agrees with our recommendations:
- The implementation of this recommendation will require agreement on a process in conjunction with the Australian government, which has the responsibility for appointment of statutory leasing entities under section 19A of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Preliminary discussions have taken place with Commonwealth officials on this issue.
In order for a Northern Territory government statutory leaseholding entity to be effective, establishment should also involve close consultation with all four land councils. Ongoing discussions are taking place with land councils on preferred future approaches to leasing, particularly in the Territory’s larger remote towns and Central Land Council areas.
I will have to shorten that. The Northern Territory government’s response says negotiations were due to commence in early 2011. The response was tabled in early February 2011. Surely, there is more information that could have been included? What is the progress on this? Have formal negotiations commenced? Is there a time frame?
In a response to debate, the minister said government is trying to develop a plan for growth towns that includes long-term leasing arrangements. Part of that plan includes looking at the options for the Commonwealth being replaced by the Northern Territory entity, or for creating a joint Commonwealth and Territory office of leasing coordination.
The last, very important, recommendation is:
- The CTC recommends the existing township leases not be used as a template and the Northern Territory government insist on head lease terms for Territory growth towns that exclude the need for permits.
The NT government agreed and said:
- The NT government acknowledges that the existing township leases held by the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing are too restrictive to support a robust property market and investment environment in growth towns. This issue was examined in some detail in the second report of the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services. The NT government is advocating with the Commonwealth government …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson has already had an extension. There is only one extension.
_______________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Member for Nelson – Extension of Time to Complete Speech
Suspension of Standing Orders
Member for Nelson – Extension of Time to Complete Speech
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, has he? Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Nelson from completing his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not suitable for this kind of thing, member for Port Darwin. You know the …
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, I will try to …
Mr ELFERINK: It is a motion, Madam Speaker!
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: That was very unparliamentary.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate it.
_______________________
Mr WOOD: The answer from the government was:
- The NT government acknowledges that the existing township leases held by the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing are too restrictive to support a robust property market and investment environment in growth towns. This issue was examined in some detail in the second report of the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services. The NT government is advocating with the Commonwealth government …
The NT government is advocating with the Commonwealth government, land councils, and local Aboriginal people for township leasing terms to mirror conventional property systems and real estate markets. In particular, the NT government is seeking to ensure that leasehold property on Aboriginal land can be registered, transferred, mortgaged, developed, and accessed in a similar way to real property off Aboriginal land. As township leases are agreed under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the NT government’s current capacity to influence township leases is limited when compared to the statutory roles of the Commonwealth government, land councils, and traditional owners (however, note the response to recommendation 14 above).
The NT government acknowledges that head lease terms should provide those who hold subleases (and where relevant, their family, staff, contractors, and customers) with the ability to freely access subleased assets. This does not, however, necessarily require the removal of all permit restrictions in and around Territory growth towns.
In relation to permits, we were not saying there should be a breakdown of the permit system in general. Access to a town via road that does not require a permit is what the CTC was looking at. We understand that going to border areas requires a permit, but this is specifically in relation to the operation of growth towns.
Madam Speaker, I will not take up any more time; my apologies for going over, but I would be happy to hear the minister’s response. We asked for updates on some issues. Some issues need more full debate in parliament, especially regarding town leases, where growth towns are at, and where the issues such as refurbishments of houses done by alliances - the concept of that being done by local government councils - how far has that advanced.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I make a few comments, not so much about the report itself, but the circumstances surrounding the report and how it is passed through this House.
The member for Nelson correctly pointed out that this matter has been sitting on the Notice Paper since November last year. Once again, I will be accused of bullying by the member for Nelson, and I know the members opposite have now picked up the language, but I will always criticise the member for Nelson where I believe criticism is due, as any other member of this House, particularly government. Where I believe the member for Nelson is doing a good thing, I will recognise that, and will say so, as I will for any other member of this House. This is not bullying. This is the process of holding members to account. Yes, I hold a mirror up to the member for Nelson from time to time because he has the opportunity of a lifetime and is squandering it. Moreover, he is doing it for reasons that I cannot entirely fathom.
The member for Nelson’s opening comments today reflect my beliefs. When the member for Nelson started speaking here today he made comments about his disappointment in certain aspects of government’s response. He asked for the CTC to be created in a time when he was not even sure what the CTC would take. To do what he wanted it to do at the time, it was going to have to be a second Chamber of this House, but he settled on a committee, and the rest is history. A term of the agreement which keeps this government in power is that the member for Nelson would not continue to support a government engaged in maladministration. The government plays a perilous game with the member for Nelson, as he is the one who keeps them sitting on the government benches. They now demonstrate a level of indifference, which is reflected by a report that was handed down in November last year not finding its way to the top of the Notice Paper for discussion for fully nine or 10 months, and the member for Nelson accepts that.
If I was in the member for Nelson’s shoes, I would find that unacceptable. He is not happy with the answers from government. If I was to pull out the – what is it - the 18-page document or whatever, which is the agreement between him and government; how many of the promises have been kept? And yet the member for Nelson continues to support this government.
There are numerous examples of maladministration, which was one of the grounds that the member for Nelson said that he would not continue to support government; the cattle deaths on Mataranka is one that springs to mind. The references from the Johnson Report, where billions of dollars are being spent in the Northern Territory with little outcome, is evidence of maladministration. Child protection and its shortcomings is evidence of maladministration and the list goes on. Crime rates, cost of living, land release; none of those are areas where the government has gotten anywhere near to reaching its benchmarks and yet we hear the member for Nelson continuing to persevere with support of a government which has been correctly identified by the member for Fong Lim as moribund.
Yesterday, the member for Nelson said: ‘It is a year to go and then the people of the Northern Territory can decide’. That is a declaration that he has no intention, no matter what happens, no matter how he or his agreement is treated, that he will in any way hold this government to account by bringing it to a general election before 25 August next year. That is an abandonment of opportunity. The member for Nelson will say I am bullying him; I am not bullying him. I just find it incomprehensible that he would take these opportunities and cast them to the four winds.
He continues to criticise government. Yesterday he was talking about matters unacceptable to him. Again, in this House, I say to the member for Nelson, if you find those things unacceptable, the answer is simple. You walk over to the Chief Minister and say: ‘Make me the minister responsible for that area’ and become part of the solution. The Chief Minister will not have much choice if you say to him: ‘It is either a general election or make me the minister’. But, that is not what the member for Nelson does. The member for Nelson continues to support the government and, whilst he challenges them from time to time, follows up with nothing. And that is the frustrating thing about sitting in this House. If he wants to keep that government in power - fine - but use the opportunity to bring about some of the good that the member for Nelson continues to complain about not seeing in the community. If that is bullying, then so be it; it is bullying. But, I am not going to walk on the egg shells of mere civility for the sake of stepping away from my duty of making fair criticism when it is required. I am confounded and continue to be confounded by a member of this House who has enormous capacity to bring about change and refuses to do so.
The CTC itself is an expression of this difficulty. I was on the CTC, and I am on one of its subcommittees somewhat reluctantly. The council of Territory coercion would probably be a better description. When I was on the CTC, it took months to properly figure out the administration of the organisation. The CTC has had many hearings and over time has taken valuable evidence to demonstrate how things are working and how government operates. It continues to do so, but its inability to influence government is locked in; an admission the member for Nelson makes himself. His opening comments about how government received and dealt with the report show this government has now stepped away from responding to this committee. This committee was supposed to be a revolution in politics, but it has descended into arrangements that existed prior to the government’s crisis several years ago.
We have committees of the parliament and this is but one. Despite the rather grandiose name of Council of Territory Cooperation, it is nothing more than a committee of this parliament. It has some surprising powers but extending similar powers to other committees would allow them to achieve exactly the same things as the CTC. With a few tweaks to its terms of reference, the Public Accounts Committee could do everything the CTC does.
For these reasons, I continue to hold this mirror up to the member for Nelson. He does not enjoy it, but government does not hold a mirror up to him. It now essentially ignores him. If he continues to give away his power and allows government to continue ignoring him, the maladministration of the Northern Territory will continue for at least another year if the member for Nelson is to be believed.
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Taminmin College students accompanied by Miss Ngaire Smith. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will wrap up this debate. Turning to the member for Port Darwin and his quite melodramatic offering about a mirror - that mirror is one in the fun park where you have no legs, or a big head, or long arms. The mirror the member for Port Darwin holds up is an interesting, tricky mirror. It is how he wants it; he is trying to bait the member for Nelson. We saw him go to his chair the other day and stand over him. However, in a political sense now …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is alleging I, in some way or other, threatened the member for Nelson. I would like him to produce evidence of any of this otherwise the minister is lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Minister, could you carefully word what you have to say bearing in mind the standing orders.
Dr BURNS: It is in the member for Port Darwin’s political interest to discredit the work of the CTC. The opposition withdrew from the CTC, withdrew engagement, withdrew from direct access to senior public servants and, indeed, any other witness the CTC called in relation to the matters of its inquiry. It cut off its nose to spite its face for political grandstanding and ideology. It has not got over the fact in 2009 it thought it had it all in the bag; it thought it would be in government within a couple of months – that government would pass to the Country Liberals. It was too lazy to go to an election before the people.
I previously said on the floor of this parliament that it was a gross error of judgment by the Leader of the Opposition and one wonders how much he wants to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He fumbled then and it has been downhill ever since for the opposition, and it has turned its guns on the member for Nelson.
A citizen recently pointed out how silly that strategy is. For the election in 2012, our polling is clearly showing it is neck and neck and could well come down, once again, to the member for Nelson. You have burnt your bridges. You are burning your bridges in continually attacking the member for Nelson. In 2012, the wisdom of the people of the Northern Territory will decide who to install in government. I said to the member for Port Darwin a number of times: ‘The people are never wrong; the people are always right’. There are a number of ways this could go - I have mentioned one possibility. Politically, you are burning your bridges. That is all I will say about the member for Port Darwin.
From the government’s perspective, we value the work of the Council of Territory Cooperation. Sometimes, the issues raised by the CTC and the member for Nelson, in particular, are uncomfortable for us. To say government does not take the CTC seriously is incredibly wrong.
The member for Nelson raised a number of issues today - you would almost call them nuts and bolts issues - about stovetops, taps, and a range of things - particularly the works at Milikapiti. As soon as those issues were raised, I went to Milikapiti and beyond, with the member for Nelson. I took the CEO of the department. I am not sure whether Mr Kirkman came along; there was possibly someone else from the department. The alliance was onsite. We went site to site that day. The member for Arafura was also with us. We talked through the issues with both the experts and the local community. So, to say the government does not take the issues raised by the member for Nelson seriously is absolute balderdash. We do take them seriously.
The member for Nelson has raised the issue of our response to the third report. If the member for Port Darwin had listened carefully, he would have heard the member for Nelson talk about a number of things that have been achieved; reports that have been given to the CTC; actions that have been taken over a whole range of matters. There are 15 or so recommendations, and the member for Nelson gave a bit of a scorecard, in his view, about how many had been fulfilled, how many were maybe, and how many he felt there had been some lack of action. It is a report card from the member for Nelson.
What I can do is give the member for Nelson assurances that on those outstanding issues, where we can, we will endeavour to supply further information. I give this undertaking to the member for Nelson today - I am prepared to meet with him once again, as I did on the Milikapiti issues. I hope my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, will also meet with him, with the CEO, and let us talk through, one by one, the issues the member feels are outstanding and get an action plan. I will give the member for Nelson that undertaking, just as I did when I went to Milikapiti. If the member wants me to go to other places I will; the member knows I like to get out of the office. In fact, I am jealous of the way he goes around the Territory, engaging with many people.
Even without an agreement between the government and the member for Nelson, the member for Nelson, since 2001, has been the hardest working member in this place. The way he engages in debate, in committee stage debate, and informed debate - not just foolishness, as sometimes comes from some opposition members. Some of them engage in committee stage debate in a good way, but the member for Nelson does not grandstand; he is not into handstands; he is not into political bits and pieces; he is into getting to the bottom of issues. He is a terrier; he never gives up. He is absolutely tenacious in what he does and I respect that.
I do not always agree with the member for Nelson, and I cannot always supply what the member for Nelson requires because, if we are talking about SIHIP in particular, this is a partnership with the Commonwealth. The member for Nelson wants every bit of SIHIP financial information laid on the table, but I cannot do that, member for Nelson. You mentioned the alliance contracting model and its complications. I have expressed publicly on many occasions my reservations about the alliance method, but it is what we have and I am working with it as best I can.
As the Auditor-General said in his SIHIP report about a year ago, the alliance model has some pluses, and we have to recognise that. The pluses are around flexibility and consolidating effort. These are important and positive elements of alliance contracting. The negative is until a stage of work is completed, it is difficult to ascertain the exact financial cost. As you are aware, package by package, we have tried to supply you and the CTC with financial data about completed packages. Although the costs were slightly higher than I had hoped for, on average, they are in line with the predicted average cost for new houses, rebuilds, and refurbishments. We will continue to supply you with that financial information. I suppose the element …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My report was on behalf of the CTC; just to make sure people do not think this is my report. The minister is addressing it as ‘I’, but it is actually the CTC, just for clarification.
Dr BURNS: I did acknowledge that at the beginning of my offering, Madam Speaker, where I said that government members were sitting on the CTC, but I will talk in general terms, member for Nelson.
Government cannot provide commercial-in-confidence information to the CTC. The alliances entered into contractual arrangements with government and expect confidentiality. Nonetheless, costs can be and are attributed, but there are difficulties with the alliance model.
I am confident we will be releasing more information about SIHIP for the 2010-11 financial year and figures are being finalised. I should be in a position to release more information, particularly with the completion of packages. I need to give you that assurance, member for Nelson. I operate on advice. I am more than happy to share that with the committee, where appropriate, once again recognising we are in a partnership with the Commonwealth and it has views about recording and reporting frameworks. It is not just a matter for the Northern Territory government; the bulk of this substantial funding of $672m is from the Commonwealth, so it obviously has a major say.
Issues raised by the member for Nelson on behalf of the committee and our reply to the committee - as I said, I am more than happy to meet to work through some of those issues with the CEO where the member wants more information. I noted a few of the recommendations - 4, 6, and 11 - outstanding ones you mentioned where you said you required more information. I will endeavour, with the CEO, to get that information.
You talked about scheduled hearings; the CEO and Mr Kirkman are - I do not know whether happy would be the word - but they are pleased to be involved in those hearings, and when summoned, they will come. I want to commend Ken Davies. I have worked with several CEOs over my time, and Ken Davies is very hard-working, and attentive to his department and its performance. Given the scale and unique nature of SIHIP, it is a work in progress. Some of the questions you asked I do not have the complete answer for, for that reason. In this first tranche, and hopefully it is a first tranche - first stage of this enormous project with 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds, and 2500 refurbishments - that the next steps we will learn, we have already learnt so far, and we will continue.
You mentioned, for instance, that you wanted solid wall house construction. Government has said that is our intention too. That is the way we want it to go. You also said that one of the alliances was continuing to build steel frame construction. We must recognise that we have already entered into contractual arrangements with that alliance and cannot change those arrangements without much heartache and expense. What we are talking about is the future, about what we are going to do, and it is going to be solid wall construction.
In my original speech on our response, I talked about the approaches I have had and, no doubt, the member for Nelson and other members of the committee have had, people from interstate and even local Territory companies saying: ‘This is a wonderful thing, it is in a shipping container, and all you have to do is take it out and open it up and it is ready to go. You can do it in two weeks and it is $200 000’. Magnificent products, many of them, but I do not believe they are durable enough for the 30- to 40-year time frame we want. They are wonderful products for building in the rural area, or for government employee housing on remote communities. I am not putting the products down but our experience told us these houses need to be very durable.
Vis-a-vis the Wadeye property you alluded to where a family member unfortunately put an iron bar through the wall of a steel frame construction house. Member for Nelson, you asked what happened. I can assure this House that the family has been pursued and is repaying the debt for the damage to that house. I am not sure what has happened with criminal proceedings, but with the other undertakings I gave today, I undertake to ascertain whether there have been criminal proceedings in that case. I have made it plain to my CEO regarding damage to houses - whether they be in the urban area or the bush - that I want perpetrators of damage to be pursued. I want the incidents of damage reported to police and I want those perpetrators pursued for the debt. I am focused on that, member for Nelson.
You mentioned – I am only up to recommendation 2 - where we are in negotiations about transfer of refurbishments to the shires or other local entities that could carry out that work and provide local benefit and possibly efficiencies. I inform the House that our advocacy with the Commonwealth continues on that. They feel there are contractual agreements in place but that is where I want to go.
SIHIP is a work in progress. The Chief Minister and I, and my office at an officer level, continue to advocate for this with minister Macklin and FaHCSIA. I am glad you spoke to minister Macklin and we all need to do that. I see that as the natural direction; the positive direction at the local level for the next stages of this project, so I am reporting where it is and we are continuing to advocate.
You asked a question about the standard of subdivision. I visited the Maningrida subdivision and it appeared to be of a high standard. If there are problems, I will meet with you and the member for Arafura to discuss issues related to that. The extreme rain event we had earlier this year, Cyclone Carlos, was centred over Maningrida and probably right over that subdivision. There have been problems with the roadworks due to a washout. The roadworks were beginning to be formed. They had not been compressed – all that engineering side of things - and, unfortunately, the extreme rain. I forget …
Ms Scrymgour: Eight hundred millimetres.
Dr BURNS: Eight hundred millimetres in one day. That is an incredible amount of rain even for the Territory, and created a …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
____________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Wanguri and Brennan
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Wanguri and Brennan
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling a suspension for lunch, I have received a document relating to pairs for the member for Wanguri and the member for Brennan for the period 3 pm to 5 pm. I table that.
____________________
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Bernie Finn MP
Mr Bernie Finn MP
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Bernie Finn MP, member for Western Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council of Victoria. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Chief Minister for his government’s pretence of support for the Territory’s live cattle industry while failing to rebuke the Gillard Labor government for its blanket ban on live cattle exports and failing to deliver any real and meaningful assistance to thousands of Territorians now suffering under economic hardship as a result of the ban.
Madam Speaker, it is a well-known practice of the Labor Party - that franchised and deceitful brand - to use such notions as bipartisanship and ‘let us not go down the path of politicising things’; it is a smokescreen, a shield, a deception from dissecting the core of this issue. The reality is the bipartisan position was taken at a time when there was a devastating decision taken, a cold-blooded decision that had a monumental and catastrophic effect on the Northern Territory pastoral sector and its heroic and hard-working families, as well as the regions of the Northern Territory, and the economies that are struggling in our regions.
Make no mistake; it was absolutely clear this was not Cyclone Yasi. This was a political decision. At the time, the effect of that decision caused many of us to stop and consider our actions. The first action of the opposition was to visit Indonesia because it recognised that this cold-blooded, calculated, political decision had an effect on the relationship with our near neighbour. Immediately, the response was not a political one, but the right thing – to visit our neighbour, let them know we are still with them, and prepared to work with them. Step No 2 was to demonstrate the gravity of the effect of this decision to the people of this nation and, most importantly, the pastoralists, those heroic families; demonstrate to them how seriously we take the effect of this cold-blooded, political decision. It was not Cyclone Yasi. This was a decision taken in Canberra.
The second point was to recall the parliament and join in a spirit of bipartisanship, but I will not be conned, nor will I be gagged. The bipartisan position was taken to reinforce the effect of this disaster resulting from a decision; we did that. The purpose - because of the damage - it was like a terrible accident or disaster had occurred. The first thing is to render assistance, and we rendered assistance by demonstrating the gravity of the situation. We came together in this place and I acknowledge that was the right step. I acknowledged the step taken by the Chief Minister and those who work on the fifth floor, and by my colleague, Dave Tollner, and those who worked behind the scenes to make that happen. That was a good and necessary step. We achieved our objective. We reinforced the serious effect of this decision. Make no mistake; the bipartisan position was to demonstrate the effect of the decision. I remained silent, as many of my colleagues did at the time. However, a decision was taken that once we rendered assistance we needed to draw our attention to how this problem occurred in the first place.
I bit my lip because I could not believe a Chief Minister would stand, nod, and plainly create the impression of support for the decision taken by Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of this nation. The head of the Labor Party, the franchise brand across this nation that made this devastating decision, stood there meekly.
I waited to see whether there was capacity within this Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to wake up, stand up, and recognise his first priority is not to his Labor brand but to the people of the Northern Territory. He was given an opportunity to stand in a bipartisan position. Why? Because we needed to render assistance to those people devastated by the decision he meekly accepted. We gave him that position, gave him the place to stand, and I was happy to occupy that place for a time to render assistance. However, I could not swallow the fact a decision had been made; a political decision that made our Chief Minister mute. He could not genuinely express honest offence at the decision Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, of the Labor government federally, had made. He could not stand up and criticise.
I considered it from the other point of view. If the Chief Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, and John Howard had made such a decision, what would his response be? What position would he take? What high moral ground would they be standing on? Instead, they are relieved that we provided them a space to stand so they could say: ‘Let us not politicise this’. As the lame duck Asian Relations and Trade minister said all through estimates: ‘Listen, please, I warn you not to politicise this. I am not going to answer any questions on this because it is political’. That is a thin deception covering a decision not to be accountable for the decisions you have taken that have affected families.
I come to the point why I changed. I was at the Katherine Show and Gary Riggs was there. He is a man for whom I have great admiration. Why? Because I know people from the land. My brothers are on the land. My son worked for eight years in the pastoral industry. He gained his first place in the pastoral industry under the guiding hand of Gary. I know his family. I know the story behind the scenes. Yes, they might have a four-wheel-drive but I know the workload. People from the city say: ‘When are your holidays?’ You cannot take a holiday – you have to work it out. You want to create a future for your children so you extend your capacity and extend your lease because you have young lads who might want to take on greater responsibility because they love the land. It is like a calling.
My son was under his tutelage in his early days. He loves the industry and I admire that man who represents families – men and women across the Northern Territory. He, like others, spoke to me during the show circuit and, in plain language, described the effect this has had on their future. When a man of the land says this could well mean they will walk away, it is like ripping the heart out of a person who has devoted himself to the land. That discussion is going on around dinner tables across the Northern Territory, the Kimberley, and Queensland. I know that pain, but the pain is more bitter because it was a cold-blooded, clinical, political decision taken by the Prime Minister and Ludwig. It has had devastating effects across the Territory, the north of our nation, not to mention the effect in Indonesia. I do not think people grasp that.
I acknowledge, given the gravity of this situation, there needed to be a response. I am pleased we now have some cattle going on boats. However, I will not be conned, nor will I be gagged, and I will stand up for those families. I will stand up for them because this was a decision that destroyed their hope and livelihood - and I know what this does to the morale of men, particularly, and the women who support them. It was so serious that we needed to reinforce that a response was required to a very serious situation, which we understood. There was some hope with the stand we took in this parliament, and the position we provided, through discussion, for the government – which was exposed on this – that we stand together and render that assistance. The hope was it would leverage a national response. It is unusual for a parliament to come together, unusual for an opposition to make that call initially, and for the government to accept that.
I expected Western Australia and Queensland would follow the same, in recognition of the seriousness of the situation. First, we needed to render assistance - that is what you do when you come to the scene of an accident - you help. That is what we did. We did what we could do from opposition. That is why I went to Indonesia. How offensive for the member for Casuarina to refer to that as a holiday! You ask my wife about what I should be doing with my money. I did that because it was the right thing to do; to let people, who were bewildered at this decision, know there was a way forward. Those people were offended at a blanket ban - for goodness sake! What message does that send to our Indonesian neighbours who are determined to drive reform? That is what they want. We offended them immensely and damaged our industry, and the Chief Minister - as he has done, sadly, since he has been Chief Minister - never stood up in a genuine way to his federal Labor masters – never!
Something goes on in that Labor brand. I do not know what they do to create this meek observance and respect for the brand. I do not know what it is. It is a different outfit. I could never be a part of that outfit. You do not stand up for those families and you do not understand the reality of the pain of real people who work in the real world, and what effect your calculated and cold-blooded decisions have on families. I know what that is like.
So, when I had that conversation in Katherine, I thought: ‘It is over. It is time now, once assistance is rendered, which is appropriate, to turn our attention to how the accident was caused’. It was caused by weakness to stand up to a political response by the Prime Minister and Ludwig, who were influenced and controlled by extremists. Not finding voice to distance immediately, instinctively, away from that position, but to meekly follow along - and follow all the way - I find offensive. I cannot tolerate that any longer, nor can the opposition.
If it was truly bipartisan - this great spirit of bipartisanship, which I find as a cloak of deception with an intent to gag discussion - the ad in the paper flowing from those discussions would have been bipartisan. Was it? No; it was the government. They ticked that box. We contributed to the national discussion and complied with the spirit of bipartisanship by putting a response nationally into the media. I think it was - correct me if I am wrong, member for Fong Lim, was it just one ad that went into the paper - the national paper - one ad, in the spirit of bipartisanship, no. Once again, I kept my mouth closed. I wondered why. I thought, I know what is really going on here, some sense of relief because really once again the Labor Party sees this, and this Labor government, sees this as a political issue. We have to manage this situation, and we provided them with a place from which they could manage the situation. So, if it was genuinely bipartisan I would have seen a genuine response to that call for some communication to the rest of the nation as to the effect this decision had. No, it was not bipartisan.
There was a media conference at the wharf. If it was genuinely bipartisan, if it was genuine, the Chief Minister would have called and said: ‘Come on down’. It has never been genuinely bipartisan. It has just been a convenience, and we will not offer that convenience any longer: the convenience of a refuge, of a spine that is dangerously weak and does not stand up and provide the appropriate leadership at a time when families desperately need it.
We should have, in a spirit of bipartisanship, accepted a call to censure the federal government - where was that call? There has not been any criticism. There was commentary in the Northern Territory News. I am not sure who wrote it, probably Mr Nigel Adlam - a couple of stories about the Chief Minister going to Canberra and putting the blowtorch on the evil characters in Canberra who imposed this terrible situation on us …
Mr Conlan: Xenophon and Wilkie.
Mr MILLS: That is the sideshow! The main game is a decision was made to impose a blanket ban. The issue has been canvassed. We know there was a need for a response. For goodness sake, the President of Indonesia knew there needed to be a response. They never expected their near neighbour would impose such an effect on their economy, which affected national security and exposed them to sovereign risk. Food is important to a nation of 240 million people. What sort of neighbour does that; offend them, and then threaten their food security?
Make no mistake; it is a serious issue in Indonesia. I do not know whether you picked that up because I have not heard anything. You people seem to be so mild about this; you are seeing this as a political exercise, or some media thing you have to manage. ‘It is a public relations exercise’ is where your heart and soul seem to be, and that is why you do not appear to dig deep when it comes to serious issues. You are relieved when given places to stand; things to do that create impressions. I bet you get a sense of relief when you see: ‘Oh yes, people are starting to think I am doing something about this’, says the Chief Minister, ‘Good, we seem to be winning the PR exercise’.
Meanwhile, people are concerned about their future. These are not public servants; these are people who have a weight of debt you would not believe. If you are on the land, have an asset, and have borrowed to extend, to create capacity today and a hope for your kids, you borrow lots of money. That has to be repaid. Labor does not seem to understand that basic concept, but the level of debt these families are holding is something you could not believe. When the asset is devalued as a result of a cold-blooded decision taken in Canberra - which you have not found the spine nor the voice to stand up and call it what it is - you increase the weight to an extent that people find it difficult to sleep at night. They worry about their future, considering what day they will make a decision to drive off the land and not come back; that is the effect.
It is not a public relations exercise for God’s sake. This is real, and the pressure is immense, and to allow this charade to go on any further in phase two of this - now that some assistance has been rendered - we need a proper response and to recognise how this accident, this deliberate damage to an industry, occurred.
It occurred because someone made a decision. It was the Labor government in Canberra that made this decision and it was this Chief Minister who has still not found voice to criticise that decision or stand up for the Northern Territory. His greater interest is preserving solidarity with the comrades, rather than standing with Territorians. That is not on, and we will not cop that. We cannot do it. I am not going to abide by the spirit of bipartisanship any longer because I will not be gagged. I did it, and we did it, because it was the right thing to do and it has served its purpose, until now.
Now we have an obligation to stand up and call it for what it is because to do otherwise would be negligent and complicit, and we will not be. This Chief Minister, for the lack of real leadership, for courage at a time required, for this government with its capacity to practice the art of deceit by taking this whole issue as a public relations exercise, follow along behind the crowd, not respond appropriately, have calls from the opposition such as: ‘Do something practical like your pastoral rents’. I found that the lamest excuse, which demonstrates from the Chief Minister the lack of compassionate and real leadership.
To say the first job it had to do was resume the live trade before it considered something basic like sending a message: ‘Do not worry guys, we will lift that off you, we are here to help’. You could have done that at any time; it is a bit like giving someone a drink of water when they are thirsty. They have been caught up – they are in trouble, they are worried, they are frightened. You could have said that right at the beginning and acknowledged that the deputy leader, the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources had made that call and so she should have. It was the right call to make. But to wait and to have a lame dog excuse saying: ‘Oh well, we had to do this first, now we have done a press conference down at the port, and now we can announce that’.
Anyone can see that announcement was made when the parliament was resumed; that is what it was about. It was a public relations exercise; people can see that. They can see the timing of it; the excuse does not wash. You are not genuine. The Chief Minister is probably going to be hurt: ‘Yes, we had bipartisanship and now he has wrecked it, so he is a baddie, and I thought the Opposition Leader was sincere’. I am sincere. You can come to the scene of an accident and stand there and be sincere, but you have to actually help people. You can be sincere and observe. You can be sincere and perhaps not grasp the fact that you have actually contributed to the problem. Yes, I am sincere. The Chief Minister is sincere. But there is a problem and the problem was caused by a decision and that decision I can spot quite sincerely was the wrong decision and had devastating effect.
First job: render assistance. Second job: I cannot abide by that decision. I find it galling so therefore we stand up now and call it as it is and this is the time to call this Chief Minister out, and this Labor administration, for lack of leadership, lack of courage, and lack of conviction about anything meaningful. You deserve censure.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I express my deep disappointment that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to abandon a bipartisan approach. This is not about politics. From the beginning I said this is about people’s lives; people in the Northern Territory and northern Australia. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks he is the only one who knows people on the land, he is wrong. I know people on the land. I have friends who work in the pastoral industry, and no, member for Fong Lim, I am not joking, I know people. Some of these people are my friends and I know what they have gone through during the period of the ban.
I have said many times that I had the misfortune to spend time in Australian abattoirs as part of my studies. I have never seen anything like the footage in Four Corners report; that footage was as bad as what we saw from Egypt and the Middle East with cattle and lambs. Something happened in the Middle East and Egypt - there was a trade ban for live cattle and live sheep for a period of time. In Australia this time the public reaction and what people felt about it - even the industry condemned the practices at those Indonesian abattoirs.
We stand here in the spirit of bipartisanship and will not seek to politicise it because the last thing people in the pastoral industry want is bickering between two political parties in parliament about: ‘I am better than you, I have better photographs than you’. They want the problem to be resolved so they can go on with their lives. The reality is from the very first moment I was not afraid to speak publicly. If the Leader of the Opposition goes back he will find I was the first one to say it was a crisis for the Northern Territory and northern Australia, and the first one to say this had the potential to transfer the welfare issues from Indonesia to northern Australia. When the ban was announced on 7 June, I spoke to the federal minister about it. I advised him about the implications the ban would have on the Northern Territory and, on 9 June, when the Prime Minister was here to open the medical school, I spent 20 minutes briefing her about the implications the ban would have on the cattle industry in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia.
Since that day, we have worked closely with the Cattlemen’s Association and the live cattle exporters because we realised the issue would have wider implications than simply on people growing cattle in the Northern Territory. Many jobs and businesses rely on the cattle industry in the Territory - from the small shop in Tennant Creek that changes car tyres to the fuel supplier in Katherine, to the people working on the wharf, and people working on the boats. Not only that, the implications go wider than the Northern Territory; they expand to Indonesia, and I will come back to that.
I spoke immediately with my counterpart in Western Australia, Terry Redman, and Tim Mulherin in Queensland. All three recognised the impact on the industry in our states, most of it in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, less in Queensland. The Queensland minister recognised the impact it would have on his cattle and beef industry should the number of animals currently being exported not find their way to Indonesia but were directed to the internal trade.
I met with officials of the federal minister many times. I participated in a teleconference on 10 June. In the teleconference, we talked about the establishment of a working group of live animal exporters made up of Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia. I insisted Luke Bowen from the Cattlemen’s Association be part of that group since the Northern Territory had a big interest in Indonesia. From the first moment, I offered to travel to Indonesia with Senator Ludwig and advise him about the special relationship the Territory has with Indonesia and the Indonesian government. Irrespective of governments in place, we always had a good relationship with Indonesia. Even in the darkest moments of the relationship between Indonesia and Australia, during the East Timor emergency, the Northern Territory still maintained a good relationship with Indonesia. I offered to travel to Indonesia.
We did not stop working with the Cattlemen’s Association and the cattle industry. The Chief Minister went to Canberra. The Chief Minister and officials travelled to show our level of support to the federal government. We made it very clear what we thought about it and, in some cases, our calls were echoed through …
Mr Elferink: You agreed with them.
Mr VATSKALIS: … the southern newspapers that actually tried to portray this as a different position to the federal government, despite the fact that both governments are of the same political persuasion.
No, we did not agree with that, member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, you did. You stood up there with Ludwig and said: ‘This has to happen’.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: We agreed animals have to be treated humanely, in a way they are treated in Australia. What we said was we would like to continue …
Mr Elferink: You supported the ban.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we would support the ban as long as our animals continued to be treated inhumanely, the way it was portrayed on Four Corners …
Mr Westra van Holthe: So, you supported the ban!
Mr VATSKALIS: What we also supported, member for Katherine - because you are well-known for twisting things and having your own way - was to invest in Indonesia. We called upon MLA to invest in Indonesia to upgrade the abattoirs utilising our Australian animals; to upgrade the facilities so the animals are treated humanely in those areas ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr VATSKALIS: I am the first to argue that if it was about animal welfare, the worst thing was to stop exporting live cattle to Indonesia. If we stop live cattle from Australia, Indonesia will be supplied live cattle from other countries, with wider implications. Not only would those animals be treated inhumanely like the ones we saw on Four Corners because there would be no pressure from the importers to change their practices, but also the potential for certain animal diseases to find their way to Indonesia and, from there, to Australia.
Last week, I heard the Leader of the Opposition saying he went to Indonesia. He did go to Indonesia and I congratulate him for that. He visited an abattoir, and I congratulate him for that. My trip to Indonesia was at the personal request of the federal minister for Agriculture, Joe Ludwig, who asked me to utilise our special relationship with minister Suswono and the members of his department, and also meet with the MLA. With me went Luke Bowen from the Cattlemen’s Association, Rohan Sullivan, the President of the Cattlemen’s Association, and Adam Hill who represents the exporters.
During the three days I spent in Indonesia we met with a number of senior officials from the Department of Agriculture and discussed the issue of live cattle exports. I also met with the Deputy Minister for Trade and his team. In addition to that, I visited a feedlot. All the information I gathered I conveyed to the federal minister for Agriculture and highlighted the Indonesians were disappointed the ban was put in place without them being advised. I also advised him of their disappointment about the way very limited information was coming from Australia. The clear and blunt message was: ‘You put the ban in place. If you want us to come to the party, you have to lift it’.
My trip to the feedlot was an eye-opener because I met the manager who has 130 families working and surviving because of that feedlot. The feedlot closed because there would not be any more animals, and 130 families would find themselves without a house and an income.
I also looked at the market and at the time, because of the ban, the price of meat in Indonesia had risen by 70 per kilogram. When it was pointed out to me that the average Indonesian family survives on $2.50 a day, you can imagine the impact that increase would have on the average Indonesian family.
What was also an eye-opener was the officials themselves advised me they condemn the inhumane treatment of animals. Indonesia has in place a number of laws and by-laws to control the slaughter of animals. Unfortunately, some of these by-laws were not policed strictly in some of the more remote abattoirs. For your information, Indonesia has 660 abattoirs. Of these 660 abattoirs, 134 were utilising Australian animals. Of these 134, approximately six or seven were complying with what we call international standards or Australian Standards.
We also have to consider the cultural differences between Australia and Indonesia. Many people felt it was an attempt by the Australian industry to change from live cattle export to chilled beef. I assured them that was not the case and certainly in the Territory we cannot provide them with chilled beef for the simple reason that we do not have an abattoir - neither has north Western Australia. Indonesia highlighted that we have to take the cultural differences between Indonesia and people in Australia into account. The Indonesian people like live animals for their religious ceremonies and, also, the average Indonesian household does not own a refrigerator. An Indonesian housewife will go to the wet markets on a daily basis to buy the meat she will cook that day for consumption by her family. There is nowhere to store fresh or chilled meat; there is no way to store leftovers.
We conveyed this information to the Australian Embassy after meeting with the Australian Ambassador, Mr Moriarty, and I thank him very much for his assistance. We met with MLA officers in Indonesia and discussed the issue of upgrading the abattoirs. I was not hopeful at the time, because there was some change of staff at MLA. I could not get my head around how many abattoirs MLA was investigating, how many abattoirs were going to be upgraded, what was the time frame, who was going to pay for it, how quickly there would be an audit of these abattoirs, and by whom, to assure the Australian government that everything was fine so the trade could recommence.
This issue is beyond politics. As I said before, it is about lives; lives in Australia and lives in Indonesia. I am not talking about consuming protein; I am talking about lives and bringing up families.
In Australia, a significant number of cattle from the Territory find their way every year to Indonesia - about 280 000 cattle. If these 280 000 cattle stay on land, the impact on Territory land will be significant. Because of the distance factor, many of these cattle cannot be sent south because by the time you truck them and sell to the abattoirs, you will not receive much in return. The transport costs and sale price would probably be the same. The kind of cattle we grow in the Northern Territory north of the Barkly is not the kind of cattle the average consumer in the southern states demand. That became very clear when Coles, New World and Woolworths advised they did not intend to buy any of these animals because they do not meet their specification.
You can imagine having a property which is probably mortgaged to the bank, you have 30 000 cattle on the land. Okay, the weather was good, there was plenty of feed at the time, but as it gets drier you need money to buy diesel to power bores to have water pouring. You also have to buy feed because the land can only support the animals for so long. We were heading for an animal welfare disaster in the Northern Territory.
The trade is just starting to open again and will trickle compared with what we had before; only a small number of animals will go to Indonesia this year. When the Wet comes, you cannot muster the animals, you cannot take them out, and you cannot export them to Indonesia. The animals stay on the land unless the abattoirs currently under upgrade in Indonesia fast-track so we have more abattoirs. We need more abattoirs in Indonesia so we can export more animals.
We have been lobbying the federal government to allow animal exports from the Northern Territory and Western Australia to Indonesia to remain in feedlots for 100 to 150 days to allow time for abattoir upgrades. If this is adopted, the pressure on the land and pastoralists would be relieved. We will continue to insist on that, because we cannot just say: ‘Let us put these animals out there. These animals are good enough for the seven abattoirs currently meeting our standards. When the others are upgraded, then we will export more animals’. We have to be proactive, put pressure on the MLA, and put pressure on the feedlotters and suppliers to comply with the guidelines we have put in place.
The Chief Minister and I gave evidence to the Senate committee recently. We highlighted the problems faced in the Territory, the pressure on pastoralists. We highlighted the cost, not only to the pastoralists, but also to the Australian public. In discussions with some of the banks, I was told they have significant portfolios of pastoral properties and that means a lot of money. We are not talking about a million or two or $10m; we are talking about two, three, four hundred, possibly billions of dollars of properties in their portfolio. If pastoralists cannot export animals and are not able to pay their mortgages, banks are bound to find themselves with a significant portfolio of properties that probably will have a value of about 30% to 50% and people unable to pay their mortgages. That will be a significant impact to the banking sector in Australia, which you and I, and everyone else will pay through interest rates on our mortgages.
Should we not be able to sell our cattle, the cattle have to go somewhere. If they go down south as low quality meat - most likely mince meat to be used as patties for the fast food outlets - this will press the price of beef down. We have seen that happening in Queensland and the southern states because of an influx of beef from the other states, namely Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
This is not about playing politics. I do not think it is clever or appropriate for us to play politics with this significant issue. We have to be together. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition made his choice. He found excuses to say: ‘I am pulling out of this bipartisan approach’. We are not; we still believe we can work together although suddenly the Leader of the Opposition does not want to work together. I am pretty sure there will be some members opposite, member for Fong Lim, who would be willing to stand together and walk together for the pastoralist. I said before this is about lives …
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t you invite the Leader of the Opposition to your media conference and say: ‘What a great job he has done with yourselves’?
Mr VATSKALIS: … this is an issue about lives.
I know your electorate does not have many pastoralists living there and neither does mine. However, we have friends outside our electorates who have properties and work together. They might not live in our electorates but there are many businesses in our electorates that have some connection to the pastoralists.
The Indonesians were appreciative of our visit. They had an opportunity to speak to us. I conveyed all the messages to the embassy and to the federal minister for agriculture and I was pleased he took my offer to visit Indonesia. I am pleased that he rang me and asked me to do that. Obviously, the message sunk in because when I was at the Jakarta airport waiting to board an plane back to Darwin, I received a phone call from his office to advise me that the minister had decided to lift the ban, effective immediately, under certain conditions.
I do not have many photos of abattoirs because I did not visit abattoirs at the request of the Indonesian host. I have many photos of cows in feedlots, but having photos means nothing. The important thing is not going for a photo shoot, but going to discuss how to assist your industry, how to contribute to lifting the ban from the Australian government. That has not finished yet because this is only the beginning.
We have insisted on a working group to oversee the development and upgrade of abattoirs in Indonesia, working together with MLA. We have a vested interest as industry and as governments. We and Western Australia - irrespective of their Liberal government – both have an interest in making sure the trade starts and starts quickly - in time at least to be able to muster animals, bring them to the ports, load the boats, and send them away. We have insisted on the development of a working group; we are pushing the federal government for a working group to be established. Both the minister from Western Australia and the minister from Queensland are keen on it and we will continue to work together to make sure this happens. I understand the minister for agriculture is already thinking about it.
Yes, that was a decision made by government, but it was a decision made for a particular reason. We might not like the outcome, but something had to be done at the time. We could not close our eyes and continue to allow animals from Australia, or anywhere, to be treated the way we saw them being treated at those abattoirs. It is easy to blame Indonesia; to blame the people who were working in the abattoir. We have to consider the cultural differences between them and us. We also have to consider that abattoirs in Indonesia do not operate on a commercial basis as they operate here in Australia. My advice from Indonesia was that some of the people killing animals were not even paid in money; they are paid in meat. So we are not talking about professionals in the same sense as here in Australia. We are talking about people who kill animals the way their father and grandfather did.
In addition, most of the abattoirs, especially the smaller ones, are not owned by the corporate sector but by local governments that do not spend money to upgrade them. Local governments whose only interest is how many animals they put through to take a cut out of and not put anything back into the abattoir. Feedlotters and officials gave that advice to us. There are problems in Indonesia but we have to work with Indonesian authorities and we have to work with the Indonesian private sector to upgrade the abattoirs if we want to continue to supply live cattle to Indonesia.
Unfortunately, with the advance of media such as the Internet and Facebook, we will continue to see many pressure groups utilising the power of the media to pressure governments. It was obvious a massive campaign was occurring through the Internet and Facebook in the beginning with e-mails about banning the live cattle export and then the Four Corners report. People were told something bad was happening, there were advertisements on the television that this was to be shown in a few days time and, when it happened, everyone became upset because of what they saw on television. What we saw was not what happens in the majority of the abattoirs utilising animals from Australia. The majority of those abattoirs are well run, owned by the corporate sector, and comply with international and Australian standards. The abattoirs we saw were small abattoirs, probably far away from Jakarta, filmed by people who entered the abattoirs and people who were not professionals or properly trained to kill the animals.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our commitment is to work with the opposition. The bipartisan approach is not about playing politics. It is about supporting our industry, and supporting our people in the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion 100%. When the government says it does not want anyone playing politics with this issue, it is actually saying it does not want anyone scrutinising what it has been up to. We saw it today when the minister for Indigenous affairs spoke about Indigenous health saying the issue is bigger than politics. What she is saying, in effect, is we do not want scrutiny on this issue. This is what government says by saying it wants a bipartisan approach. It is saying do not scrutinise us. It is scared of scrutiny for the reasons given in this debate so far.
The first person to say we needed a circuit breaker, this is a good decision, I support the ban, was our Chief Minister. He said it in Question Time today. He said we needed a circuit breaker; that is, we support the ban. The minister for Primary Industry said the same thing - we supported the ban. That is beyond doubt; that is a simple fact. We all know that is the case. Since then, the language and the rhetoric has changed to the point where it is clear to most people that government realises there is a massive impact on the Northern Territory economy.
Supporting the ban was probably not the right decision to make. I am not going to belt them up about that; we all make mistakes. What galls me is there is no scrutiny at all by this government on their federal Labor colleagues. That really irks me. Senator Ludwig’s decision to ban the live cattle export has to be one of the worst decisions taken by any government, anywhere in Australia, at any time. It is horrific. The damage caused to our local economy, to families, to businesses, to the fabric of North Australia, is incredible. The minister touched on the damage it has caused in Indonesia. It has caused massive damage. As he said, in one feedlot 130-odd families - not individuals, families - rely on that industry.
This decision was taken, as I am aware, without any consultation with the Northern Territory government or the Indonesian government. Senator Ludwig just announced the decision. There was no regard for Indonesia’s food supplies or food security; no discussion around that before the decision was taken. Indonesian people were given no opportunity to investigate or test the claims of the ABC or to weed out rogue operators. The minister told this Chamber that the practices undertaken in the footage of the Four Corners show were illegal in Indonesia. Surely, the Indonesian government should be given the opportunity to police its own laws before we instantly call for a blanket ban.
The worst thing of the lot was the message that Senator Ludwig, Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, and all those other weirdos sent to the Indonesians. The message they sent to the Indonesians was no more than: ‘You guys are a pack of cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That is the message that got through to Indonesia: ‘You are cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That is a disgusting message to send. That message should have been pounced on by every right-thinking person in Australia. We have the minister for Primary Industry now telling us he is the first person anywhere to call this a crisis. Whoopee doo! He said we have a special relationship with Indonesia. Well, he is right, but this government has done nothing to foster that relationship.
One of the first meetings I had in Canberra when I was elected member for Solomon was with members of the Northern Territory cattle industry who wanted to meet with Mark Vaile, the then federal Trade minister. It was an eye-opening meeting because I walked into that room with them, and one of these guys said to Mark Vaile: ‘Minister, you might find it unusual to see us down here because we have had such a good relationship in the Northern Territory with the Indonesians. Any time we ever needed anything done in Indonesia we got on the phone to one of our Northern Territory ministers and the problem was fixed, because the Northern Territory government had such a wonderful relationship with Indonesia. That has all broken down since the election of the Martin Labor government. For the first time ever we are in Canberra talking to the federal Trade minister about issues to do with the live cattle industry between North Australia and the federal government’. That is how much this government cares about Indonesia.
As I said, the message the federal government sent to the Indonesians is: ‘You are a pack of cruel little monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. There is no other way the Indonesian government, or the Indonesian people, can interpret that arbitrary decision made by Senator Ludwig. The damage that has been done to our industry is absolutely incredible.
We are hearing now that things are slowly being fixed. There is a deal that some 180 000 head can be sent to Indonesia. Indonesia has issued import permits, but we do not have export permits in Australia for that many head. If that was the best case scenario, it would mean that probably a third of our trade would resume. What that means, of course, is that two-thirds of our trade has not resumed.
I look at the farms that can take advantage of this decision and those that cannot. The ones that will take advantage of this decision are the corporates. It is the corporates, Elders, AAco, and the rest, who have the capacity, the supply chains in place, and the ability to guarantee a no-stun, no-deal policy. The little guy on the land, the mum and dad farmers, who have been here for several generations, I very much doubt whether any of them will be able to get any cattle out at all. For them, nothing has changed whatsoever. What do we hear from this government? Do we hear this government calling on the federal government to buy those cattle?
The federal government took away their customer. The federal government made this bizarre decision to put a blanket ban on the sale of cattle into Indonesia. The federal government is responsible. Any just-thinking person would say: ‘If you are going to do that, you have to buy them’. If I walk into a newsagent and rip up all the magazines on the shelf, I am expected to buy those magazines. If I do not, I would be charged and dragged off to court. The federal government has to stump up and buy the remaining 400 000 cattle that are staying in Australia because those cattle are no longer a domestic herd. They are what most people would consider a feral pest. That is the absolute reality of it. There is no market for these cattle. As time goes by, they exceed all Indonesian weight limits. They go over the 350 kg mark, they go over the 400 kg mark. Whatever that mark is, they become unsaleable. When they are unsaleable, they might as well be a horse, a donkey, a camel, or a feral pig, because they are just a grass burner. They are something that is taking food out of the mouths of genuine domestic animals that will be sold for food consumption, but there is no opportunity for that. Maybe the federal government can buy all those cattle and turn them into pet meat.
The federal government has to step up to the plate here. What really irks me is the Northern Territory government, whilst they rant and rave about Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie and others of that ilk who have no understanding of life in North Australia, and no desire to have an understanding of life in North Australia, whilst it gladly condemns them, it is not prepared to condemn the real culprit in this matter. The real culprit is the federal Labor government. We elect governments in the Northern Territory to stand up for us. We are a small jurisdiction considering the number of people dispersed across a big area, and we need to punch above our weight. We need to yell louder than anyone else in Australia to ensure our voice is heard, and that is what we primarily expect out of our government in the Northern Territory.
We come into this place and time and again we hear stories about the bad old days of the CLP and the decisions it got wrong. Everything was bad, but you never, ever hear a story of a CLP government not standing up for the Territory. You never hear a story about that. Irrespective of the political ilk of the federal government, CLP politicians from Paul Everingham through to Denis Burke were not scared to get up and have a crack, get up and have a go at the federal mob every time they did something that was bad for the Territory. We do not hear that from this mob. Never, ever, do they stand up to the federal government and defend Territorians.
The live cattle export industry is an incredible industry; we have so much to be proud of. It is only a recent industry, in the scale we now have, which started some 20 or 30 years ago. With the closure of meatworks in the Northern Territory, this industry sparked up. At the time when we were sending cattle overseas things were not particularly good. Welfare issues were of major concern; the rickety, little, old boats would get over to Indonesia and the cattle would be standing in some rice paddy up to their guts in water, having a poor diet, and killed in inhumane ways.
Over this period, the industry, Territory government, and the Indonesians have worked collaboratively to get us to today’s standards. This industry should be the envy of all Australians. The trip over there on these cattle boats has a lower mortality rate than a P&O cruise. That in itself is something to be extraordinarily proud of.
Twenty or 30 years ago, we sent nutritionists who went into villages, looked to see what was around the village, and devised a diet specifically around keeping cattle healthy. We spent millions and millions of dollars building feedlots – first-class, envy of the world feedlots. From the time a calf drops on the ground in the Northern Territory to the time it is knocked on the head in Indonesia, it enjoys a better life than cattle from practically anywhere else in the world.
Yet we have some mad woman who goes to Indonesia with a camcorder, films the last few seconds or minutes of an animal’s life, and for that we have to shut down a whole industry, put thousands of Territorians’ lives in jeopardy, several hundred families on dole queues, devalue our pastoral industry, put pressure on banks, and ruin what was an incredibly harmonious and good relationship with the Indonesians.
Do we have a government in the Northern Territory standing up and condemning the federal Labor government? No, we do not. We do not at all. What we have is a Territory government that hides behind a veil of bipartisanship and will not do anything to cause problems for Ms Gillard, Bob Brown, and Mr Ludwig in Canberra. It hides behind the veil of bipartisanship to cover up its shortcomings, rather than standing up and defending Territorians. It says it does not want to play politics with this issue. We have heard that time and time again today.
Two things have stuck in my mind: there was an announcement made about the ship going overseas and a list of measures designed to assist Territorians. Was the Opposition Leader invited to that media conference? Was the opposition Primary Industry spokesman invited to attend that media conference in a way of genuine bipartisanship? No.
What happens in Question Time when the minister for Primary Industry is put on the spot about what he did in Indonesia? He starts a tirade against Senator Scullion. Somehow or other Senator Scullion visiting a meatworks in Indonesia is to be condemned, because Senator Scullion went on a tourist visa and managed to look at the situation firsthand when the minister could not. I say ‘good on’ Senator Scullion for showing the desire and initiative to go there to see what was taking place on the ground. There has not been a louder voice in Canberra on this issue than Senator Scullion. He had the guts to condemn Joe Ludwig and Julia Gillard for their ridiculous decision. He has done the business of what should have been happening in the Northern Territory. He has been standing up having a serious crack.
If you want to look around the Northern Territory and find federal representatives to throw rocks at, you would not have to look too far. You would have to ask whose electorate does this affect most, federally? Could it be the electorate of Lingiari? It covers 99% of the Northern Territory and has all the Northern Territory cattle stations in it. What has minister Snowdon said about this? I do not think you would find five lines in a newspaper anywhere. He has not said boo about his colleague, Senator Ludwig. He has said nothing about the decision made by federal Labor.
A colleague of Nigel Scullion in the Senate who has been rather quiet is the president of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, Senator Crossin. What has she had to say? Absolutely nothing!
This government needs to be condemned. We would like to act in a bipartisan way with this government but not when it is all about hiding the truth from Territorians or not standing up for Territorians. Territorians demand better and demand their government stand up for them and direct blame where it is due …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired. Please resume your seat, thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion. This side of the House strongly supports the pastoral and cattle industries, its producers, graziers, families, employees, contractors, service businesses, and the countless Territorians who have been, and will be, affected by this short-sighted, misguided action in regard to the Territory’s live export trade.
It goes without saying that we support, in the strongest terms, the improvement of animal welfare in the supply chain and abattoir processes so standards meet, if not exceed, international and best practice standards. The long-term sustainability of the live export trade is dependent on addressing animal welfare issues in a cooperative and collaborative way between government, industry, and community.
That was my opening statement in the motion before the House about the live export trade and I believe it is important to state it again, to show, and make clear, the full extent and depth of this issue and the impact on the Northern Territory people and economy.
This issue is a matter of huge significance not fully known or understood some 10 weeks back, particularly by the federal Labor government. It is a serious issue to 250-odd pastoral families in rural Northern Territory and countless families working or involved in the pastoral and agricultural service and export industries. It is a matter of significance to the Territory and Australian economies. I do not believe the federal Labor government or this Labor government fully understand the impact it has had and will have on our economy. It is a matter of significance to future confidence and investment in the Northern Territory. By no means last, it is a matter of enormous significance to the social fabric of rural communities in the Territory.
It is important to highlight what is involved in the pastoral and agricultural industries. Too often people skim the surface of an issue or only see what they want to see. Clearly, that is what happened with the federal Labor government and its blanket ban on the export of cattle.
The industry is more than just growing cows; it is about families, businesses, livelihoods, regional development, Indigenous opportunities in remote and regional Territory, and social cohesion. Live export was built up over 20 years in the Top End of the Territory, specifically breeding cattle for the Indonesian market, creating a primary industry of purpose-bred cattle - purpose-bred cattle meaning the Brahman and the Brahman-cross cattle. They are a resilient cow, they are tick resistant, they breed well, and they travel well.
Other industries associated with the pastoral and agriculture industries are real estate, finance, and insurance. Let us look what happened to real estate. Cattle stations/pastoral properties were on the market to be sold. When the ban happened, two properties were pulled off the market. Other pastoral properties were looking at subdividing their lands - that was stopped.
Finance: we have finance companies in from South Australia, as I speak, trying to assist, advise, and counsel many cattle station people as to their future.
Insurance: can they get insurance into the future? Will an insurance company provide insurance to a pastoral property, given the nature and the risk of the business - or so they may perceive?
Transport: a massive industry - truckage, haulage, helicopters, and the fuel industries. Has government done any studies to ascertain the impact of reduced consumption and sale of these products?
The export yards: we have four depots in the Top End. We have companies, family companies, which own these depots. We have managers from different companies who manage these properties. There are the shipping and stevedore industries, and veterinarians and animal health. Veterinarians and AQIS people have to be at the depots and export yards to monitor animal health and welfare.
Aboriginal employment through agistment and training pretty much came to a standstill. Cattle from Robinson River were loaded on trucks ready for transportation to Darwin. They were stopped and told the cattle had to go back to Robinson River. The Aboriginal people in employment out there did not understand why and, when it was explained to them, they were not very happy with Labor governments.
Hay producers, feed producers, processors, and nutrition supplement manufacturers have all taken a massive hit. I will come to the agriculture people in a minute. There are the specialised animal husbandry services on the pastoral properties as well as in the holding yards and export yards. There is a whole sub-industry of rural contractors who service the pastoral and agricultural industry. For example, drilling and maintenance of bores, fencing contractors, pump and the water tank manufacturers, builders of permanent holding yards, cattle yards, and temporary yards - they have also been impacted to a dramatic extent.
In addition to these businesses and industries, there is a vast network of activities in the industry and the community. The pastoral industry, their products and services, provide entertainment, but they also provide learning activities for young people and perhaps not-so-young people, including camp drafts, rodeos, agricultural shows, field days, workshops, and, of course, cattle sales.
Recently, I attended three of the agricultural shows in the Territory. The cattle and agriculture sections were a bit gloomy. The Droughtmaster cattle sales were cancelled in Tennant Creek, the Cattlemen’s dinner was cancelled in Katherine, and the live export section of the competition did not happen at Royal Darwin Show. Many cattle people did not come in from the bush for these agricultural shows. They did not bring their families in to spend time at the shows, enjoying swapping stories, and generally talking about their industry and where it is, or is not, going. The camp draft at Katherine Show only went ahead when the show society provided additional funds to make it happen.
During the recent Senate committee hearings in Darwin, harsh facts and figures were put on the table. When AAco, the Australian Agricultural Company, made their presentation, they said they had put off eight Aboriginal stockmen at their Barkly properties. There was a lost employment opportunity of up to another 50 people who would not be employed during the mustering season, which is not going to happen in that area. In one month, Road Trains of Australia’s turnover was down $2.5m, and they had put off 13 full-time employees. All heli-mustering helicopters are grounded. The maintenance companies and businesses associated with the heli-mustering industry have also put off workers and their turnover is right down. When you have an apprentice helicopter mechanic, which is a specialised type of employment - there are not too many employment opportunities for those young people unless they go interstate or become a pizza delivery person or similar. Other stations have said they are letting stockmen, ringers and maintenance people go.
During the Senate hearing, there was a story about Outback Helicopters. A young helicopter pilot who spent all his savings getting his helicopter licence was recently employed, recently married; and his wife had only just graduated as a preschool teacher. She was pregnant and ceasing work. For some reason, she did not qualify for any support. He was put off by Outback Helicopters because there was no work. They had embarked on building a house and borrowed money from the bank. The bank found out he was out of work and she was not working. They stopped the finance; stopped the funding. They have a half-built house and are still living in a donga. That is just one story and I am sure there are many more like that. They have a young child on the way. Both of them are unemployed and they have a life ahead of them in a donga on a rural property somewhere.
An area not yet covered and about which I have not heard from government or the minister, but would be interested to hear, is the impact of a live export ban on the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry, in regards to pasture and hay production and servicing the live export trade, has come to a standstill resulting in job losses. The Douglas Daly and Katherine regions specifically grow hay and produce for the live export market, both for depots and holding yards, and on the ships. In one week, the cows and cattle housed at Noonamah eat in excess of 3000 to 4000 bales of hay. That is an enormous amount of feed now sitting in sheds and on properties. It will start to lose value and will not be good for anything.
The federal government has been exceptionally reckless in the way they have gone about this. They have again treated the Northern Territory with disdain and contempt. They do not appear to be concerned about the impact on people in particular, but also our economy and our future. It is disappointing this government does not seem to want to come out and fight harder and stronger for, not only the pastoral industry and agricultural industry, but also all the communities in the remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support this censure motion. The government needs to do more – much more. They did freeze rents on pastoral leases - a good move - that we called for some nine weeks ago. We urge them again to speak with local shires to see if they can come up with a compromise with compensation so the cattle people, the pastoral people, do not have to pay rates. Sure, it is not going to be a large amount of money, but any compensation, any support they receive would be welcome, particularly by the small family-oriented pastoral people.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is an astonishing position of a government who no longer cares to effectively stay in this Chamber when they are under censure. This government claims the spirit of bipartisanship but acts utterly unilaterally. If this government genuinely wanted to pursue bipartisanship on this issue, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory would have been standing shoulder to shoulder next to the vessel that left the harbour today, but they were not. This was the Paul Henderson show, and it is all about making the Chief Minister look good.
This side of the House generated the spirit of bipartisanship when we called for the recall of the House to deal with the issue. In the briefings with the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff, it was like dragging him into this room, dragging him in. Finally, they came in here and we kept our side of the bargain. We bit our tongues, knowing the Chief Minister was sitting next to Senator Joseph Ludwig nodding away saying: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do; this is the right thing to do’. I can tell you what was at the forefront of the mind of the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government: ‘Whatever we do, we will do nothing to criticise the Canberra-based Labor government, Julie Gillard and Joe Ludwig. They are in enough trouble and we are not going to add to their pain’.
This claim to bipartisanship, but offering nothing in the process, is demonstrative of a deceitful government that continues to be deceitful in the way that it continues to morph itself around this issue. It has come 180 degrees from: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do’, nod, nod, nod, next to Julia, to: ‘Yes, we are here fighting for the Northern Territory. Look, we are attacking some Labor backbenchers and we are attacking Senator Xenophon’.
The people you should be attacking, government, are the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and specifically, Senator Joe Ludwig, and you should have launched that attack on day one. The defence of the industry should have been loud and proud. There was barely an utterance. The minister says: ‘I was on the phone. I made a phone call’. Bully for you, minister. When did you front the media and the cameras and say you were proud of the live export industry in the Northern Territory? Never! Never heard the word proud, never heard the word protect. Never heard any of those words until we got a feel for how the issue was going and then we would start to make a few comments and see how we were tracking.
This government has clothed itself in disgrace in the way it has conducted itself in relation to this issue and this government should stand condemned for it. If this government wants to take an approach of bipartisanship, it should behave as if it was part of a bipartisan parliament. But it is not. It never has conducted itself in this fashion. It merely saw bipartisanship as a political advantage to avoid scrutiny and criticism rather than to embrace what was offered in the first instance.
The Leader of the Opposition was in Southeast Asia whilst the Northern Territory government bunkered down in its offices. The member for Fong Lim was in Canberra whilst the government members were still talking to their media advisors saying: ‘What should we do next?’ Other members of this House were standing in front of cameras saying: ‘Let us bring the parliament back for this vital and important issue; stand up and say we are proud of the industry’, whilst this government continued to try to find the mood of the community.
Madam Speaker, this issue could not have been about anything other than leadership. Those people who stood up and were counted, irrespective of what the political cost might have been, all sit on this side of the House. Those who sheltered in bunkers, hid and cowered behind their fifth floor staffers, all sit on the government benches. That truth cannot be denied. As far as I am concerned, because of that truth, this censure could not but be supported by anyone who has observed what has gone on inside this House and beyond it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I said at the outset of this censure that we would take it reluctantly. We recognise it as a political stunt and the end of bipartisanship on this issue. So it is amazing to me that the member for Port Darwin earlier today talked about mirrors in relation to the member for Nelson and told him to have a good look in the mirror. I said the member for Port Darwin should hold a mirror up to him and the mirrors he engages in are the same mirrors you find in a sideshow that distort reality, that make someone incredibly short or incredibly tall or without a midsection.
What we are seeing here this afternoon is a different sort of mirror. It is the rear vision mirror; it is trying to change history. They were engaged in a bipartisan situation with the government and suddenly there has been a change on their benches. The member for Fong Lim has come in and they have decided to politicise this issue. In short, we will not be participating any further in this political sideshow of a censure.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note Paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, February 2011
Note Paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, February 2011
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have been given an extension of 10 minutes.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, this is resuming the debate on the third report of the CTC.
I have a little more information about the property at Wadeye the member for Nelson alluded to that was the subject of malicious damage. I have been advised that the house in question, presumed to be Lot 596 Wadeye, was repaired and there has been no more damage or reported antisocial behaviour since this incident. The cost of repairs was less expensive than initially thought, and the tenants have completed Centrelink deduction forms to make restitution. The tenancy manager in Wadeye, in consultation with the community, further addressed the issue by finding more appropriate accommodation for the family member who was residing at Lot 596 at the time, and allegedly damaging the building. This has proven to be an effective solution to the antisocial behaviour, as there have been no further reports of antisocial behaviour or tenant-related damage.
Madam Speaker, I commend the local community in relation to this. I understand criminal charges were not laid in this case. That was a question asked by the member for Nelson. Apparently, there was insufficient evidence available. However, restitution is being made - an agreement has been made - and I am advised that there have been no further incidents of antisocial behaviour damaging that dwelling.
In relation to Recommendations 5 and 6 regarding subdivision standards for SIHIP, I am advised it was agreed that the Alice Springs Town Council Land Division Requirements for Council-related Infrastructure 2006 would be adopted. This is quite appropriate given the fact that those town camps are incorporated, as I understand it, into the Alice Springs Town Council service area to be serviced by the town council. I believe that step was reasonable.
In Tennant Creek, Barkly Shire Council does not have published guidelines. The standards adopted were based on an assessment of infrastructure in equivalent NT jurisdictions and the existing level of amenity in Tennant Creek. At the commencement of SIHIP, the shires did not have standards for subdivisions in remote communities. Remote Housing NT reviewed town council guidelines for infrastructure in rural areas and considered the existing level of amenity in remote communities to develop the SIHIP infrastructure guidelines. Following consultation with LGANT and shire council infrastructure officers throughout 2010, Remote Housing NT has provided funding of $50 000 to assist the development of remote community subdivision guidelines. Remote Housing NT has given all shires an undertaking to engage the relevant councils in the planning, design, and construction process of future developments.
There was a myriad of questions asked during the member for Nelson’s speech. I have undertaken to meet with him and further discuss some of his concerns with the CEO of Housing. I reiterate that offer. I have also discussed this with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, because some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson are in her portfolio area. We agreed we will meet with the member for Nelson and others to hear firsthand his concerns and resolve them wherever possible.
As I said in my speech, SIHIP is a work in progress. There has been much progress over the last 12 months in completion of houses and other infrastructure. Much has been learnt through this process, and there have been a number of reviews. I understand the Australian National Audit Office is also reviewing this program. All of us in this House, and in federal parliament, will be looking very carefully at that review. I am sure that review document will be closely read by all; particularly the member for Braitling. I will be reading it very carefully. I believe SIHIP is progressing and it is exceeding its targets for completions. We will complete our targets by the target date of 2013.
I understand the debate will continue over this important project, and I hope it is constructive debate based on fact. We do not want to go back to the missing $200m alleged by the member for Braitling who had not read the partnership agreement which explained where the money was, and existing commitments. I am sure he will read things much more carefully after that blunder where he believed there was $200m missing. It is an important area and I look forward to further debate. Obviously, the CTC will be carrying out further reviews, further site visits to places all around the Northern Territory and I welcome that.
I want as many people as possible engaged in this program, to see there have been negatives and things that have not happened as quickly as they could have, but there also have been positives - positives around Indigenous employment, up to 25% to 30%. The member for Nelson has been concerned about real jobs, as he said, but this is a long journey. Many people who have been engaged in this program - Indigenous people at the local level - do not have a history of work and employment, so this is a first step. It is a step at a time, it is an incremental step forward, and it is going to be a long journey. I have said again and again publicly in this place, it needs a commitment for a sustained effort over many decades, particularly by the federal government, whichever political persuasion might be in Canberra, to address the arrears in Indigenous housing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the committee. I have not agreed with everything it put forward. It can point to a number of things that government has met the committee with; the department has supplied information. There are areas we need to attend to, and as I said earlier, there are probably areas where we cannot satisfy the committee because it is a work in progress.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this report today.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – The Century of Northern Australia
Note Statement – The Century of Northern Australia
Continued from 8 August 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of minutes left, I believe, from Monday night. I was highlighting …
Madam SPEAKER: Fifteen minutes left.
Mr CONLAN: Fifteen minutes, fantastic, thank you, Madam Speaker, … government’s failure in infrastructure and what they have done, and I was up to where the Chief Minister, once he took over, really is desperate for something to hang his hat on. He needs a big infrastructure project under his belt. So when this show is over, when he is exposed, and when he finally finds this whole show comes to a close for him, he can turn around and say: ‘I have done that’. That is why he is very desperate and very keen to see INPEX come to the Northern Territory - as we all are. The member for Fong Lim rightly highlighted the other day that, of course, we all welcome INPEX and we hope they get a wriggle on and we can get that show on the road.
We talked about a century of North Australia and the next 100 years. It is important to understand exactly how we reached the point where we are in the grand scheme of things, and how we are possibly going to get to the next 100 years, and what we are going to provide for Territorians. It is worthwhile highlighting exactly what was achieved under the previous government; that is, the 27 years of Country Liberal government. Stack that up against achievement in infrastructure, and what has been built - physical stuff, bricks and mortar - and major projects brought to the Northern Territory. Stack those up with what has been achieved over the last 10 years of the ALP under the Martin/Henderson governments.
The establishment of national parks under the Country Liberals - no government has established more national parks than the Country Liberals - Litchfield and Keep River, Charles Darwin and Gregory National Parks, and Windows on the Wetlands.
If I remember rightly, when Palmerston was first mooted and the first sod was turned - the members in Palmerston would remember well - what did the then ALP refer to Palmerston as? It was ‘Palmerslum’. That is what they used to call it. That is how they referred to it and it was a disgrace. As an Alice Springs member, I lament and say with a heavy heart, it just might be the second biggest city in the Northern Territory, but I think Alice Springs holds that mantle, metaphorically anyway. The reality is that Palmerston is the second biggest city in the Northern Territory.
Much of that is attributed to the failure of this Northern Territory government because they have failed to address the pressing issues in Alice Springs, invest in Alice Springs, and keep that town growing. It will be interesting to see what the census figures reveal for Alice Springs. The last census in 2006 showed a decline in population in Alice Springs for the previous five years. It will be interesting to see what growth we have experienced in the town over the last five years.
Kings Canyon, Yulara, the Katherine Gorge Visitor Centre - no mean feat – and they underpin major tourism for the Northern Territory. The Gold Battery and Tourist Information Centre in Tennant Creek - I know the member for Barkly would be well aware of that. The Northern Territory museums and Channel Island Power Station - where would we be without that wonderful project by a former Country Liberal government. The Arafura and Masters Games’ are initiatives of the former Country Liberal governments. I think we are up to the 24th year for the Masters Games. It is a wonderful event. Anyone who has ever taken part knows exactly how good it is and the contribution it makes to the Northern Territory and the local Alice Springs economy.
The Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park; State Square; the very building we are standing in single-handedly saved the economy of the Northern Territory. It was completed in 1994 and those living in Darwin at the time tell me that every single tradie had a job because of this infrastructure project at State Square. Stokes Hill Wharf and, of course, the Alice Springs Convention Centre; the ribbon was cut by the Labor Party but they are pretty good at that. They did the same with the railway. Barry Coulter became a one-issue politician towards the end of his career, focused on making sure that railway was completed between Alice Springs and Darwin and it took him years, six years, a term-and-a-half from my understanding. He was the man who brought the railway from Alice Springs to Darwin, and regrettably, Clare Martin did not even invite him to the ribbon cutting, but you get that.
A member: They never do.
Mr CONLAN: They never do.
The Alice Springs Convention Centre: I know we have a convention centre in Darwin and it is a terrific facility but you would have to say, before its completion, the Alice Springs Convention Centre was the jewel in the Northern Territory crown for conventions. Some might say the convention centre in Darwin is detracting from Alice Springs because people have a choice, but that is a good thing.
The Marrara Sporting Complex, built by the Country Liberal government; Charles Darwin University; they brought the V8 Supercar championship to Darwin; East Arm Port; gas development; and the railway.
That is a list of infrastructure projects and major events the former Country Liberals brought to the Northern Territory. It spent 27 years developing a number of projects and bringing a number of infrastructure projects to the Northern Territory. In fact, you could safely say it pretty much built the place. We had to when we took over in 1978 after self-government. The Commonwealth gave us endless amounts of money to build the Territory and get it set up. It was the Labor government, under Walsh as Finance minister, who said to Bob Hawke: ‘That is enough. No more special treatment for the Northern Territory; they will be treated like any state in the nation’. It was unfair, and since 1984 we have been treated financially like every other jurisdiction across the country. It would be difficult to keep up and pay for our circumstance in the Northern Territory. We have done pretty well and successive Country Liberal governments from 1978 to 2001 did an extraordinary job to get us to this position.
If we look at the last 10 years, the Northern Territory government commissioned and completed the wonderful waterfront development. The other side like to take pot shots and say: ‘You did not support it at the time’. I supported it. I was not part of the Chamber that opposed the waterfront; I was an average Joe Citizen in Alice Springs and I thought it looked pretty good.
Mr Elferink: We did not oppose it. The idea was generated by Tim Baldwin.
Mr CONLAN: I was getting to that. This is what the government does not like to hear: former CLP member, Tim Baldwin, proposed the idea. Nevertheless, the waterfront project is an outstanding success and I thoroughly enjoy taking my family there when they are in the Top End. That is good; hats off to you.
The oncology unit: I have wracked my brain to think what you have done in major infrastructure projects to take us into the 21st or 22nd century because that is what this is about. This statement is about the next 100 years. As we look into the 22nd century, what projects has this government commissioned, signed off, developed, and finally built? We have the waterfront and that is terrific, and the oncology unit which took a long time. It took pretty much the whole term to do. You proposed it in 1999 from opposition - Clare Martin. You came to government, you had your mini-budget in 2001, and we have had a succession of Health ministers come and go during the life of the oncology unit. Now we have a world-class facility. Contrary to what the member for Casuarina likes to protest, I have been there on several occasions and it is a world-class facility and Territorians should be rightly proud.
We firmly believe those living in Central Australia should be able to enjoy the long-standing relationship with Royal Adelaide Hospital and undergo cancer treatment at Royal Adelaide Hospital if they so wish. There is enormous kinship between Alice Springs and Adelaide, just as there is strong kinship between the Kimberley, Kununurra, Broome and Darwin - north Australia. There is a kinship with the north of Australia, and there is a strong bond between Central Australia and southern Australia or Adelaide.
Let us look at some of the infrastructure failures of this government. If we are going to talk about the next 100 years it is important that people know exactly what they are signing up for when they go to the ballot box next year, think about the next 100 years, and look at this statement. What is Paul Henderson, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and his Cabinet, going to deliver for us over the next 100 years? They have said this, so let us have a look at their track record and see what they have done.
Have a look at our national roads. In 2005 – this is over the last five years. Let us look at our national roads. In fact, I might have just tripped myself up, because roads have improved by a minus. It has gone from B minus to a B, so a slight improvement on roads. Congratulations – a little fairy clap for Paul Henderson. However, Territory roads have become worse. They have gone from a sealed road, which was a C rating, down to a C minus. Local roads have become worse. Local sealed roads have gone from a C to a D plus.
Rail has come off worst out of the lot. Rail has gone from a Grade A in 2005 to a C plus in 2010 - pretty damning for the rail. Ports have gone from B plus to C plus - it has become worse. Airports have gone from A minus to B minus. Potable water has gone from B minus to C minus. Wastewater has gone from C to C minus. Electricity has gone from B minus to C minus, and gas has gone from A to A minus. That is in five short years - or some might say five long years - under the Henderson Labor government; with a bit of crossover with Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister.
If the past is anything to go by, there is not much confidence in this government delivering and providing for future generations of Territorians over the next century. That is precisely why this statement was brought into this House; to try to convince us of the contrary – that you are right to feel confident in the Northern Territory government because it can deliver. Well, it cannot. It has not delivered.
The other day I mentioned schools and the member for Johnston was right about Rosebery - I stand corrected – government has delivered Rosebery Primary and Rosebery Middle School. From my understanding, it is the only school the Northern Territory government has delivered from their bottom line. Everything else pretty much comes from Commonwealth funding ...
Dr Burns: You are out of touch. Look in the remote regions. You might see a few there as well.
Mr CONLAN: Then again, I might stand corrected. The Country Liberals built hundreds of schools across the Northern Territory. How many has this government built?
Dr Burns: The Commonwealth built some.
Mr CONLAN: How many have you built? We built hundreds and hundreds of schools. We set up police stations across the Northern Territory. How many police stations has the Northern Territory Labor government built? We see Casuarina Police Beat staffed by ACPOs. It is hardly staffed at all, but it is staffed by ACPOs or - what do you call the part-time police officers?
Mr Elferink: Auxiliaries.
Mr CONLAN: Auxiliaries, yes. It is the same with the Alice Springs Police Station, largely staffed by the Alice Springs Police Beat, largely staffed by - can I have an extension of time, by any chance?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time. Sorry about that.
Mr CONLAN: That is all right.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Port Darwin.
We have the Alice Springs Police Beat which, again, is largely staffed by Auxiliaries. If you turn up and push the button because you have seen an incident – this happened about six weeks ago. Someone came into my office and said: ‘You are not going to believe it. I saw a fight taking place right outside the Westpac Bank in the mall, and I ran up to the Police Beat, pushed the button, and the lady on the other end was in Darwin. She said: ‘Please explain. What is the situation’? I said: ‘There is an incident happening, can you please get someone around here right now. It is getting pretty serious’. The person had to go through all the rigmarole of name, identification, where they were, the name of the place, the whole thing.
So, the Police Beat is largely ineffective. I know it looks pretty good and you think it is a real armoury in your law and order arsenal - but far from it. If you were to resource it properly, it might deliver - but hardly delivering successfully on law and order issues across the Northern Territory.
Another issue is the mobile police van. That has to be the biggest farce. That could well be a cruel farce in the true meaning of the word, because I well remember heralding the arrival of this $100 000 police van in 2006. I was working on the radio at the time. I remember interviewing whoever the Police minister was - whoever was part of the revolving door of the ministry - at the time about this thing; when is it coming, when will it arrive? I remember driving back from Broome in July 2006, and there it was on the north Stuart Highway just outside Alice Springs near the Tanami turn-off. I thought, here it is, wow. It had a radar trap set up, or something set up, and everyone thought wow, this is terrific. Look through some of the media releases and there is the minister for Police, current Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, the member for Wanguri, and the member for Stuart, who was pretty new in the job at the time. He was saying: ‘We are going to have it out on the street, we are going to have people, it is going to be manned, people are going to be able to come up to it. It is going to be a physical presence in the mall, and in and around town, and a real deterrent for law and order. This is going to be pretty much another piece of our armoury in tackling law and order’.
Well, this thing sits out the back of my office, at the back of the police station - my office backs onto the car park of the Alice Springs Police Station - day after day after day. It is not in the mall. It is not out. It might be used for certain operational matters. It was out there when the Alice Springs sittings were on, for the football and those sorts of things, which is fine, so it should be. However, it was heralded as a real tool to combat law and order issues in Alice Springs from the mouth of the current Chief Minister who was the former Police minister, and, indeed, the then member for Stuart. They said: ‘This is going to be a really effective tool to combat law and order; it is going to be a visible presence on the streets in Alice Springs’. Well, we do not see it; this thing cost $100 000. This is a big investment into law and order.
Madam Speaker, they are not delivering when it comes to health, education, law and order, and, as I highlighted, we are seeing very little in the way of infrastructure. I mentioned health, and it is probably worth mentioning that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is required. Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it is great to see so many people here listening to this speech, because it is important. This is a speech about the north of Australia. I would like to know, though, where does north Australia start and finish. Someone told me, I think the member for Braitling, is it true, that it starts at the Tropic of Capricorn? That would technically mean that Alice Springs is not included in north Australia by 26 km, but we are used to it.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. The Berrimah Line has become the Tropic of Capricorn line. We are talking about north Australia. It is a very important debate and a very important part of the future of Australia, and …
Mr Tollner: He did include the federal government’s solar cities program in his vision.
Mr CONLAN: Oh, so that must include a bit of Alice; that is very good.
Madam Speaker, I did mention health and I know we saw the Minister for Health up there today. If you are going to develop the next century, you need to provide proper healthcare for future generations. It is interesting that the Labor Party continually run the line that John Howard and Tony Abbott ripped a billion dollars out of health. The problem with the member for Johnston is he believes his own rhetoric. He believes this is what happened. Someone told him, someone else confirmed, then someone else said it, and now he believes it to be fact.
Member for Johnston let me tell you what happened. All the states got together and said to Tony Abbott: ‘We want $3bn for health’ and Tony Abbott said: ‘No, I will give you $2bn’. Somehow, that has been construed that Tony Abbott and John Howard ripped out $1bn from health. Wrong. He gave you two, not three. He saved you from blowing another billion dollars up against the wall like you continually do with all your spending. He actually saved taxpayers of Australia from the Labor government’s waste.
It is also worthwhile highlighting some of the Coalition government’s achievements in health because it is very easy for this mob to sit over there, beat their chests, and say how wonderful they are. They think it is their moral high ground. They think it is their top of order issue. While the Coalition was in government there was an increase in immunisation rates in children from just over 50% to 90%. They lifted the private health insurance coverage rates from the mid-thirties to 45%, an increase in the total investment in health from $20bn in 1995-96, the last year of the Keating Labor government, to $51.8bn in 2007-08. That is not too bad at all. There was improved access to pharmaceutical benefits with increased expenditure on the PBS from $2.2bn in 1996-97 to $6.4bn in 2006-07. Funding for medical research increased from $127m in 1995-96 to $544m in 2007-08. Nine new medical schools, and 3700 additional commencing nursing places between 2005 and 2007, and access to $4250 of the Medicare benefits over two years for dental services for patients with a chronic illness, something the Gillard government wanted to cut. In fact, it was Kevin Rudd who wanted it cut …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could I ask the member to table the document he is reading from so we can see the source, particularly in relation to an immunisation increase from 50% to 90%? I am very interested in the source of that.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I have 20 seconds left and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, are you willing to table the document?
Mr CONLAN: No, Madam Speaker, they are my personal notes, but I will provide the minister with the source; it is pretty easy. The fact is that northern Australia has potential plus. It is the food bowl, the energy corridor, potentially, for this country, but not under this Labor government.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, people in the public gallery must be asking why would government come into this House, start a debate, and then leave the House in such a state that all we can see is the backs of their chairs. That is why we have …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that the state of the House is the responsibility of both sides of this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I also remind you, member for Port Darwin, not to refer to the presence or absence of members. Keep to the topic, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: There was a point of order called.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port of Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: One can well imagine the dismay of many Territorians when they look at their parliament and their government and the government has business of import to bring into this House. They come into this House saying what an important statement this is, and then we, on this side of the House, have to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the House is in such a state of disarray that you have to call a quorum. That means ringing the bells and getting members back into this place - oh hallelujah, here they come.
The Australian Labor Party is starting to treat this House with a level of contempt. I do not expect all members to be here at all times; that is not a requirement of this House and we all know how the system works. However, to leave one nightwatchman on duty whilst the rest of the government finds itself in other parts of the building is not good enough, a disgrace, and behoves them poorly.
Mr Tollner: It is left to the poor old member for Johnston to hold the fort.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this ministerial statement, and even more so to be a member of the Henderson government …
Mr Tollner: Here is gammon woman.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Ms McCARTHY: … which is making a difference and creating with Territorians from all walks of life …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw the comment he made in relation to the minister, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not find it unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear what it was, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Referring to the minister as ‘gammon woman’ is entirely inappropriate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is inappropriate, thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to rise and withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I meant to say ‘gammon minister’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can withdraw that as well, thank you. You are reflecting on me at the moment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, she is a gammon minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Goodness me.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, as Minister for Statehood I have been working with the Chief Minister on this year’s anniversary of the centenary of the surrender of the Northern Territory from control and management by South Australia to control and management as a territory of the Commonwealth government. This has helped give me a great sense of the history of our times and, as an Indigenous Territorian, a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria, I am mindful and reminded every day of the continuing strong role of the Commonwealth in the future of all Territorians
It is wonderful, as a Territorian, to be a member of this government which has a vision, a plan for the future for all people of the Northern Territory, a plan that is inclusive and works for all Territorians wherever they live. Earlier this week we had a debate in the parliament about the wellbeing of Indigenous Territorians. I know the enormity of the work to be done in the area if we are to truly deliver a situation where all Territorians fully participate and benefit from the continuing economic development of the Northern Territory. We have big challenges in closing the gap of disadvantage in health, education, employment, and in supporting strong families, so all children in the Northern Territory can explore and access every opportunity the Territory has to offer. My objective, and that of this government, is pursuit of the possible to make it happen; turning decades of neglect into decades of prosperity.
On the first day of these sittings we heard much about a Commonwealth Finance department report into Indigenous expenditure in the Northern Territory. Finance department reports have a reputation for dry analysis. However, if we dig beyond the dramatic headline favoured by the Country Liberals, the report has some sage advice. It talks about being wiser, spending public money in a more targeted and wise way, reducing duplication, being clear in our objectives, getting our priorities right, and reporting on clear and measurable targets. The report also had this to say:
- International aid and development literature and Australia’s own Indigenous experience has numerous examples of community governance, organisational structures and service interventions that have been designed externally and then imposed on Indigenous communities with little success, despite their original good intentions.
My point is the approach being promoted by the Finance department and the way forward is the path we are on: national partnership agreements negotiated with the Australian government; moving beyond three-year funding cycles, clear roles and responsibilities, clear targets and reporting achievements, arrangements for ongoing review, and adjustment of programs based on experience and evidence of outcomes. Most importantly, in growth towns, working with local people on implementation plans, building partnerships, matching local priorities with clear action, and involving all those with responsibilities in the monitoring and reporting of progress.
The community-driven local implementation plans are the key planning and engagement tool for the Northern Territory growth towns. Already, all our growth towns have seen delivery of both bricks and mortar projects, as well as development of clear plans for future investments, building our towns, improving access to services, and developing opportunities for Territorians, wherever they may live.
We have also undertaken the most comprehensive assessment ever of road and essential services infrastructure needs in the bush to address decades of neglect under successive CLP governments. This is work critical to underpin new investments and give us the necessary evidence base to win vital funding from Infrastructure Australia. We have rolled our sleeves up and done the work to support our case. However, if we are to deliver the necessary change in outcomes that is required, we need to travel together and, importantly, to support strong governance and administration at the local level.
The Finance department report also highlighted that:
- Service delivery cannot happen by remote control. Addressing complex issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol issues, child neglect and abuse, as well as working with communities on improving education, health, and employment outcomes cannot be effective if staff and contractors cannot be located in the communities themselves.
This is a very clear message, and I am working with my colleagues to build our workforce to have the skilled Territorians, including many Indigenous Territorians, delivering these services and building strong towns. There are certainly service issues we need to address, but I ask members of this House to remember what was inherited: community government councils struggling with governance and financial sustainability and over a third of community government councils at risk of collapse at any one time.
We accepted the challenge and set out to build a strong local government sector in the bush, and we are on the right path. Yes, we have a way to go. Let us not forget the challenges though: a unique situation of limited own source revenue and heavy reliance on government grants; huge service delivery challenges; workforce capacity issues; and a very poor infrastructure base inherited from many of the former community government councils. Rebuilding does take time and, as well, staying vigilant to correct deficiencies.
We also need to celebrate the achievements. I meet many Territorians who are committed to building strong local government, and this is what is needed to take us into the future. I am certainly proud of our Northern Territory commitment to provide matching funds for rural jobs in local government - $30m over the next five years. We support the participation of women in local government, so we now have one of the highest participation rates of elected members and women CEOs in the country. The work being done by our shires is delivering an enormous range of human and technical services on behalf of the other tiers of government.
Another important feature of our government is talking with and listening to Territorians. We took the initiative of establishing an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council to advise the Chief Minister and me, as Minister for Indigenous Development, on Indigenous affairs and policy. We established, and have grown, the Indigenous Economic Development Task Force involving the skills and experience of private sector partners to create more jobs and employment for Indigenous Territorians.
The Northern Territory is a place of great opportunity built on a premise that you can achieve anything, and we are working extremely hard on spreading the opportunities across our regions. As the Chief Minister outlined, Australia’s future prosperity is in northern Australia and we are playing an active role in developing future opportunities. We have been talking about measurable targets and our Indigenous Economic Development Strategy for 2009 to 2012 has three clear targets: 3000 more Indigenous Territorians will commence employment in the private and public sectors; 10% Indigenous employment in the Northern Territory Public Service; and 200 new Indigenous businesses.
I am pleased to report to the House the progress being made since the targets were set. From figures supplied by the Department of Business and Employment, indications are that during 2009-10, a total of 3082 Indigenous Territorians commenced employment in an apprenticeship or traineeship in the private and public sectors; 8.2% of employees of the Northern Territory Public Service identify as being Indigenous and, in recent times, we have helped support the establishment of 44 new Indigenous businesses. Clearly, we have a long way to go, but a wonderful start.
As part of my work at an intergovernmental level, I am working hard to represent the Northern Territory on the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum. This provides a platform for the federal minister for Regional Development, Simon Crean; the regional development minister from Queensland, Tim Mulherin; the Western Australia minister, Brendon Grylls; and the Northern Territory, to generate broad-based and sustainable growth in northern Australia. The forum develops priorities and strategies to address infrastructure priorities and opportunities. It also works to promote sustainable development, particularly in the areas of water, energy, Indigenous employment and skills shortages, and works through any barriers to progress in these areas. Only a week ago, the second meeting of the forum took place in Port Hedland, Western Australia, to continue our discussions. Good progress was made on our key priorities and I look forward to continuing my active involvement. The Northern Australia Ministerial Forum highlights the opportunities and challenges ahead of us as a nation and for northern Australia.
I now turn to another of my important ministerial priorities, supporting our tourism industry. I am proud of our government’s work in tourism, with an increase in funding for tourism from $26.7m in 2000-01 to $41.3m in 2011-12. We have supported new tourism opportunities through new infrastructure development, the Darwin and Alice Springs convention centres, for example; supported innovation in marketing tourism to the Northern Territory; fostered tourism benefits from the Alice to Darwin rail link, The Ghan, one of the great rail journeys of the world; won Jetstar commitment to a Darwin airport hub; developed aviation policy to maximise opportunities from a rapidly changing and competitive market; and attracted new aviation services to the Territory in a difficult and highly competitive business environment.
The Northern Territory government also has a clear vision for growth in Indigenous tourism. Tourism NT currently assists over 100 Indigenous operators to offer quality tourism experiences and maintain a strong market presence. The opportunities tourism-related businesses can offer or deliver in these regions are real and will be an ongoing focus.
Madam Speaker, in Women’s Policy we continue the strong role of women in business, governance, and nurturing strong, resilient families. The development of our strategy, Building on Our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012, has been an important road map for progressing issues important to women in the Territory. Like all of our work, this important plan was built on the voice of Territorians and information collated from Community Cabinet forums held from 2003 to 2007 in urban, rural, and remote communities in the Northern Territory. It sets out key actions in five priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. I am pleased that we are advancing those issues.
I am enormously proud that a Territory Labor government introduced the mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, an important measure that other jurisdictions have yet to match. We are certainly not soft on crime. We have listened. We have seen what needs to be done, and we have acted, just as we are acting now in reducing the impact of alcohol on our families and the wellbeing of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, the Territory is a place of great opportunity built on the premise that you can achieve anything. We on this side of the House want to turn around the impact on so many Territorians of decades of neglect, and we want to see a future with decades of prosperity. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Education and Training, I remind you that at 5.30 pm we go into General Business.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Yes, I understand that, Madam Speaker, and we will see how we are going at 5.30 pm.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement and it is an exciting future for the Territory in northern Australia. I have a prepared speech, but I would like to comment on a few of the things the member for Greatorex said in his speech, particularly at the end.
He was obviously defending Tony Abbott’s record as Health Minister and the assertion – it is more than an assertion: it is a fact that he ripped $1bn out of the Commonwealth Health budget to the states over the time he was Health Minister. I am not sure whether the member for Greatorex understands, but professional experts, health economists, did that work and it is a simple explanation as to what occurred. The relativities changed; the relative contributions of the states and territories, particularly the hospital budgets, compared to the Commonwealth. In some places, it might have been 60:40 – here in the Territory it was approximately 50:50 - and as time progressed under the Coalition, the Coalition’s share of the funding decreased and the Northern Territory’s increased.
Although Tony Abbott points to the fact that he put increases into health funding to the states and territories, he did not put enough in the indexes and increases that exist in delivering health services. He did supply some increases, but they were inadequate, with the effect that the health budgets of the states and territories and their relative contribution had to ratchet up. The Commonwealth ratcheted back and made substantial savings over a considerable period. There was a credible report produced at that time, which Tony Abbott did not meaningfully challenge because he knew it was correct.
I was interested to hear the member for Greatorex talk about immunisation rates jumping from 50% to 90% under the Coalition’s period in office. I am interested in that. I would be alarmed if Australia’s immunisation rates fell to 50% because that would be catastrophic and would allow diseases like polio. A range of diseases have been well-controlled by long-term immunisation programs in Australia. The reason is that we have great immunisation coverage in Australian and fewer numbers of immunised people opens the door to those diseases. Unfortunately, there has been a trend of decreasing immunisation rates within Australia. I might stand corrected and am interested to see the source of the information put forward by the member for Greatorex. The Internet is a little slow today, but I am interested to follow up and see whether indeed they decreased at one point to 50%. That would be alarming.
I cannot resist it, member for Greatorex; I am trying to help Hansard also. You could attend to two corrections for Hansard. It is ‘potable’ water, not ‘portable’ water, and I forget what the other one was – it was in relation to police beats - it was probably ‘ineffective’ rather than ‘uneffective’. I am just trying to help you, member for Greatorex. I know you were excited when you were delivering the speech, but any way I can ever help you, I will, of course. So, I will turn to my prepared speech …
A member: You just cannot trust that static water, I reckon. He is on the money.
Dr BURNS: The static water, that is right.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in his statement. Incidentally, the assertion by the member for Greatorex that we have not built any schools I will probably talk about tomorrow. I have a list. I do not know whether I will have time to do it tomorrow. I have an extensive list of the schools that have been built since Labor came to government in 2001, particularly in the remote regions. I want to help the member for Greatorex understand that as well.
We can look forward to an exciting journey over the next 100 years, although I doubt I will be here for the whole ride. Access Economics forecast us for a healthy 4.2% annual economic growth for the next five years. As a government, we are ensuring the right plans are in place to maximise the opportunities ahead for northern Australia’s development, which will be driven off the back of rich Northern Territory resource deposits. As the Chief Minister said, northern Australia is an increasingly prosperous part of Australia. We have a strong economy, a growing economy, and people continue to flock to the north to experience the opportunities at hand. It is our job, as government, to ensure no opportunity is missed and the rewards are shared far and wide by Territorians.
Education and training: we are investing strongly in building the Territory’s future workforce to maximise opportunities ahead. Make no mistake, we know job creation is important to our economy, but we need a plan to fill those positions. The Territory has been enjoying the fruits of a good economy for many years despite uncertainty around the globe. This has led to us having the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past two years, and the challenge for us as government, and me as Education and Training minister, is to ensure we develop workers to fill the jobs that will drive our economy. Under Labor, we have focused on producing more apprentices and trainees, and ensuring students have access to vocational education and training, which we all know as VET, in their schooling. This is best reflected in our renaming of the Territory’s Year 12 qualification to the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training, which students will receive from this year on.
This year alone we are investing over $19m in training. We have made a commitment in this term of government to deliver 10 000 apprentice and traineeship commencements and we are on track to reach the target. At present, a record 4700 apprentices and trainees are in training. This year alone we have had 1478 Territorians commence an apprenticeship or traineeship. In 2010, there were more than 3000 apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. In the last three years, almost 4000 Territorians have completed apprenticeships and traineeships, with approximately 1500 of those being in occupations on the Northern Territory occupation shortage list.
We have incentives for Territorians to take up apprenticeships and traineeships. The Workwear/Workgear Bonus Scheme provides eligible trainees and apprentices with a $1000 payment or, if they are in training in a recognised skill shortage area, they receive $3000. This helps with the cost of tools, work clothing, and items needed to do their training. We also work with employers to offer support and encourage them to take on trainees and apprentices.
The Territory government continues to build strong ties with Charles Darwin University. I commend Vice-Chancellor, Professor Barney Glover, for his leadership and initiatives in giving local Territory students the ability to gain tertiary qualifications through CDU. As well as now training our own pharmacists, engineers, and doctors, CDU is gearing up for the impending INPEX project. Like the Chief Minister, CDU has visited the oil and gas hub in Aberdeen, looking to Robert Gordon University and Aberdeen College as experts in course delivery for oil and gas industry qualifications. INPEX is close to a final investment decision, meaning 3000 construction jobs and 200 to 300 jobs during the project life. That is why our work is full steam ahead in preparing the workforce to fill these jobs.
Territory children are well placed to look forward to a good future with a good working life because our schools, teachers, and principals do an outstanding job. Territory children who attend school every day can look forward to a bright future because they will receive an excellent education.
The opposition like to tell you our children in Northern Territory schools are doomed and teachers are not doing a good job. They are wrong. Territory kids are as bright as any other kids from any other state. Our schools are also just as good as anywhere else. For the last two years, I have had the pleasure of attending ceremonies to present our top Year 12 students with their certificates. Let me tell you, those young Territorians are amongst the best and brightest in the nation.
We have opened our first two of five Centres of Excellence for our high performing students. This gives young Territorians the opportunity to be challenged and extended academically in specialist fields. This year the first Centre of Excellence opened at Darwin High School with 42 students studying maths, science, and engineering. Another started at Casuarina Senior College with 29 students in health sciences. Centralian College will become a Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Futures and Solar Energy and, in 2012, Palmerston Senior College will become a Centre of Excellence for the Arts.
Despite the continued achievements of our students, time after time the opposition talk our schools down. The way they do it …
Mr Bohlin: Oh, come on!
Dr BURNS: … the way they do it is saying our schools are not performing to the national average. Look at your own media releases in that regard, member for Drysdale …
Mr Bohlin: Look at the NAPLAN, okay? We are saying you have underperformed as a government.
Dr BURNS: No, you have done that time and time again; that is, talking our schools down.
The children who are not performing are those who do not go to school every day. If our kids go to school, they do as well as any child in Australia. I have said on the public record a number of times, most of these schools have two populations of students. There is a population who attend regularly, and there is a population who attend irregularly. It is not a valid test to put a mean or average across those two groups of students, and compare that to the national average. The NAPLAN and My School website is about comparison of like schools. The essence of what the opposition has been doing, by comparing to national averages, goes against the spirit and intent of like school comparison.
We have a significant problem and we are not going to shy away from that problem. That is why we have our Every Child, Every Day strategy, so we see more children from remote areas finishing school, getting jobs, and taking advantage of future economic growth in northern Australian. We are building the schools for the future so our students have better facilities and access to technology.
The Henderson government worked hand-in-hand with the Australian government on the delivery of the Building the Education Revolution. The BER has already, or will, deliver new improved infrastructure at every Northern Territory school. That is a $207m investment in Northern Territory schools, delivering new classrooms, laboratories, libraries, language centres, school halls, outdoor learning centres, and more. Neither the opposition nor the Coalition in Canberra supported this fantastic investment in every Northern Territory school. When we had a motion on the floor of parliament, the local branch did not support new buildings and facilities in our schools. Shame on the opposition for that. These are important structures going into every school across the Northern Territory.
The Henderson government knows education is the key to every child’s future in the Northern Territory. We support our students, schools, teachers, and principals. We will continue to do so well into the future so the children of the Territory can look forward to reaping the benefits the Northern Territory experiences from the economic growth of northern Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it now being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! When this debate comes back on, I still have seven minutes, do I?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, and an extension if one is granted, yes.
Debate suspended.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT (SMOKE ALARMS) BILL
(Serial 130)
(Serial 130)
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member for Sanderson has 22 minutes in continuation in closing debate.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, it has been some time since I spoke on this. On 24 November 2010, during my introduction of this bill, I said it has been nearly two years since the Coroner’s report was released, and I quote from page 6 of the Coroner’s report:
- That the department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
The Coroner’s report into the death of Rachelle Gay Shooter was completed and signed by the Deputy Coroner, Dr Celia Kemp, on 16 December 2008. It was then tabled in this House by the member for Karama on 11 August 2009. That is one day short of two years ago. When one goes through the Coroner’s report, it is a very sad report, and especially sad for the family of this poor lady. I quote for the benefit of members in this House, on page 5 of the report, starting on the second last line:
- … rather the evidence is that she was doing everything she could to preserve her life. I find that this was an accidental death. I note that there were no smoke alarms installed in the flat. I consider that this may have contributed to the death, as had the deceased been alerted earlier to the fire it is possible that she may have been able to retrieve her keys and escape from the flat.
The Deputy Coroner goes on to say:
- I have talked to the head of Fire Protection in Community Safety about the current situation with smoke alarms. Building Codes have required smoke alarms to be installed in private residential properties since 1997, however, there is no requirement for retrospective smoke alarm insertion in private residential properties built prior to this date. I refer this finding to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and recommend that legislation be introduced requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties, which therefore includes private rental properties, in the Northern Territory. I note that comparable legislation has been introduced in New South Wales and Queensland.
It then goes on to state:
- Recommendation: that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
After my second reading speech, the Chief Minister responded, as the appropriate minister, and spoke about Class 1B buildings and structures including boarding houses, guesthouses, and hostels, saying this is a significant omission. We accept that we could put amendments in place. In fact, we would accept amendments from the government on this private member’s bill. The Coroner’s report that we are referring to says: ‘private residential properties including private rental properties’. It is designed for private residences. We could take an amendment to that and include boarding houses, guesthouses, and hostels.
It is now heading towards three years and the government has failed to move on this. I would like to quote from Hansard on 23 February 2011 where the Chief Minister, in the second paragraph of his response, says: ‘We will be looking to provide for mandatory alarms post-1997 before the middle of the year’. I am assuming he meant 2011, but he does not actually say which year, just the middle of the year. These are life-saving devices and it behoves us as responsible members of this community and the people who make the rules in this community to move on this. If the Chief Minister is going to introduce legislation, it would be nice if he could get someone moving so we are not in a position where we have further tragedies.
In 2005, Territory Housing installed smoke alarms with permanent 10-year batteries in all their rental properties. I commend the government for that and I do not know who the minister for Housing was in 2005, but whoever it was, the idea was great. The government should move a little quicker than it is. If it will not support our bill, it should get its own legislation into this House as soon as possible. It should not take three years for that to occur.
In recent years, there has been a significant uptake of smoke alarms in Territory households, with 73% of Territory dwellings having smoke alarms in 2006 compared to 35% in 1997. That shows the advertising campaigns; the community efforts to encourage people to install these life-saving devices, have worked. Sadly, we are still looking at a high percentage; any house that does not have one of these is one too many. The elderly may not have the sense to move and these are things that would give people an early intervention in their own safety, and get them from a house or unit that is on fire to a safer place.
There are a number of different types of smoke alarms and I remind the government that these are not expensive options. I have had discussions with developers who have owned premises built before 1997. They fear the government may force them to put in hard-wired smoke detectors. I do not know whether the government is considering that. We have not seen their legislation yet. There are good smoke detectors on the market that people can buy for as little as $8.95. They are the 9V battery models that require a battery change every 12 months. There are units with a lithium battery that will last 10 years; they are sealed to prevent interference and that is the type authorities prefer. The best form of smoke detector is, of course, the hard-wired 240V with a backup lithium battery that lasts for 10 years.
I do not know how long it will be before the government looks at this. I hope members on both sides realise the dire straits people are in when they are in house fires. I do not know whether many members on the other side have been to a house fire where lives have been lost or whether they have had to deal with it. I certainly have. It is not a pleasant job and it is distressing when you know that lives could have been saved if smoke detectors had been fitted. The community is saddened knowing lives might have been saved if smoke detectors were fitted to houses and were compulsory. It is sad that a community has to live with those facts, so it behoves us to get the ball rolling.
There are good brochures available from government. The federal government, the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, and Fire Protection Australia produce good brochures. They send them out to electorate offices all over Australia encouraging people to prepare plans for their exit from a house fire. I refer to the Fire Safety at Home: Be Prepared brochure put out by Fire Protection Australia, the Commonwealth government, and the ACCC. The brochure contains a great plan on page 16. I encourage anyone listening to this or reading Hansard to prepare a plan for your home, your family, anyone else who resides with you or in the granny flat underneath an elevated home. The first thing they do before they look at a one to seven list of absolute essentials where you should have fire alarms - it says here: ‘Install an electrical safety switch; do not overload power points; switch off appliances when not in use; check electrical equipment’. There are a number of others and then you get down to: ‘Install smoke alarms and check them regularly’.
If you are in a residence built prior to 1997, you are not required to fit them. If you own one of those residences and rent it out, you are not required to fit them. There are many responsible people who fit them; there are many responsible landlords who fit them. I am assuming the government will look at something where if you have to put a smoke detector in, someone is responsible for certifying that it works. Unfortunately, the voluntary uptake of smoke alarms has not been sufficient. We are going to have to, as a community, be it the opposition with a private member’s bill, or the government, produce legislation to hopefully save lives.
These plans are great. I hope the Northern Territory government, irrespective of who gets their bill through, produces similar brochures, similar information, and I hope government produces an advertising campaign on television or the media to encourage people to continue to fit smoke alarms in homes. We can move legislation, we can make it compulsory; however, there will be some who will not take any notice. I sincerely hope the government has an effective campaign.
We talked about pool fencing and this current government made a big thing about pool fencing. It was absolutely essential. It saves lives. We made a big song and dance about it and I agree that pool fencing saves lives. I do not agree with the way government went about it, but when you look at the cost of installing pool fencing and the lives that were lost - I do not have those figures in front of me but I have figures about fires. I would like to give the House and members opposite some figures: across Australia, between July 1996 and June 2004, 412 people were killed in 366 fatal residential fires. In the cases where it was known whether smoke alarms were installed, 14% had non-working alarms and 55% had no alarm at all. These are terrible figures and a terrible waste of life.
I am unsure how many people died in swimming pools - one is too many. However, when we look at the amount of money the Northern Territory government spent installing pool fencing and ensuring people had pool fences - we had inspectors going out - I wonder if government proposes to spend as much money on smoke alarms.
Depending on the type of smoke alarms to be fitted to residences in government’s legislation – we could add up how many residences in the Territory are without smoke alarms and give them to people as a lifesaving gift from other taxpayers. There are people who will say they cannot afford to install a smoke detector; it is an imposition. I spoke to the Darwin City Council and asked how hard it would be if, when people come in to pay their rates, to give them a smoke detector. Have a few boxes behind the counter and, when you pay your rates, you get two smoke detectors, one for the sleeping area, and one for the kitchen. How hard would that be? They said: ‘Not hard at all. We could just tick it off once you pay your rates, if you choose to take advantage of a free smoke detector’. How much would that cost? If we ascertain the cost, it might be a viable option that we, as a community, can do to assist those who are struggling.
I have spoken to people who live from fortnight to fortnight, and I run this question past them at the shops on Saturday mornings or at barbecues: ‘What would you do? How would you find this?’ Many people said: ‘We have already fitted them’. However, there were people who said: ‘We cannot afford to do that’. I know it is about choices, and people have choices. When I was in a situation where I did not have much, I still had smoke alarms, and I made sure the batteries were up to speed. They were essential items as far as I am concerned, and that was my insurance policy. My parents taught me at a young age that the people who cannot afford insurance are the people who need insurance. I cannot afford to lose my life. I cannot afford any of my children to lose their life. Therefore, it is really important.
Some people argue they cannot afford it and it is something they do not want to do. If we were to look at a scheme where we provided a couple of smoke detectors, I am sure it would be considerably less than the money government spent on pool fencing and compensating people massive amounts of money in pool fencing. That would mean people have no excuse - unless government determines that smoke alarms have to be hard-wired. People who do not have smoke alarms fitted would have no excuse not to install a smoke alarm if it is mandated.
People have said: ‘How are you going to police that?’ It is a bit like registering a car. You do not have to register your car. It is a requirement of the law that you do so. If you choose to break the law, you do not have to register your car. However, if you drive an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle you run the risk of substantial fines. Often, people do not register their cars because either they do not want to get them inspected or they choose not to spend the money. When they choose not to get them inspected - as an ex-policeman, it is my experience there are reasons why they do not want to get them inspected. It is because they do not want to pay the money to maintain and repair an unsafe and unroadworthy motor vehicle. The same logic applies here. If fire inspectors go to a house, or there is reason to suspect they are not working, we should ensure people suffer some penalty for not putting smoke alarms in.
Madam Speaker, there is a range of issues to deal with and the government has work to do. I hope it is working quickly to bring this to parliament. I hate to think we would endure more tragedies before this comes in. The government said it was going to bring it in before the middle of the year and it is heading on to September. I do not see anything on the Notice Paper yet; it has not been raised in this House. How long is it going to be before this comes up? I spoke to other members of this House last November about the timing of this and said: ‘We need to do this as a community’. I received answers such as: ‘The government will bring this in’. I do not know when the government is going to bring it in. How long before it does? This is something we all need to consider. We need to dig deep into our conscience and say: ‘What about lifesaving things’.
I go back to cars. Should we send police to do roadside stops and check people to ensure their cars are roadworthy and they are registered? I think, yes, we do. There are people out there who choose not to do that. Many suffer from a poor attitude towards community expectations, and I am sure we will find there are people who put up arguments and excuses as to why they should not do this. There is a cost imposition; it is too hard; there are legal implications about who is responsible for certification. The simpler we make that, the less push back we will get from those who see this as an imposition on their financial situation, or an imposition on them having to complete some other form.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the government to bring this legislation on as soon as it can. I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Yuendumu Township Family Disputes
Yuendumu Township Family Disputes
Continued from 24 November 2010
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, how times change! It was November last year when this motion was first put and we were talking about the Yuendumu people who had been involved in trouble in Alice Springs and had chosen of their own volition to move to Adelaide. The Chief Minister liked to cause a storm, along with the Deputy Chief Minister and the member for Stuart, and ended up spending $300 000 to bring the people back. It sounds like a good investment. Pity they could not put some of that money into housing.
At the time, there was toing and froing from Mike Rann, who took the dog whistle approach of providing racism to the people of South Australia, and forcing those people out of the park. It was quite okay for Mike Rann to have 323 illegal maritime arrivals to South Australia in 2009-10. He did not mind that, but a handful of Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory he could not tolerate. It is similar to the policies of this Northern Territory government: a black policy and a white policy. This was identified and reflected in the Johnson Report, where he talks about different ways of doing business and expresses concern about the capacity of the Northern Territory government to do its job, particularly around education and housing.
However, times change, and I remember, at the time, there was argy-bargy between the dog whistler, Mike Rann, and me. Mike Rann made a comment about me wearing my intelligence as a number on the back of my football jersey. I commented that being insulted by Mike Rann is like being slapped around with a piece of wet lettuce. But, how times change! Mike Rann can talk about numbers. Maybe he wears on the back of his football jersey the number of supporters he has in his own party because Jay Weatherill is now wearing a bigger number than Mike Rann; swings and roundabouts.
In thinking about what argument to put up today regarding the treatment of the Yuendumu people, I thought post-Mike Rann’s imminent demise while he was on a trade mission to India and had the numbers done on him. Let us be mindful of the fact that the Labor Left in South Australia will now control things under Jay Weatherill, and those Aboriginal people in South Australia, amongst everyone, will succumb even further to a life of misery and poverty. The left of the Labor Party drives Aboriginal people across this country, and has done so since the 1970s with the failures of the Whitlam era.
The Yuendumu people are not fortunate enough to have wide-ranging economic development or job creation. The roads are not sealed and rubbish still litters the place. The shire council, the biggest failure of this Northern Territory government - we thought SIHIP was a failure - look at the shire model No wonder people are hopping mad in every community and outstation across the Northern Territory. This government, with the shire council model, forced an economy of scale approach - they were underfunded, assets were stripped from communities, roads are not being repaired, and people have nothing to do. Jobs were lost in shires as they centralised and Aboriginal people have every right to be disappointed and upset with the shires. The shires have had the biggest negative effect on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, and Yuendumu is no different.
I heard today in parliament argy-bargy about bipartisan approaches, and crocodile tears coming from the Chief Minister, and others, about our approach to live cattle. The Chief Minister can try to hide from the fact he stood next to Julia Gillard in Nhulunbuy while the live cattle ban was announced and he supported that ban. We drew him back in and said: ‘Let’s be bipartisan’. The Leader of the Opposition was in Indonesia lobbying, the member for Fong Lim was representing the rest of the team in Canberra, Senator Scullion did all he could, and the Country Liberals took charge. The Chief Minister now likes to take the accolades and play a partisan approach and when called to account today the crocodile tears came out. There are no crocodile tears for Aboriginal people who lost their jobs in the western region - Yuendumu. There are no crocodile tears for the Aboriginal people who own pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, none at all.
There are also no crocodile tears from the minister for Indigenous policy. She gave a speech today during a debate about how she would like to see a bipartisan approach on growth towns. I have committed many times to supporting the philosophy around a hub and spoke model, such as growth towns. I have said I do not agree with all the locations for the growth towns, and I do not agree with how growth towns were selected. They should have been selected on economic opportunity, on an economic plan that developed economies and delivered jobs that could get people off sit down money, off welfare, and start having sustainable towns and communities in the Northern Territory. That has not happened. She stood there with crocodile tears about a bipartisan approach for growth towns. A sensible person should now question if the Country Liberals should support this growth town policy because nothing is happening. Nothing is happening on the growth towns.
How many SIHIP houses have been built at Yuendumu? None. How many refurbishments? None. Let us not forget the $672m SIHIP program came about as a result of the Little Children are Sacred report in 2007. Everyone likes to refer to the intervention as a Howard intervention. They had it for four months. Labor has had it for four years and you have everything wrong. As the Johnson report says, there are serious concerns over the capacity of the Northern Territory government to deliver on housing and education. Housing and education are the two main things you deliver in isolation of anything else.
What have you done at Yuendumu? Check the NAPLAN results; check the attendance figures. You are not achieving. Why should we bankroll this growth town model? Why should we support it in a bipartisan way and handle the crocodile tears from the minister for Indigenous policy. I drove our support. I tried to support you with growth towns and you delivered nothing. I have downloaded a copy of Yuendumu Budget 2010-11. It does not mention anything that is being achieved in Yuendumu. Healthy homes, No 5, page 2:
Families need to live in a house that is healthy and safe, and is not overcrowded.
That is fantastic. There is nothing in here about jobs. We are building a new preschool, Family as First Teachers program. There are several small federal government-funded things but you are not achieving anything. It is all smoke and mirrors. As everyone on this side says: ‘Listen to what you do, not what you say’.
Your local implementation plan for Yuendumu is a 52-page or 56-page document. It is all good; we have seen these things before. I have worked in bureaucracy and know fluff when I see it, and I cannot see anything more than that. At the back it lists the actions to be taken, the agencies involved, whether its ROC, LRG, AG, our local LGANT, FaHCSIA, PHMC - whoever it is, it is just bureaucrats sitting around the table writing a document. How much money goes into this sort of fluff? You spend all your time consulting to come up with this stuff. No one can work and kids cannot even go to school because all you do is go through consultants. You are not alone - the feds do it too. Get out there and make some decisions. This is an absolute joke.
When you look at the bureaucracy that goes into all this stuff - people working hard; I know they work hard, I know they go to lengths to produce all this. Matt Fagan and all those people who are in charge of this do a good job, and bring it together, but what does it mean? What does this document mean to the people at Yuendumu? To the kids who are being sexually abused, to the chronic alcoholics, to the ones living in tents or in humpies, that bit of paper cannot solve their lives. Neither can this bit of fluff about the budget. You are not solving anything.
We keep having these debates and I get up here - and you might like to call it a rant or a screaming contest. You change nothing. Your growth towns have about this much left for our side. Start doing something! I am looking at you, member for Johnston. You are about the only person on your side who can actually do anything - and take this in a nice way, not in a derogatory way. In your old age, in your parliamentary career, you are starting to realise some of the failures your mob have made. This growth towns stuff is a joke.
I support a hub and spoke concept. The regional transport ideas the Minister for Transport has tried have some merit. However, you have to achieve. You are still stuck in that Jay Weatherill side of things on the left. That is not going to achieve. When the left controls Aboriginal policy and Aboriginal affairs, it fails. Give it to a right winger rather than the soft lefties with the crocodile tears. The member for Arnhem might be a nice person, but she is never going to achieve anything. We know it is a joke on this side, and most people out there do. It is not about her as a person; it is about her ability to show leadership and vision.
I listened to the last debate about northern Australia - what a load of guff! I know the member for Greatorex likes to give you all a serve about time wasting. That is not vision. There is not one person on your side of the Chamber who has showed vision for Indigenous policy, for what the Territory is going to look like from an Aboriginal perspective - not one. We can stand here and talk about Yuendumu all we like, but nothing is going to change.
The member for Casuarina, the Minister for Health, came out with that disgraceful report the other day. How he could table that, I have no idea. To make reference to a government document and happily table it - the smiling assassin comparing Aboriginal people to Iron Age Italians and Neolithic British to justify the reason Aboriginal men beat women, in a domestic violence sense, is because it is part of your genes. I do not stand here on a right-based race issue ever, but that is a disgrace. You should hang your head in shame. I am not going to call for the minister to resign, but he should apologise for that. That was an absolute insult to the Aboriginal race. This is not taking away from what Peter Sutton did as a scientist. He may come up with those things as a scientist, but for you guys to own that opinion in the conclusion of a report to justify child neglect, child abuse, and domestic violence, is completely abhorrent. There is absolutely no excuse.
I call on him to apologise and retract that from the record, because that is appalling. That is an international outrage. It is just abhorrent. If you tell an Aboriginal man: ‘You are nothing but caveman; that is why you beat your wife’, by putting it in the conclusion you are justifying it: ‘It is all right; he is just a black man with a big club under his arm’ - what do they call it? – ‘a big turkey leg or something walking around nomadically’. As policy-makers, we deal with this institutionalised racism as we try to make change, and that is the reason for this bit of fluff.
With all due respect, you have white bureaucrats running around writing reports and plans. Tighten welfare. You want Aboriginal entrepreneurs; tighten welfare. The general population is about 2% entrepreneurs but I bet you any money, you tighten welfare, and you will have many more Indigenous entrepreneurs in the Northern Territory. You will get up to 5%, maybe 6%, because people will be entrepreneurs.
We recognise the problem with tourism in the Northern Territory. People in Darwin - the alcohol reforms put in place - people in the Top End are now starting to realise how bad they are. You still do not have alcohol reforms such as we have in Alice. You can still buy alcohol before 2 pm. You do not have problems buying fortified wine. If I want a glass of Green Ginger wine, or one of the aunties wants sherry so she can cook with it, you can do that here; you cannot do that in Alice. You cannot do that until 6 pm and there are limitations; you can only get one bottle and so forth. I have lost my train of thought …
Mr Elferink: Condescending white …
Mr GILES: … that is right, it is condescending. If you tighten welfare people will get out there and will do. I know you are not the people who control welfare, but you can lobby for change. This is why the right needs to control it, and why the Liberals need to do it, because you will not do it.
If I had spoken about Neanderthals, Neolithic British, and Iron Age Italians, you would have me for breakfast. You and all your lefty, hairy arm pitted mates around the country would have me for breakfast. I cannot fathom how you could do that, I really can’t.
When talking about Yuendumu, we should also look at the number of people from the Yuendumu region, Warlpiri or otherwise, who are in our gaols. We had a big debate yesterday about how the minister for Corrections is putting criminals on our streets, and I know the member for Macdonnell supported that bill; I cannot understand why. These alcohol reforms are turning people who are substance abusers into criminals. If you work and you live on a town camp and go home for a drink, you can be locked up when it is your home, because you cannot drink on town camps. The Minister for Health has a funny look on his face. If you live in a town camp and you go home from work, you are not allowed to have a beer. It is against the law. You cannot have a drink in the river. You cannot have a drink in public. You cannot go into what is commonly referred to as an animal bar because that has now been toughened up too.
If you are an Aboriginal person in Alice Springs and you work and do the right thing, where can you have a beer? If you do not have a house to live in because there are not enough houses, you cannot clean yourself up to go into Gillen Club, the Feds, or the casino. This is a two-speed, race-based policy that sees Aboriginal people commit a felony, or break the law, and go to gaol for those reasons.
Now we see, as part of that legislation, that the minister wants to train people, give them a temporary licence when they have had their licences suspended. How moronic is that? People should be trained, and they should be trained in gaol to drive their cars. I am not sure if everyone else agrees. It is not a policy; it is my personal opinion. Instead of sending trainers out to Yuendumu, or training people at Yuendumu to teach people how to drive, you wait until they are in town, pick them up when they are drunk, put them on a community work order with a tag around their leg or wherever it might be and teach them to drive in the streets. Are we not chasing our tail? The local implementation plan has an outcome: ‘We will try to train people in Yuendumu to drive’. I guarantee you train more people in Community Corrections in Alice Springs to drive than you train in Yuendumu. You will train them afterwards and spend all that money doing it, rather than before, or out of their community.
I did not speak yesterday on crime but it amazed me. Sure, you are locking up people who should not be locked up. Teach them to drive beforehand. Deal with their substance abuse beforehand so they are not locked up in the first place. There is a point when substance abuse - and it is a problem - they become criminals because they are breaking into houses or businesses to take grog. People who have been violated in their home and been broken into should not have criminals living on the same street. That is not right.
You have the whole system mucked up, so now you are going down the wrong end again, and there will be criminals on every corner. Whether those people should be criminals or not is a fair question, but putting aside the question of whether they should be because you have the policy wrong, there are now going to be criminals everywhere. The reason criminals are on our street is because your gaols are so full, and your gaols are so full because you have your policies wrong.
I made an interjection yesterday to the minister for Corrections during Question Time about South Africa, and the interjection was right. You are locking up black people more than during apartheid in South Africa. Statistically, that is what it is. You should hang your head in shame. It is not the caveman. It is not the Neolithic British or the Iron Age Italians. It is you mob who are causing this. You cannot take it back to some genealogical example.
So, when we talk about people who in some voices would say escaped from Yuendumu, some would say escaped from the violence, others would say moved, and others were just tourists who wanted to go to Adelaide, serious policy considerations need to be put into place. There is a very good argument for people leaving communities and outstations to bigger centres so they are serviced more cheaply, from an economic sense. There is the other argument that people should be able to live where they want to live, whether that be Yuendumu or otherwise.
I do not condone people camping in parks and leaving rubbish and the like, but when people choose to be tourists and go to Adelaide and want to live there, some people should have seen that as an opportunity. Not everyone does, but some people should have seen it as an opportunity. At the time, as I have said in the first part of this motion, I did not publicise it. I was called out there for help. I was called out to Seven Mile for help by the Aboriginal elders, by the senior blokes out there – and women, but I spoke to the blokes. I went out and they said: ‘Adam, the member for Stuart will not help us’. They told me a whole load of stuff and I will not repeat everything. They said: ‘He will not help us; he will not return our calls’.
The member for Lingiari, who, I believe, likes to keep Aboriginal people here so he can trick them to vote for him, would not answer the phone; would not respond. They needed help. They come to the bloke who stands up and takes the hardline approach of no more sit down money, get rid of welfare. They said: ‘Adam, can you help me?’ ‘No worries, mate. What do you need?’ I did not spend a dollar, I did not give them any money, I did not call a bus company; none of that. They needed help and moral support. I gave them ideas, that was all. You run with it yourself. I was there as an ear. I was there as a person. I was there as a local member and more importantly, I was there as a person who cares. These people were in difficult trouble.
I also have an electorate in town which covers the CBD, Warlpiri Camp, Hoppy’s Camp, and eight or nine town camps. I knew the violence that was going to happen in that town. I know how hot things get. The member for Macdonnell and I have spoken about boiling points in town. We know the troubled times. Those people moving did not solve many problems, but it provided breathing space for issues that were occurring. For the Deputy Chief Minister to get involved and try to politicise it, there is shame on those people. They went to Adelaide of their own accord. Six cars drove down. Are you trying to tell me I drove the cars for them too? I do not care what you say. You guys are a waste of space and the community has stopped listening to you anyway. The only thing you have is bush votes and now you are calling them all cavemen. You are in a great deal of trouble. Those people should have been shown respect like everyone else. You have disrespected them by calling them cavemen and referring to Neolithic and Iron Age times, Iron Age Italians.
You should be condemned for your approach to the people of Yuendumu. You should be condemned for your approach to every growth town and every outstation. The question by the member for Macdonnell today in Question Time about outstations was right. Here you are, mendicant again, going out cap in hand seeking money from the feds to support outstations. You do not even have a policy. You cannot even tell us which ones are which; how many houses are in each; what condition they are in; how much you fund each one; which ones you do fund; which ones you do not; which ones you charge rent for; which ones you do not; how much the shire gets for each one. You do not know what that is. There is no insurance on any of them. Nothing is under control and you are saying: ‘We need more money’.
The Northern Territory, going back to the previous debate, is in a diabolical way. There are four industries: tourism, in big trouble; live cattle, killed off with the support of the Chief Minister; and mining - resources rent tax 2% of royalty increased tax last year and now the carbon tax coming which is not going to hurt mining, it is going to hurt everyone in the Territory. The fourth big one is Aboriginal affairs. You are receiving all this money for Aboriginal affairs and you get nothing right. The Johnson report says there is serious concern about the capacity of the Northern Territory government to deliver, particularly in its core areas of housing and education.
It is only this far until this place is gone. If the federal government says it will do housing, and will do education through direct funding, what is left? There will not be a Northern Territory parliament. You can talk about statehood all you like, but if you do not get Aboriginal affairs right, there will not be a Northern Territory - we will be under Commonwealth administration. People talk about it all the time and everyone is afraid to say it - juggle statehood and all those types of arguments - but if you do not get it right it will be gone because you live off the breast of Indigenous dollars with the bureaucracy. You take that Aboriginal money away on its run out of Canberra, there is not much left! They are your four main industries! They are the life-blood of everything else that operates. The northern Australia stuff; you do not have a vision, you do not have a vision for Indigenous affairs, and you do not have a vision for Central Australia. It is just fluff some bureaucrat on the fifth floor writes.
You are the only person, member for Johnston, who can tell us what you really think in your passion, your vision, and how you see things want to go. You have seen the mistakes of the past. There is not one other person over there - I am thinking about everyone - who has shown any vision for the Northern Territory – not one! You are the only person. Perhaps you should take on Aboriginal affairs in the last 12 months of your tenure.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I am serious! We want someone who is going to show commitment, courage, and drive to articulate a vision, scuff away the mess, and do something. These LIPs look all right; they are a piece of paper; that is all they are. Get out there and do something!
I condemn the government on the way it has treated the people of Yuendumu …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
I condemn the government for its treatment of the people from Yuendumu who travelled to Adelaide. Moreover, I condemn it for its treatment of the people of Yuendumu broadly, and the people of Lajamanu, Yuelamu, Nyirripi, Mount Liebig, Kintore and our broader Northern Territory. I condemn the government and look forward to hearing the debate. I would like the member for Johnston - I do not think anyone else can do it over there - to articulate a vision of how he sees things could improve and what he sees as opportunities without the constraints of bureaucrats, advisors, and so forth, and share with us how you think things can change.
You must be sick and tired of me ranting about these things. Rant is terminology from your side; however, I say these things because I passionately believe them. How many other people around Australia have the guts to talk about removing sit down money and getting rid of welfare because it is a curse, when it is going to bite them on the backside? How many people? Get up and have your say. I look forward to hearing everyone’s debate so I can sum up and we will take a vote.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have great pleasure speaking on this very important motion put up by the member for Braitling. I do not think there is another person in this House with the same commitment …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members not to have phones turned on in the Chamber, thanks, member for Port Darwin.
Mr TOLLNER: It is great to see a member with such commitment to alleviating the problems in remote communities. I do not think there is a member here with that same passion apart from the person directly behind me, the member for Macdonnell. It is wonderful to see the way these guys research, and are prepared to stand up and express a point of view. If only we had similar commitment from the minister for Indigenous Territorians, or other Indigenous members in this place. Instead, they seem to be consumed with maintaining the status quo; keeping things the way they are.
It is also interesting to note that the minister for Indigenous Territorians is also the Minister for Statehood. The greatest single impediment to the Northern Territory gaining statehood is the issue of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Currently, half of the Northern Territory land mass is controlled by Canberra. We will never be a state while that situation continues, and I find it appalling. I find it wrong-headed that this government - and the previous Martin Labor government - will not take seriously the effort to talk with federal politicians about having that act patriated to the Northern Territory. The government is happy to rattle on about its support for statehood, but it will not support one of the fundamental foundations of statehood; that is, government being in charge of the land mass that it administers.
If we want Canberra to administer the land mass that is Aboriginal land, maybe we should just throw our hands in the air and say: ‘All right, we will leave it to Canberra’. Why even bother having a Minister for Statehood or a minister for Indigenous Territorians when the vast majority of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory live on ALRA land?
Like the member for Braitling, I was amazed and gobsmacked at the response by governments when the Yuendumu people decided to go to Adelaide. I would be surprised if anyone would ever contemplate a reaction from state or territory leaders such as we witnessed if a group of non-Indigenous Australians decided to pack up and go to another city. Mike Rann’s screams about a couple of hundred Indigenous people leaving the Northern Territory and going to Adelaide was almost beyond belief. I used to think this was a free country but evidently not. ‘Blacks out the back’ is the motto, it seems, of the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. ‘Leave them out in the scrub to fend for themselves, but the minute they turn up in Adelaide - gee whiz - we will scream blue murder; just not on’.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was highly embarrassed these people would consider leaving the scrub to go to an urban centre; he was so offended by it. The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, was so offended that these guys would have the audacity to leave a remote community and go to Adelaide. Goodness me! What is so offensive about an Australian leaving one part of Australia to travel to another?
The policy of Labor is the back to country policy. They have a strong view that blacks should be out the back - hide them out in the scrub; that is where they belong. They say that all the time. It is all about making sure blackfellas head bush. ‘We have to stop the urban drift. We have to stop Aboriginal people coming to the cities’. Put schools out there, health centres, all of this - it does not really matter that there is no employment or economic opportunities for these people, as long as they stay out bush. ‘Keep them out bush; out of sight, out of mind’ is the motto of the Australian Labor Party when it comes to Aboriginal people. It is rather disgusting. It is rather racist. Much Labor policy is based around race. We have the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, we have Aboriginal health centres, we have Aboriginal only schools, Aboriginal justice systems. We have apartheid here in Australia, and no place more so than the Northern Territory - apartheid.
On child protection issues, what is the first response of the Labor government? Set up an Aboriginal child protection area, as if Aboriginal kids are somehow so different to non-Aboriginal kids, Aboriginal kids do not need the same sort of love and nurturing as non-Aboriginal kids. We need a separate dumbed down bureaucracy for Aboriginal kids as opposed to non-Aboriginal kids. It is all rather appalling, and the first time anyone from our side of the House says anything about it, Labor screams racism. It is their normal reaction, and it is appalling.
I have been reading recently, particularly some of the works of Helen Hughes. For those people in this place who do not know or have not heard of Helen Hughes, she is an eminent Australian, an Emeritus Professor in Economics based at the Australian National University and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. She worked at the World Bank for almost 20 years and was a member of the United Nations Committee for Development Planning. She is currently focused on researching remote Indigenous communities in Australia. She is a person who is highly regarded in many different areas of economics. She was awarded the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal. She was awarded the Centenary Medal for service to economic policy, particularly to poverty alleviation and economic development. When you want to understand some of the concerns in remote communities, someone who has a gong, an award for service to economic policy, particularly poverty alleviation and economic development, it is hard to look past Helen Hughes.
Helen Hughes has written a range of articles over the years on many different topics, but her research into Indigenous expenditure is illuminating. She does not simply research Indigenous expenditure; she breaks it down between urban Aborigines and people living in remote Australia. She says every man, woman, and child in remote Australia has much more money devoted to their cause than Indigenous people in urban Australia do. People in urban settings do not have - there is not a great deal of difference between the outcomes, lifestyles and the like of mainstream Australia.
For people in remote communities, it is vastly different. She says that people in remote communities receive in the order of $100 000 per year, per person - $100 000 per year, per person - and yet if you look at the statistics in remote areas, and you see the way people live - and I have referred to many Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as hellholes. I do not know any other way of describing these places other than as hellholes. The minister for Indigenous affairs seems to have a great problem with that. She cannot bring herself to see that they are hellholes. She says: ‘Oh no, they are beautiful places’. If they are so wonderful, why is the minister not living in one of these communities raising a family there? Why isn’t she? The obvious answer is that many of those places are hellholes and, in many cases, you would not send your worst enemy to them.
The member for Braitling talked about education. Helen Hughes says the following about education in remote communities:
- When $33 000 per student delivers a 94% failure rate, lack of expenditure is not the cause. Despite additional funding, 150 Indigenous schools have the lowest literacy and numeracy rate of Australia’s 9500 schools. Failure is due to separate ‘Aboriginal’ curriculums and a lack of focus on classroom teaching. Instead of phonics to target weak English foundations and arithmetic drills to build basic numeracy, extra funding is spent on supernumeraries and special Indigenous programs. Consultants flourish, but teaching days, weeks and years are shorter than in mainstream schools. Commonwealth-funded ‘Community Festivals for Education Engagement’ take students out of school for two to nine days to learn that ‘it’s fun to be at school every day’. Meanwhile, they are not learning history, geography and science.
Excessive funding is contributing to high failure rates.
That is what Helen Hughes has to say. She has identified that money is not the answer. Yet every time we come into this place and talk about these issues, the one and only response we get from government is: ‘We have spent this amount of money. We are putting X number of dollars into this program. We have record levels of expenditure’. As Helen Hughes identifies, spending money is part of the problem. It is not part of the solution. We are not focused on results. We are focused on expenditure and how we expend more money and you see it time and time again in all areas of government Indigenous expenditure.
Then she says:
- Thanks to 30 years of separate education, remote Indigenous Australians are illiterate and non-numerate. They cannot pass the written test for a driving licence or read occupational health and safety warnings. They are not just unemployed but they are unemployable.
What an indictment! You grow up in a remote community. You have a failure rate of 94% and when you do finish school you find you are unemployable anyhow – that you cannot read and write and you cannot add up - because we have separate education curriculums for Indigenous people, which is what Helen Hughes identifies. These people do not go to a mainstream school. They do not have a mainstream education. They have separate education, somehow different to everyone else. The same as they have separate health systems. The same as they are about to have a separate child protection system, where everything is dumbed down, and made simpler. Yet we have a government that seems to think that is okay.
As I said yesterday during debate on a similar topic, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Not these guys; they just dig harder and faster and find more ways to spend and waste money. Every time we come in here, government is questioned about some aspect of Indigenous expenditure, and what is the first thing we hear? ‘The CLP, for 27 years, disregarded these people. They never spent anything. Look how much money we are spending.’ In 27 years of CLP government, I never heard one story of a child under the protection of government dying in a front yard. I did not hear half the horror stories that come out.
In different times and places, you hear dreadful stories, but the way they are coming on now is a tsunami of strife, of grief, and our only response is to spend our way out of it. It is the mindset of the left, of the Australian Labor Party caught up in the paradigm of the noble savage. Send them out to the bush where they can hunt, gather, eat witchetty grubs, live on yams, and somehow they will survive better than if they turn up in a mainstream town, get a proper job, send their kids to school, and eat Weetbix for breakfast. Goodness me, it is heart breaking; on and on the cycle goes.
The minister says: ‘We do not want to politicise this issue; this is bigger than politics. You cannot say these things’. Why? ‘We do not want the scrutiny. We do not want people calling us out on these things. We do not want people calling places hellholes’.
My good mate in this town who happens to be an excellent writer and is well-known to some members in this chamber, Mr Nicolas Rothwell, writes for The Australian. I saw an article he wrote about Galiwinku, a beautiful location. It really is a piece of paradise, but this is what he says about the township of Galiwinku:
- The bedrooms, in houses of this kind, are dark and fetid: the sacred clan emblems each family treasures are stored under half-rotted floor mattresses. Cockroaches and rats swarm about; indeed, patients with rat scratches are common and one diabetic woman appeared at the clinic recently with several of her toes gnawed off.
And:
- … the World Health Organization would place a sovereign country on its emergency list.
That is Galiwinku. Think what you like about Nicolas Rothwell, but he writes the facts well. He does a good job of drawing mainstream Australia’s attention to concerns we in the Northern Territory have about the lifestyle conditions of Indigenous people we rub shoulders with every day. This government says that is all right. We will do a renovation on a house. We will not paint the walls; we will not do anything really. We will slap a bit of paint on it. We will pay a contractor $200 000 or $75 000 for some menial work and the problem is solved.
When we originally cooked up the idea of the intervention - and I have said in this House before that it was an emergency intervention - it was a response to emergency of need in remote communities. Those hundreds of millions of dollars allocated for housing were for building shelters for people. Quick, fast shelters where we could roll out a program in an emergency response. It was not about building $300 000 or $400000 houses, or $800 000 or $900 000 houses being built now. It was about getting emergency accommodation on the ground quickly because it is an emergency.
A Labor government takes over and says: ‘We agree with the intervention. We do not agree with the way you are going about it. We are going to consult’. I draw the Chamber’s attention to what Gary Johns, former Labor minister in a former federal Labor government, has to say about consultation. Gary Johns says:
- Communities are consulted endlessly - it is part of the income of communities that either elders are paid to attend meetings or their organisations are paid to organise them. These meetings, if anything, seem to be in lieu of anything ever being decided; indeed, they seem to be a ruse to ensure that nothing is ever decided.
What an indictment. This is an indictment of the system by a former Labor minister in the federal parliament. He has his eyes open enough to see what is going on. People are being consulted to death and yet we have a minister in the Northern Territory parliament with the hide to turn up in this place and say: ‘We are doing things differently than the CLP ever did. We are consulting with people. We are talking to them’ - as if that is some great claim to fame. Gary Johns says people are being consulted to death. We have plane loads, bus loads, federal, state, non-government organisations, charities going out and consulting with these people. What they want is real action. They want real change to take place in these communities.
We have a government that says it does not believe in outstations, and is not going to fund outstations but, all of a sudden today, it informs us that homelands policy is a very important thing and we are going to keep funding them. Currently, these people are getting $100 000 per person in some form or other of government expenditure. As Helen Hughes said in her article, we would be better off getting the family of four - $400 000 per year – and putting them up in a nice home in Vaucluse and sending them to a posh private school. They would have greater hope of living a decent and fulfilling life than they would do sitting out the back of some of these joints, sitting under trees, playing cards, smoking cigarettes, waiting for the sun to go down so the next day they can get up and do exactly the same thing.
We wonder why alcoholism, petrol sniffing and drug taking are rife in these communities! By God, I have to tell you, if I was brought up in one of those joints I could not wait to get my hand on a can of full strength unleaded petrol. I would be sniffing away. I would probably neck myself. What a horrible place to grow up; in a house infested with rats and mice, having your toes gnawed off. We can crow about spending all this money, and be upset and worked up when a handful of them decide to take their lives into their own hands and move to a place like Adelaide. We are all horrified!
It is a disgrace. It was a disgrace of the Chief Minister to react the way he did. The first thing the Chief Minister should have come out and said was: ‘It is a free country. If you want to travel around, you can’. The first thing Mike Rann in South Australia should have said was: ‘It is a free country’. He did not. It is just horrific - absolutely horrific.
I will finish off with some words of Helen Hughes. Again, she talks about the fact that ownership of land is the basis of all economic development:
- When we talk about ownership of land, we are not talking about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, because that is not privately owned land; that is owned by a collective. It is just another name for Crown land ...
Mr Elferink: It is actually another name for socialism.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly. The member for Port Darwin has it right; it is another name for socialism, or communism. Here we are in Australia, in this marvellous freewheeling, free trading, and free enterprise country, where everyone gets a go. We are signing free trade agreements left, right, and centre with countries all around the world - and you can see the benefits on the ground in Australia. Financially, with respect to resources, we are better off than most countries in the world – and what a beautiful place to live!
Yet, right in the heart of this country we have a communist based system and the people living in it live in Third World conditions. In any case, Helen Hughes said:
- The excuse that ‘fixing Indigenous problems is too hard’ is used as an excuse for lack of progress. But we know that a mix of communal and private property rights and private enterprise delivers prosperity in mainstream Australia. And we know that no society in the world has achieved prosperity without these. Introducing private property rights side-by-side with communal property rights, mainstream education, enforcing the same civic standards as in the rest of Australia, and reducing excessive welfare would rescue remote communities. It would also be far cheaper than continuing to fund existing failed policies.
Doesn’t that sum it up in a nutshell? But it all seems so difficult. The reason it is so difficult is we have this enormous Aboriginal industry out there. We know who they vote for: they vote for the people who keep them in jobs, the people who have policies called back to country. That is who they vote for, and that is the motivation of the Labor Party right across Australia. It is a racist party, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know, they introduced the White Australia Policy. Interestingly enough, it was the Liberals who got rid of it, but nothing has changed. We go down this road, we create more Aboriginal agencies and consultancies, more talking, spending more money, and things get worse and worse and worse. I say shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on such an important motion. I am absolutely glad to support it, and I will stand up and support it as best I can. I encourage my colleagues on this side, and the other side, and Independents, to support this motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion the member for Braitling has brought to this House. As the member for Fong Lim said, he has been a brave politician inside and outside this House, calling for welfare to end. We have seen many other people hop on the bandwagon of what the member for Braitling has said. He used it to run in the federal election against Warren Snowdon, and was defeated. Many Aboriginal people now see where he comes from. He has made friends with people like Lindsay Brooking and Dicky Downs, and many other traditional elders in Central Australia. He explained to these people what he means by welfare, and that welfare is keeping them trapped, in not being educated, not being healthy, or housed, and being reliant on the many agencies that the member for Fong Lim just spoke about, that just come into these communities and consult.
There are jobs advertised in MacDonnell Shire, and there was a consultation with FaHCSIA last week at Alice Springs Town Council with those interested in having a conversation with the federal minister. There was a lady in the audience - and this is on Alice News website - who said that in MacDonnell Shire there are up to 55 jobs advertised and they cannot fill them because of Centrelink. It was a really interesting remark made by this woman. There are 55 jobs and they can only fill a small portion of that 55.
That is a real indictment on welfarism, and that is what happened: it is a gravy train of misery. I have stood in this House and said that it is a gravy train of misery. Why is it a gravy train of misery? Because we employ many people for the benefit of our poverty. The fact that we are not educated, the fact that we are unhealthy, the fact that we live in appalling conditions; we need to get off welfare.
I take this opportunity to say to the member for Braitling, he has brought fresh air into the ears and minds of many Central Australian people. Many people are on board, listening to the things he is saying because of the simple reason that people are over consulted and do live in poverty.
I have had two nephews in the past month who suicided, that I have had to bury. One was just last Friday. One of the questions I put to this House is shouldn’t we be talking about the suicides happening amongst our young kids in remote Aboriginal communities? The member for Fong Lim spoke about how our kids are all on ganja in our remote communities, but we are too afraid to talk about it. As politicians, as mothers, as uncles, aunties, grandparents, we are too afraid to talk about it.
This huge problem is causing so many problems in our communities with our young children and I would like government to give us statistics of how many children or young adolescents suicide in the Northern Territory. I would like a breakdown between regions - urban, rural and remote. Let us start talking about the issues. We do not have to sensationalise it. We do not have to go chasing the parents and naming the children and going to the communities to get the news but we should take this opportunity to talk about the suicide rate. Non-Indigenous people have started talking about their problems with people in cities and rural towns and things are starting to be done in that area.
Regarding the effects of mental illness with ganja amongst our kids, I would like the Minister for Health to give me statistics of how many Aboriginal kids go into Cowdy Ward and Ward One in Alice Springs with mental illness, paranoia, and all the symptoms of psychosis. How many of these cases are ganja related? We have to take these matters very seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will get on to the motion from an Indigenous point of view. Family disputes on communities are very disruptive. Not only do they disrupt people’s normal working day, it disrupts children going to school, and brings whole communities and regions to a standstill. We have to deal with these issues by Aboriginal people talking to Aboriginal people about changing the circumstances that lead to these disputes. The courts, magistrates, and legal services should play a role in these matters because it is usually violence or a murder in a community that leads to these disputes. It should be possible to get legal agencies and the legal services together to start explaining to people that interpreters are part of a system, and employed to make two parties understand one another.
When the legal system says a person is not on a murder charge but on a manslaughter charge, you have to understand that in an Aboriginal language we do not have a word for manslaughter. These are all the things we have to take into context when we start dealing with Aboriginal people involved in disputes in remote Aboriginal communities because it all comes out of disputes resulting from violence inflicted on a person, either in Alice Springs or in the communities.
As we speak, there is a community in my electorate we will probably hear about tomorrow on the news about some form of violence. A 14-year-old lad committed suicide two days ago in that community. It is really sad that these communities continuously go through this process of sadness and ugliness through these disputes. It is up to all of us to get together and start talking to these people about the harm they bring on themselves, their children, the whole region and community. It disrupts a child’s life at school, it disrupts a child’s life at home, because kids are put inside cars to go to the nearest community, or they flee to places like Adelaide.
Yes, people have a choice, they can move around. However, one day that person has to come back and if anyone is a good hater, let me tell you, Aboriginal people are good haters. They will wait for you. It does not matter how long it takes. You might go to Adelaide and live there for 10 or 20 years, but you are going to come back. You might have a grandfather, a mother, a father, auntie, or uncle who still resides at that community. That dispute will flare up again.
This is a long-term education strategy required in our regional towns and communities. We have the perfect opportunity with the roll-out of shires because you can link that to the municipal services of towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Katherine. One rule applies across the whole region.
I have spoken before about this. It is an education system so when people move from the shires into municipal towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Katherine, you have a standard of behaviour expected when you live inside the town. You cannot come in and start drinking, behaving, and killing each other in that town, and making a nuisance of yourself. That is part of an education strategy for all of us to put that message through so these people understand and accept that when they move from place to place, there is one rule. If we start this separating people all the time, they are not going to learn that.
I have said that every time we pass legislation on child protection we should have an automatic education strategy that goes out to the community immediately saying these are the changes, so people understand that in this House we make the laws and they are laws passed. They do not know that, so we need to put material out so people are educated. No, we do not seem to do it. I keep asking this all the time. That is the only way people will learn and we cannot just give lip service.
The members for Braitling and Fong Lim both said people are sick of it. They are over consulted. There are 60 or 70 agencies walking through a community in a week. They talk to the same people.
I have been requested by my constituents to ask whether the recent consultation that FaHCSIA had with all the communities about the second intervention, if they can get the minutes of those meetings back from the federal minister because they do not believe the bureaucrats at the meetings will take back what they said. Many bureaucrats at those meetings would not answer anything on Northern Territory housing. They said it was not their responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government, even though they give the money to the Northern Territory government. It was half a consultancy, half a conversation with the people, and the people are adamant. They have asked me to write to the federal minister and ask for minutes of every one of their consultations to come back so they can verify what they said is what the minister gets. They do not trust the bureaucrats.
If simple things like rent going up and their houses not being done properly on remote Aboriginal communities could not be answered by them, who is going to answer the questions? We can only bring so much into this House and we can only accept so much. What I have done now is send every transcript from Hansard of answers from ministers directly to my communities. I have done that with the Santa Teresa pool, and I would love the minister to see the e-mail I received from that community. The spin and propaganda is okay inside this House, but when you have people trying to work and trying to get the message out to these communities, that is what I will be doing every time now. Every time a minister gives me an answer, I will be sending that answer back to the community so the community can read what the minister has said on the questions I have asked on their behalf. We have to take these issues seriously.
The other area I wanted to get on to was the Families as First Teachers. Families as First Teachers go to four of my communities and the lady that does it is a beautiful woman; she is a good friend of mine. She goes to Papunya, Mount Liebig, Haasts Bluff, and Areyonga. So, those kids only get four days. She leaves Alice Springs on Monday at lunchtime. She goes to one community for one day, another community for the second day, third day, fourth day, and then she is back on the fifth day. What kid is going to learn with one day of education a week? Minister, you have said that unless a child goes to school every day they are not going to be educated. So, why is it different for our children out in remote Aboriginal communities that they cannot get five days? These are the children - not this generation, or the next generation, we are talking about the next generation. The passage for these children should be very simple. It should be five days, exactly what you said in this House.
The standard of housing in remote Aboriginal communities – Santa Teresa is a classic example. Can Santa Teresa ring up Centrelink, or terminate the contract with Territory Housing, and say: ‘I am not paying you rent anymore because of the way these houses are not finished’? In some of those houses, as you would have seen, there are no tiles and there is water leaking. They should not be made to pay rent until someone goes back to fix those houses. Is it fair that these people pay rent? These are some of the answers I hope, minister, if you are talking to this motion, you can give me, so I can go back and tell the people from Santa Teresa they can legally terminate their contract so they are not paying rent for houses that are substandard. We have obligations to look after these people. You cannot just say: ‘They can live like that, but they can pay the top rent, because we will go back in six months time to try to finish the houses’.
Haasts Bluff is another classic example where only nine or so houses were done. They said: ‘We will be back in June to do the rest’. June has come and gone; it is August. If you run out of money, then you need to say to those people: ‘We do not have money to do the rest of the houses so do not wait around for us, move on with your life’, so people are not expecting you to keep coming tomorrow.
Papunya is another one. It just happened that when one of the houses my sister was living in was handed back to her, it was handed back with half a house dead and half a house live with respect to electricity. She was running extension cords from the live side to the dead side. I just happened to be there with two people. I spoke to someone who fixed it up on the Monday - because that was Friday - so Saturday, Sunday, Monday they fixed it up. That was how the house was handed back to her - half dead, half live. She did not know any better. She just ran an extension cord from the live side to the dead side, but she was expected to pay the full rent for a house that is not repaired properly ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the second member who has had a mobile phone ring in the Chamber in the past hour. If people have phones in here they must be turned off, please. The next phone that goes off, the member will be on a warning. Sorry, member for Macdonnell.
Ms ANDERSON: That is okay. These are some of the messages we need to get back so we can tell these people whether they have the right to cancel these contracts. Is there some kind of legal advice these people can get? Can the people of Santa Teresa get a lawyer so a lawyer can help them fight Territory Housing so they do not have to pay the top rent for the houses they live in? You would have been better off not sending the crew in there because the houses were actually better before the houses were done. It is really terrible. It is sad to see the spin and the propaganda we put on how services are operating.
If we are going to have growth towns and consult with these people, when is all this going to happen? Or, is this just like the documents says: a lip service to get people encouraged for this year? We know we are going to an election next year and nothing happens until after the election. We have to be very careful that people are not living on our dreams, so we can have children moving on in their lives, so they are not waiting around for these pretend houses that are going to be built.
Hermannsburg was another one where they had consultations to have leasing. They were told at a public meeting the housing will be done next year. Then there was a story in the Centralian Advocate saying no, no, sorry, it is not going to be done until the year 2013 - that kind of stuff. When I go out there, people talk to me. They spoke about a person who works in the Chief Minister’s office. Is it right that you have a bureaucrat who works in the Chief Minister’s office, running around in the Chief Minister’s time, in the Chief Minister’s vehicle, campaigning in my electorate, and trying to take over the outstation of my mother? Your candidate does not even know who they are talking to!
I am talking about Des Rogers who works in the Chief Minister’s office. He goes blindly and talks to people at Hermannsburg, talking to my brother and talking to my sister, and trying to take over the outstation at Red Sandhill. My mother, who is the owner of that outstation, whom he has not spoken to, is in Royal Adelaide Hospital with a broken hip and a broken arm because she fell inside the grave of my nephew two weeks ago.
I ask you, Chief Minister, if you are listening to this, stop your candidate from trying to steal someone’s outstation, and declaring himself as a candidate. At the moment you have him running around on Territory taxpayers’ money. When my mother comes back, he will be running back to the Chief Minister’s office all right.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): What a revelation, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had more time to point out the sinister nature of this government, I would dwell on that, but what can I say? I am now torn between the temptation to attack government on the revelation we have just heard, or talk about an issue which is vitally important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than engage …
Ms Anderson interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I would not be at all surprised. I used to go to Red Sandhill once upon a time when I was the member for Macdonnell, but I was, of course, the member for Macdonnell at that stage, and legitimately.
A member interjecting.
Dr Burns: … you did not campaign when you were a policeman either.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, very good gentlemen. I will pick up on that interjection. Did I campaign when I was a policeman? Yes, on weekends, on my days off. Did I travel around those communities? Yes, I did, in a privately-hired four-wheel-drive …
A member: And they voted him out.
Mr ELFERINK: I was there for eight years, and I am proud of the time I spent there. What I did not do was spend time on the police force’s income campaigning, and that is the important difference. What I find curious is that, through that allegation, somehow the minister thinks it absolves their candidate, their ministerial staffer, from responsibility because he thinks blame might rest anywhere else. By your measure, two wrongs make a right. Not good enough, minister.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I remind honourable members that whilst this debate has ranged far and wide, this is a motion calling on the Northern Territory government to be condemned for its actions in relation to its residents at Yuendumu.
These sorts of disputes, when they occur, and they do occur in the Northern Territory, require a response. The first duty of government in all instances is to ensure people in the community are safe. Before we do health, before we do education, before we provide money to any number of programs or candidates, or whatever else, the primary role of government in any sphere is to provide security. In a federal system, the federal government, or Commonwealth government in this case, provide security with respect to external threats. State governments, as a rule, tend to provide security at a state level in the form of civil police forces.
In the United States, all three tiers of government provide security. People are often surprised to discover the United States has something like 3500 police forces, and most of them are local government employees. Security is important because you can have the best health system in the world, but if it is too dangerous to travel to the hospital then it is pointless. You can have the best education system in the world and the same applies.
What struck me about the Yuendumu situation was, whilst extra police were sent, it was insufficient to take command of the situation. Although sent, they were in many respects nobbled by instructions that limited their involvement in what was going on, which was the wrong thing to do.
If the Northern Territory government wants to do its job effectively, it must be prepared to secure the liberty of citizens who come under its protection. My mind goes back to a situation similar to Yuendumu, in the late 1980s, when there was a similar riot at Wadeye. We were in the station when the call came in – I was working in the watch house if memory serves me – ‘We need troops out at Wadeye’. So, I rang the missus and said: ‘Darling, I will not be coming home for dinner tonight.’
We boarded two light aircraft, which immediately took off. We had all sorts of equipment on board. We had riot shields, batons, all manner of equipment, including firearms. When we flew into Wadeye, I remember looking out of the window of the light aircraft and seeing a column of smoke over the community of Port Keats as we called it in those days. There was radio work back and forth, and the Task Force, which had arrived a little earlier, had secured the airstrip. We landed, abandoned the airstrip, went to the police station, secured the police station, and fortified it because of what was happening around us. We laid out our weapons and equipment on the floor of the police station, made sure we covered all points of access and egress and, essentially, put sentries in place; we secured our position. We then commandeered a couple of four-wheel-drives and began to take back security of the community. That involved patrols; making arrests; grabbing any person with a weapon and arresting them on the spot; and it involved on-the-spot searches. Whether all of these searches were lawful, I do not really know. I suspect they were on the fringes of lawfulness, but they were necessary, and we did what we had to do.
We arrived in the late afternoon and continued to patrol throughout the night. We stopped people, searched them, seized weapons, and started making arrests. By midnight, the community was quiet. By 6 am the following morning, the school was ready to be opened. As far as I can recall, it was opened. The community was starting to go about its business and we had by that stage, and it is well over 20 years ago, but I think we had, quite literally, dozens of people in custody. There were assault victims and people were being driven out of the community in custody. We were doing records of interview. We were processing prisoners.
Many of the people we were picking up later in the piece were drunk and, thanks to the good Lord, we did not have to resort to some of the equipment we took with us. The shotguns were in the cars, but the ammunition was never loaded into the breach, and we never had anything more than our riot shields jammed in behind us. What we did, although I did not realise it - I thought we were just restoring law and order, which was our job. From a government point of view, the response was no doubt expensive, but necessary, because the majority of Port Keats people were not engaged in the conduct that saw the club being destroyed and violence occurring in the community. What we were able to do was restore order. To my surprise, there was a certain amount of gratitude from some in the community that we had gone in, and gone in quite hard. We had firmly asserted our authority in that community and, consequently, we were able to leave the community the following day. We were tired; we had worked. By the time I flew out, I had been awake for about 36 hours. We flew back to Darwin. There was no requirement for subsequent reinforcing because the gazetted membership, plus a few we had left behind, was sufficient to mop up the operation.
I look at what occurred in Yuendumu, and whilst some police were sent, the response from government was: ‘We have to deal with this as a cultural issue. We have to deal with the family sensitivities and those sorts of things’. Hogwash! Even when I was the member for Macdonnell, I avoided involvement in cultural issues because I am not an Aboriginal person or, more importantly, I am not trained in the cultures and customs of those Australians or Northern Territorians who live in those places. However, my hierarchy of understanding of what is important remains intact.
From a governance point of view, if we do not have law and order instilled when the place is in a state of uproar - London, and what is currently happening in England, is a good example of what has to happen. You do not engage in political niceties. You reassert the authority that maintains law and order in our communities and you do that in Darwin, you do that in Alice Springs, and you should be able to do it in Yuendumu without fear of offending people. What is offensive is a star picket between the eyes or a knife in the guts. That is offensive and yet our response is pull back, we have to deal with this issue, be really subtle, etcetera. Not from a restoring order point of view. You must restore order.
I once used an analogy in this House when Clare Martin was in opposition. I said if someone is attacking you or attacking your community and you have a baseball bat with the declaration of human rights written on it, what do you do? Use the baseball bat or do you read out the declaration of human rights. Clare Martin said that, of course, you use the baseball bat. You use it first, only to restore order, and then you read the declaration of human rights. Deal with the other stuff afterwards, but you restore order first and the response in Yuendumu did not do that.
We ended up with a situation where we had people who, for all the world, looked like refugees. They have every right to travel to Alice Springs, or Adelaide for that matter, but I am left with a clear impression from the reports I read and the news on television that these people did not want to go. They were forced out and it bothers me deeply that our capacity as a government to maintain law and order, so these people could go about their lawful business in Yuendumu, was not sufficiently strong to enable them to do that. That is why we had refugees in our own country. You can excuse that anyway you like, you may make any sort of excuse for that but, as a government, you have failed in your primary duty when you cannot assert the good order of Her Majesty the Queen in your own jurisdiction. That is what happened in Yuendumu, and because we are all walking on eggshells around Aboriginal people we have failed in our primary duty to keep people safe, no matter who they are.
The former government, when they stuck us on aeroplanes and flew us out to Wadeye in the late 1980s, ensured Wadeye, within a day, was restored to sufficient order that the normal services provided to that community could be provided. Was everyone happy? No, they were not. Was the community in a state of calm and inner peace? No, it was not, but there was a sufficient presence of the Northern Territory government to make anything other than orderly conduct beyond the bounds of rational consideration. Most of the villains were already in custody by the time order was restored.
I am unembarrassed to say that, occasionally, to assert the authority of government, in the worst scenarios you need to use force. Indeed, in the very worst of scenarios - and God forbid any government has to make such decisions - that includes the use of potentially lethal force. It is not because I relish the concept that I would advocate either. However, if you are not prepared to do it - you are too busy walking on eggshells to make a rational decision about the need to restore order - you have deprived yourself of the capacity to govern for the people of the jurisdiction for which you have taken an oath of office, particularly when you have the title of minister.
The contrast between what I witnessed in Wadeye all those years ago, and what I read and saw about what was happening in Yuendumu, could not be starker. Whilst Wadeye was, if you like, an aggressive response from government, it produced a result which was law and order. That is not what I witnessed in Yuendumu.
Madam Speaker, until we start to understand the importance of getting our priorities straight in this important area, when government loses sight of that hierarchy of needs, it is a government doomed to fail. It is a government doomed to create refugees within the borders of its own jurisdiction.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words on this important motion. Given Indigenous people make up a large percentage of the Northern Territory population - in fact, we have more Indigenous people here per head of population than any other state or territory in Australia - it is one of the most important issues we could be dealing with.
What happened at Yuendumu was, and still is, tragic. To think people had to travel to Adelaide to raise the ire of the general public in Australia as it hit the media around the nation. Only then was there an offer by this government to bring them back. If I am right, it cost about $300 000 to bring these people back to Yuendumu. It goes to the core of the problem with Indigenous affairs. I have said before - I said it yesterday - governments of all persuasions over the years have tried. This Northern Territory government often talks about money as an outcome. I can tell you this is certainly an outcome; that is, spending money! There is no doubt - no doubt - that there are billions and billions of dollars spent on Indigenous people over the years. Where are we today?
If 30 years ago, Indigenous affairs had been handed to a private company, which was provided with the same amount of money, what could it have done for Indigenous people today? What they would not have done is go down the road of welfare. What they would have done is plant seeds, fertilise those seeds, and let them bloom. The bloom is jobs and economies. Take these once very proud people and give them back what they so much deserve; a life. At the moment, a life lived under welfare conditions in some of these communities is - ‘tragic’ is not the right word.
Australia is not a Third World country. Yet, if you took cameras to some of these remote areas and filmed some of the conditions people live in, you would think you were in a Third World country. You would know you were in a Third World country. It is not through the lack of money being spent on Indigenous affairs; it is how it is spent, managed, and wasted - wasted through bureaucracy. As I said, it has taken governments of all persuasions over many years. What annoys me is we have Indigenous members in this parliament, and have had for many years – not just this Assembly, but for many years. There have been Indigenous people involved in Indigenous affairs for many years. I do not know how those people can sit here today and think that what they have done has achieved what they hoped.
I will refer shortly to an article in The Australian about Dr Johnson’s report on our $3.5bn a year failing to lift Aboriginal conditions from the 1970s. It is not a lack of money. It is how it is spent. We, as a group of members, are supposed to be the leaders of our society today. Parliamentarians around the country, no matter what state or territory you come from, are viewed as the leaders of their particular states. We continue to debate something we know has been so wrong. How is it that we have houses built, as has been discovered here in this House, where perhaps $3000- or $4000-worth of work has been done, and yet it may have been signed off for as much as $75 000. How does that occur without maladministration? How does it occur under the eyes of what we call experts who are supposed to be watching, managing, and keeping a tight eye on public money? Or is it simply wasted because people think it is public money? Are things charged out at twice the amount of money the average person would pay because it is government money? I am not sure how it works. I am not sure how it seems to cost so much money and achieve so little.
No doubt, running remote areas costs far more than the same services delivered in a township of more people, and services get cheaper as the populations grow; that is a fact. I will touch on a few areas with respect to Yuendumu and my shadow portfolios. One is education, and it saddens me today that we have governments willing to spend money on education, willing to spend money on infrastructure, so you would think it was the right thing; spending money on infrastructure, spending money on services. It is not until you start to drill down to how those services are manufactured on the ground, what they are actually delivering, and what it is costing the taxpayer to deliver those services that you start to question, how is it possible? How is this amount of money going to make a difference? Government has spent money on school infrastructure, and that infrastructure in some areas is very good.
I recall speaking to a principal of a remote school who did not think resources were an issue. He thought this government was providing enough resources and yet they were struggling to get students to school. We all agree with government that we need to get children to school to be educated. Without an education, it is for nought. I recall saying yesterday that education needs to lead to a job.
Back to the schools, how do we get these children into schools? I have looked at programs where they provide breakfast for children to encourage them to come to school, and you think, that is a good initiative, that is a way of attracting kids to school, that is going to get them there. There is another argument that you are taking away the responsibility of a parent to provide their child with breakfast before they go to school. Is it that nanny mentality, that welfare mentality, that you, as a parent, do not have any responsibility because we are going to provide your children with food at school? I know the intent. This is where this report hits. The intent that governments are trying to achieve is honourable, but is it the right direction.
It is probably something we would all agree on, but it is the results from that work that I continually worry about. Are we building schools in remote areas that the community want? Are we meeting the needs of the community or are we meeting the needs of a government? Are we meeting the needs of the children of a community, or are we meeting the needs of a bureaucratic department to tick off the boxes, to fit that particular way of things.
We have all heard before that we often work in a square world and perhaps Aborigines live in a round world. There are differences on communities. There are different expectations such as the culture. There are so many things about the Indigenous way of life that is sometimes not suitable or not reflective of how we work in the larger towns. Perhaps the infrastructure we are putting in is not what was required. It is the box, it fits, it is a school, it is a building, but is that what was required to encourage these children to go to school? You build the schools, you build the bridge, and you expect the community to walk over the bridge. I was speaking to a wise person recently who said the difference is that the community has to own the bridge to want to go there.
I have heard the Education minister, Dr Burns, suggest things we could possibly do. I have thought long and hard over this, and government has the backing of a department and often you look behind and that is all you have in opposition. You do your own research, you take your own journey, and investigate how you might want to do things better. It is true, and I will admit right here, for the first 18 months in this job it was about lighting fires and running. When people raised issues with you, you found ways to get traction, whether in the media, or writing to a minister, to try to influence some change to fix that. About 18 months ago, the journey changed for me. With every issue raised with me, not only was the job of an opposition to try to get that traction and influence the change if you felt change was necessary, you looked at it, took a step back and thought: ‘If I were the minister, how would I fix this problem?’
It is all great and fine to light fires and run, but how do you fix it? Oppositions are often accused of having all this loud music and not coming up with anything tangible, anything that is actually going to solve the problem. For me, the journey did change and every issue faced requires research to find out how you might improve on that particular issue. That journey will continue but, for me, it has been a great lesson, and some of the decisions you might have to make are not easy ones. You cannot do everything you might want to do. There are budgets that will constrain you. There are pressures and competing interests that will constrain you.
When we talk about Indigenous affairs, about places like Yuendumu and others, it is not about money because money does not seem to be the object, but rather how the money is used at the coalface. Is the curriculum in our remote schools the right curriculum? Could we introduce more cultural activities in the curriculum to attract children to school, to get the community to own it? It is no good telling a child they have to go to school. They have to understand there is a need so they want to go to school. If we can get their parents to understand that, to give them something they actually want to go to, not because they have to go, perhaps we might be that bit closer to getting kids to school in remote areas.
In environmental areas, in Parks and Wildlife, there are so many opportunities for Indigenous people. I look at the Territory Wildlife Park and think could we not have Indigenous dancers down there; could we not have Indigenous foods being prepared for tourists as they come in there; could we have accommodation at the Territory Wildlife Park as a business-government relationship. Could we have eco-accommodation where people could interact in the park at night, eating Indigenous food and exposed to the culture of Indigenous dancers?
We could give people a product we already have here in the Northern Territory; which is why people come to the Northern Territory. They do not come to the Northern Territory to ride on roller coasters or for water parks. They come here to experience what the Northern Territory is all about. Our Indigenous people are part of that. That is why people come here. You cannot tell me there is not space for Indigenous people within Parks and Wildlife, within aspects of caring for our land through the environment. You cannot tell me we cannot provide opportunities for Aboriginal people through education and through jobs. It sickens me at times that we have to have so many things - even the member for Stuart said in presenting the heritage bill today - there was a requirement to have at least two Indigenous people on the board. We should not have to have that recommendation, it should happen.
We have so many separate services. Why do we have separate services? We should have one, and our goal for attendance rates should be 100%. There should not be an attendance rate for Indigenous people and an attendance rate for white kids. We should have one goal. We continue to have these separate services, separate arrangements, and separate agreements – what are we creating. We are creating two societies; we are creating two individual groups of people. That has got us where? It has got us to where we are today and we know it has not worked. There have been some great things done but have we improved anything since 1970? Have we improved the lives of Indigenous people today or have we created a mentality of welfare that is going to explode in the decades to come unless we get this right?
There is one thing I agree with: you guys on the other side, it is not all your fault. It is the fault of three levels of government in this country. Too many things to do with Indigenous affairs cross over into three separate levels of government because someone can always blame someone else, whether it is local government, state or territory government, or federal government. If we are talking welfare we know it is a federal issue, but unless we get some of these things sorted out, we do not have a hope in hell of fixing some of the Indigenous issues unless we can get - we talked about bipartisan - it has to be bipartisan across three levels of government not one.
You cannot do it on your own. The federal government cannot do it on its own, local government cannot do it on its own, and it pains me to say we need a task force because I am sick and tired of hearing we will send it off to a committee. For goodness sake, we need a committee to fill a pool with water. However, if we have a task force to look at Indigenous affairs in this country there are a couple of things it should be. It should be across three levels of government. It should not be just one.
Part of it is land tenure. I heard the member for Daly speak yesterday. What would you do about it? Well, we have to sort it out. I do not declare I have all the answers; however, we have enough experts in this country to sit down in one room and say: ‘That is the goal. We have to sort out land tenure’, and from there we can start to work on economies in these places. From there, the kids that we educate can have a job at the end of the day’. If we do not work together on this, and if we do not sort this out, this is going to be devastating for Indigenous people and the future all based on the fact it is welfare-related. If this task force looks at one thing, it should look at the Indigenous service industry in this country.
Recently, we learnt that in Katherine alone there were 52 non-government organisations taking money from the public purse to deal with Indigenous disadvantage. How well are things going for Indigenous people in Katherine, or Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek, and in some of the more remote areas of this Northern Territory? Not so good. It is not about money, but how much of the money is spent in that service industry? The service industry would certainly create jobs, but they are preying on the disadvantage of Indigenous people and that is a sad indictment. I do not want to get biblical, but even the Bible says you can teach a man to fish or you can show him how to fish …
Dr Burns: The Bible says that?
Mr CHANDLER: It is something biblical.
Dr Burns: Someone said it.
Mr CHANDLER: No, no, someone did say it.
Dr Burns: Making fishers of men, that is in there.
Mr CHANDLER: I actually have the wrong quote. I was meaning to say another quote.
Dr Burns: I think you have the wrong book there.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I could have done. Maybe that was from the book of climate change. That is another religion, another subject.
I am going to finish there, Madam Speaker, because I said the wrong quote from the wrong book – God will strike me down; he is going to hit me ...
Dr Burns: I will forgive you.
Mr CHANDLER: Now I do not even know the quote I was going to say, but it is from the Bible. I have really lost it now.
However, I finish up with saying, it is not about money; it is how it is spent. We need to work together to sort this out.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am enthusiastic about speaking in this debate because it started with a very important topic: Yuendumu and issues around Yuendumu. The debate has broadened considerably. I have listened carefully to the debate tonight. I am not sure whether I can do justice in the 20 minutes allocated.
The member for Braitling challenged me to speak and lay out my views in this parliamentary Chamber. Some of what I say here this evening will be personal views and personal experience. That is in the spirit of what has been said here tonight, particularly the last speaker, the member for Brennan, talking from the heart, saying what he felt, and making observations about things. That is fantastic,
I came to the Territory some 30 years ago. When I first came here, I thought the answers were pretty simple, and I probably had many of those answers. As time has progressed and I have become older and more experienced and seen a bit more, I do not think the answers are that simple. At one level they might seem to be, but I do not think they are. That does not preclude or stop us from endeavouring and striving to change situations that have been spoken about here tonight to get some results.
I point out to members opposite, as I listened carefully to what you said here tonight, there are many paradoxes in what you have said. There has been a theme about money is not going to fix the problem. That is something I agree with, although you need money to build infrastructure, put staff in, and get outcomes. However, it is not wholly about money. Certainly, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and land tenure has been a theme and I will return to that in a minute.
The member for Brennan, and a number of speakers from that side, talked about the folly of having two separate systems and questioned why we do not have a unified system with no separateness. A few sentences before that, the member for Brennan talked about schools and the bridge, and the community having to own the bridge. There seems to be a paradox in what he said about not just plonking a school in there, but having a school which flexibly meets the needs of the community, is tailored and responsive to the needs of the community - particularly an Indigenous community - and responding to that. I see a slight paradox there.
We started at Yuendumu and we have ended in education. I will come back to Yuendumu. What we are trying to do, particularly in the growth towns by extending the school year by 10 weeks into the Wet Season, is provide education when the kids are in the town, rather than in the Dry Season when populations disperse. We are trying to be flexible.
As I listened to various speakers, I could not help but reflect on my own experience, mainly at Maningrida, and how I went there 30 years ago. It was a different place to what I had experienced elsewhere in Australia in language, culture - a range of things.
I commend the book Encounter at Nagalarramba to members, which I will table. Unfortunately, the picture in it is not very large. It is a compendium of photographs by an ethnographer, Axel Poignant, which is an easy name to remember. Axel Poignant went to Nagalarramba, near Maningrida, in 1952. Maningrida became a settlement in 1957. Ted Egan and Jack Doolan, who was a member of this Assembly at one stage - a bit of a legend, many stories about Jack Doolan - were the native patrol officers who established Maningrida in 1957. There had been contact in the early 1950s, and I believe Ted Egan was involved when they tried to set up a trading post on the Liverpool River, but Nagalarramba is across the river. These are beautiful photographs and they show people in everyday life. I am not trying to idealise the noble savage; I know the folly of that. Here are unique pictures of families going about their family life, hunting and gathering, working hard, and people involved in ceremonial life. They are beautiful pictures which I commend.
What I reflected on through my interaction with Maningrida over 30 years is that many of the people in those photographs were known to me, both as young adults and little children who I came to know very well when I moved there in the 1970s. What gets me about this - and I am talking about one particular place in the Northern Territory; I do not know much about Central Australia or the Katherine region, but I do know a little about the Top End - was the fact there was an entirely different economic system.
Helen Hughes, an economist, was mentioned here today. I am not an economist, but what I saw there and my experience even in the 1970s was a different economy, a hunter-gatherer economy, where people had obligations with food and a range of things; people had complex relationships. Most of it was based on the land. I am not trying to romanticise this, but we need to remember with Aboriginal land and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the people are the land and the land is the people. This is an important relationship. I might agree somewhat that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 may have been, or might be an encumbrance to economic development as we see it. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, brought in, incidentally, by Malcolm Fraser, was about trying to preserve those relationships that existed in Arnhem Land in particular, and throughout the Territory; these important economic and social relationships, but much has happened.
There has been the welfare era, and the era of self-determination. There have been many different policies, as you alluded to, member for Brennan, imposed in many ways on Aboriginal people, that have not worked. There have been shining examples of self-determination, but there have certainly been failures.
There have been policy failures, which we all acknowledge. I talked about this in Alice Springs in relation to the book King Brown Country: The Betrayal of Papunya which, apart from anything else, shows those policy failures in the Central Australian context. What we are talking about is people with an entirely different economic and social system. We are talking 1952; we are talking 1957, if you are talking about Maningrida, and the years since. We are talking about two or three decades. We are talking about children who grew up at Nagalarramba as full-on hunter-gatherers, and expected to make incredible change, socially, politically, and economically, into a wider system.
I do not have a problem with separate systems in a way. We all have the same aspirations. If those systems support people to achieve equity - social, economic, and political equity - these things are important. I am not going to criticise them; some have been failures, some have been successes. In education, debate has raged about bilingual education for kids for whom English might be their third language. It would be completely stupid of the education system to say: ‘We are going to exclude any reference to those languages’. That is not what we are about at all. We have to focus on English and that has been the controversy. Where I stand as Education minister is we use those other languages in any way we can to convey the concepts to the kids, to communicate with them, so ultimately they are literate and numerate in English. That is what I think. If that means people saying you have a separate system - I am calling it ‘multilingual learners’ – if that means a separate system that some people tag, they can, and they can criticise it, but I believe it is a vehicle. I want to see vehicles by which these kids can learn, prosper, and grow. That is my philosophy. I might agree with you about many aspects of welfare because it has, in many ways, been corrosive for Indigenous people. I will put my view publicly that, in many ways, welfare has been destructive for Indigenous people.
The member for Braitling has, once again, been somewhat of a paradox. He talked about no more sit down money and welfarism. Yet, a couple of months ago, he sent me an e-mail about public housing, about people who felt that because they had lived in public housing for 40 years or so, we should either give them the public house or sell it to them very cheaply. I am not in the business of doing that. As I wrote back to the member for Braitling, public housing is for people who are in need and what we should be doing as government, is ensuring those who are in most need have priority in obtaining public housing. Those who have jobs, and some of them might have well-paid jobs, who have a mindset they always want to be in public housing - the member for Arafura has spoken about it, even in her own family, about people moving through that, owning their own houses, and getting equity in their own houses.
Like everywhere else, there are avenues for people to do that. So I heard a number of paradoxes tonight, not least of all from the member for Port Darwin when he compared the 1990s Wadeye riots and the police response at Yuendumu. I was somewhat amazed, and he seemed to be suggesting that in the 1990s Wadeye riots somehow the CLP government had directed police to go in hard with firearms and everything else to restore the peace and, in relation to Yuendumu, this government had directed police to go in soft and not try to restore order. I hope that is not what he was saying, but he appeared to be suggesting that. That is suggesting that government cross the barrier of the separation of powers and politicians direct police about which way to act.
I am concerned about the attitudes put forward by the member for Port Darwin if the CLP did get into power. The member for Port Darwin said if you have a baseball bat in your hand with the human rights declaration written on it, what should you do? Do you use the baseball bat first or the declaration of human rights? I think, ‘Yes, I understand that in a situation the community has empowered police to use whatever force is necessary to maintain the peace’; I get that. However, to suggest that somehow politicians and governments direct what approach police should take in an operational sense is quite inappropriate. I will be going through the Hansard record closely tomorrow to see what he is saying.
We have certainly had baseball bats tonight from the member for Port Darwin and I know the member for Araluen, during the election period, went to attack dogs and the attack dog squad. We are getting a picture of life under the CLP and I am concerned about that. I look forward to having a debate with the member for Brennan about education. He is obviously pondering many important issues.
Coming back to Yuendumu, obviously, payback was at the bottom of it, and I will come back to that cultural aspect. Payback has been part and parcel of Aboriginal culture for a long time. When I first came to the Territory I witnessed it and it made me quite afraid. It is not pretty, but the elders in the community controlled the payback. In the community I am referring to the ‘offender’ was in the middle of the oval with people at either side throwing spears at a rapid rate. When things started getting a little hot - it was all pretty controlled - the elders stood within a certain distance of the bloke who was the target. That meant people - because they did not want to be throwing spears at them, so the situation came up, it was dealt with, it went on. What I observe now, as the member for Macdonnell said, there is much violence, there is payback, and some of that payback may be associated with further alcohol abuse, and there is a self-perpetuating cycle of payback. There is a cultural basis to it and it is something we have to deal with. In that instance, this government has made it plain we will not tolerate - we understand about payback, but we will not tolerate violence of any kind. There are no separate laws about this; there is one law for everyone. We abhor violence. In that respect there is agreement across the Chamber about one law for everyone.
Regarding service provision, there is a legitimate, valid, and important place for separate services. I allude to Central Australia and Congress. When I was Health minister - I am interested in these things, and the facts and figures on the successful way Congress deal with chronic disease would make any general practitioner in the wider community feel a little envious. The way it deals with diabetes, heart disease, follow-up specialist visits, and laboratory tests, and the rest, is impressive. That is something Congress has done in Central Australia. We have Danila Dilba in Darwin and other Aboriginal medical services. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water like the opposition seems to be doing. There are many separate services doing a fine job and we should not let ideology cloud our vision and generalise about service provision.
Coming back to ALRA, one point I omitted before - the member for Fong Lim talked about ALRA. When John Howard had control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, why didn’t the member for Fong Lim or John Howard change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976? When he had control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, why didn’t he change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976? Maybe over dinner one night the member for Port Darwin or the member for Braitling can enlighten me on this. The Howard government did not do it when they were in control of the Senate - they did not repatriate it back to the Northern Territory. That is an interesting question.
In regard to Yuendumu, the member for Braitling raised issues about people wanting to leave and the varying motives behind that. I agree that people are Australians and they should be able to go anywhere in Australia they want. Our Chief Minister put that view …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, colleagues.
The Chief Minister certainly made that plain publicly. I heard him on radio and possibly on television several times saying exactly that: they are citizens of Australia …
Mr Giles: You know what you got up to.
Dr BURNS: They are citizens of Australia. He got into a blue with Mike Rann about it; that people are citizens of Australia. He certainly told Mike Rann that these people are citizens of Australia and they have every right to go. If they want to go to South Australia, Sydney, or anywhere in Australia, they have every right as a citizen and I agree with that.
The member for Braitling probably had a chuckle about Mike Rann and the numbers. Jay Weatherill will be the Premier of South Australia and I wish him well. He is a very nice bloke. He is on the left. I sometimes wonder about the member for Braitling. He seems like a cross between Noel Pearson and Norm Gallagher in his politics. It is always interesting to hear the cascade of thought, views, and opinions from the member for Braitling. He never disappoints us with a dull point of view on anything. For that reason, I value his contributions to this House.
We could argy-bargy all night and say you stirred up more trouble, and you should not have become involved. You put your side of the argument. As government, we have always encouraged people to come back to Yuendumu to settle their differences. As the member for Macdonnell said, it is an incremental process; it is going to take some time. We will continue to encourage them to come back and live there. There are houses allocated and I hope that community can get over this problem and move on.
As I said, some of these things involve deep feelings between families. As government, we have tried to mediate as best we can but, ultimately, it is up to the families to come together. I am sure they are joined at a number of points by marriage, by country, by ceremony, by a range of things. I hope, through those avenues as well as their own leadership, they can settle these differences. I am told some people in the families involved did ask him not to proceed with this motion. I do not know whether that is right. Perhaps he can tell us in his wrap up whether that is so. Dragging family disagreements into the parliament is probably not a good thing to do.
In summary, from government, personally I have enjoyed this debate. It is about a serious matter, but members have put forward a variety of opinions, and I have found this debate to be quite stimulating. However, at the bottom of it, there was a serious incident at Yuendumu. What we are trying to do, as government, is get families to try to resolve those issues and move on.
Madam Speaker, I do not have any more to add to that. I will listen carefully to the member for Braitling in his wrap up.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am no Norm Gallagher, but thank you very much. It has been a good debate. It has been interesting. Some people have spoken freely and freshly on their thoughts and opinions, not deliberately representing party lines, but party philosophy and the way we see things.
I did write a few notes and I will not continue all night with this. I was surprised the local member did not speak on this. I thought he might have, especially being Minister for Central Australia and one of the people who attacked me in the media for alleged involvement, along with the Deputy Chief Minister. The member for Stuart had his thoughts on cultural payback, which are different from the member for Johnston, and he is often willing to express them.
It was interesting to hear from the member for Johnston about Nagalarramba and his learning from the experience. I understand time is difficult and things change, and that is why we have these debates, so we can grow and learn, change policies and ideas, and seek to make improvements.
The member for Johnston spoke about three particular areas. It is not all about money – no, it is not all about money, it is about policy and driving change. He spoke about land rights and separatism. In regards to separatism, it is not saying people who operate in a separate environment are not doing a good job, but it is important not to lower the bar. Government set a target of 21% for middle years’ education and only achieved 15% last year; it is just not good enough. That is lowering the bar, which is when it becomes separatism and institutionalised racism.
He spoke about many areas; welfare, self-determination, and land rights. Welfare is certainly deemed a failure. I do not think land rights have been a failure, but it requires reform. We have never really tried self-determination; people have never had the opportunity to drive reform themselves. Wherever people had opportunity to drive reform, people at my level and the member for Stuart’s level - those people should be driving reform and I am disappointed he did not talk – very disappointed.
We have moved to an IT era, and IT is going to change Indigenous livelihoods in Australia substantially and no more so than here in the Northern Territory. I was disappointed to lose the portfolio of ICT to my colleague, the member for Drysdale; it held many opportunities. Question Time today was farcical with the minister for ICT and his answer; he is not taking it seriously. That is not a deliberate dig; it is exactly how it is.
When I was in charge of ICT, I was driving our side to a policy position where we were going to encourage the government - whether they used NBN or whether the Coalition came in and used similar technology, but wireless technology. I support wireless technology because that is the right way to go; not for some Coalition philosophical belief, I just believe it is the right way to go. We have backhaul lines up and down the Territory and across some of these big highways. There is an opportunity to manipulate, through politics, the federal government of whatever persuasion, to build infrastructure along those arterial routes so private companies can install mobile phones and radio telecommunications. That would improve the free flow of information up and down the track and across arterial routes.
All growth towns should have 3G or 4G, or whatever capability they can these days with IT advancements. More and more kids in these bush communities, like everywhere else, are on Facebook, downloading from the Internet, and all these things. People are learning, exchanging information, and partnering up with people from all around the world, and that is going to be the information era for Aboriginal people from remote communities. That is going to change so fast. We are in the middle of it now. We are already hearing complaints, and I am sure the member for Stuart, as a minister and as a member, hears complaints from senior people in communities he goes to, as I do, including urban centres, of teenagers causing fights and riots through sending each other text messages. There are negatives about it, but putting aside the negatives, there are positives where people are exchanging information and learning from one another. We will see Indigenous advancement progress substantially through IT.
The NBN, particularly in remote communities, connecting every house, I do not think is a wise move because of the mobility of the population. The importance of wireless integration for people to have compatible relationships across the Territory and around the world is important, and for that reason I support wireless.
Jobs are about the NBN. There is a fundamental reason why we should be investing more into wireless because the dollar will go further. We can have greater connectivity with a greater population in the Northern Territory, so wireless technology is the way to go in the Northern Territory.
The minister made comments about public housing and my personal thoughts on long-standing Indigenous tenants and public housing. I will not delve too deeply into that for fear of crossing over the policy line. The minister spoke about Nagalarramba people in 1957 being hunters and gatherers, and there are people living on the outskirts, or within our town of Darwin and other areas in the Territory, who have been in public housing since that time. Back then, those people were not able to access jobs or houses as freely as other people were. Those people started from a long way back. They have been given a hand up approach to move forward and my personal opinion is there needs to be some recognition of the hardships those people fought in coming to that era. Those people had nothing; no education, no jobs, and I see the Deputy Chief Minister shaking her head …
Ms Lawrie: At your hypocrisy - quite gobsmacking!
Mr GILES: I will not go any further; it comes into policy position. There needs to be some recognition of the difficulties Indigenous people faced back then. Some people still face that today, but from back then, as that transition from - taking the words of the member for Johnston - hunter and gatherer, there has been some of that around.
My colleagues, the members for Fong Lim, Port Darwin, and Brennan, and the member for Macdonnell all made valuable contributions and I appreciate their support of this motion.
It is disappointing that the member for Nelson did not involve himself in this. He holds strong views, but many of those views do not seem to matter too much to the member for Nelson these days. It would be good if he held his principles rather than kowtowing to the government on everything. The member for Nelson might say: ‘Get your stuff in order’, and I would say: ‘Our stuff is in order’. How long can an Independent hold a minority government in place when you have outcomes of 15% of middle year Indigenous students attending school after a target of 21%? How long can an Independent hold a Labor minority government in power with the child protection issues that are going on and the mistreatment of Aboriginal children?
How long can the Independent member for Nelson hold this minority Labor government in power with its failures on housing affordability, and affordability in general, in the Northern Territory? How long can the Independent member for Nelson sit back while our tourism industry falls apart, while the live cattle industry is on its knees partly thanks to the Chief Minister supporting the Gillard government live cattle ban? How long can the Independent member for Nelson stand by while the carbon tax comes in, the mining resources rent tax comes in, the royalty payment on mining comes in, to penalise our mines so much they are all looking to move overseas with that sovereign risk? More importantly, how long can the Independent member for Nelson provide the foundation for this poor-performing, maladministered, mendicant, minority Labor government of the Northern Territory?
These are serious questions and I challenge the Independent member for Nelson to look at his agreement with the Chief Minister and research what maladministration is. He stood in this Chamber today talking about SIHIP and the CTC third report. He recognises there are problems and deep down he knows SIHIP has been maladministered but he does not have the gumption to get off his seat to say that, and withdraw support for this government.
I challenge the minister for housing to explain comments he made in this Chamber on Monday when he was asked questions about houses at Wadeye: what is a rebuild and what is a refurbishment, where is the money going, and why the contractors are going back to fix the housing works, and so forth. There was direct reference made by him and me in different ways about house No 232. According to the New Future Alliance documents I have here, which I will seek to table later during my speech, it clearly states that house No 232 in Wadeye is a rebuild. That means, on average, it had $200 000 spent on it. Anyone who saw that house and the photos I tabled in estimates would recognise that you would be lucky to have had $10 000 spent on the house, let alone $20 000.
I will read from Hansard what was said. This is the minister’s response in relation to the refurbishments:
- The member is correct in saying that the average cost of refurbishments is $75 000; that is an average cost.
I believe he is referring to several houses at Wadeye, and pictures taken by Senator Scullion and published in the Senate. The department advises that the alliances, because they have been very efficient in the delivery of the project out there, will be going through all those houses again and doing extra work - extra work which I am sure the people of Wadeye will greatly appreciate. When I was there with minister Macklin a few months ago, people were very pleased, particularly with their new houses
After a point of order, he went on to say:
- The particular cases alluded to by the member for Braitling were refurbished houses, not rebuilt houses. Rebuilds are in a different category of approximately $200 000 per house on average. Refurbishment is $75000 and, as I said before, particularly at Wadeye, the alliance contractor has undertaken to go back through the houses and remedy any faults or outstanding issues. I accept that, and I do commend the alliances.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows he cannot accuse a minister of deliberately misleading.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he did; however, be very careful in what you say. You do make allegations by way of substantive motion, thank you.
Mr GILES: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. … clearly, according to the New Future Alliance document, that was a rebuilt house and should have had an average of $200 000 spent on it, and if it did not need any more than $75 000 it would only have been a refurbishment. There is no way that house had $20 000 spent on it. Where he said the alliance contractors were doing such a fantastic job they decided to go back and do more, that is rubbish! That is clearly misleading, because in the Senate estimates …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: You need to be very careful how you word that. I would like you to reword that last sentence please. You are alleging he has misled people.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps, I can assist, Madam Speaker. I do not think there was an allegation of him misleading the House, but misleading Territorians, and that is often said in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not know about that, member for Port Darwin. If you can just reword that, in a helpful way, thank you.
Mr GILES: It is hard to reword. I withdraw the last comment, Madam Speaker, and will explain. It is difficult to reword because the federal government, upon appearances in the Senate by Senator Scullion, was forced to send its own people in to inspect the houses and has now forced the contractors to go back. Not because, as the minister says, they are doing such a wonderful job and want to go back and do extra work. When he said it is a refurbished house, it is not right. He said these were refurbished homes, not rebuilt homes. It was a rebuilt home, so he is wrong. He is mistaken or he has misled parliament, one or the other. I ask him to explain whether he got it wrong or he misled parliament.
House No 232, which I seek leave to table, Madam Speaker …
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: … clearly indicates, by the New Future Alliance, it was a rebuild. To many, that would not seem technical or interesting, but on average it is $75 000 for a refurbishment and $200 000 for a rebuild. This is part of the problem with SIHIP and where the money is being swept away. I estimate at least 40% of the SIHIP package is going to administration or waste. It is not hitting the ground. The minister knows it; it is part of the problem with the alliance contracting model. It was not a gun-to-the-head Brough approach. You chose it because it is in the MOU; that is where the money is going. It was either a mistake or misleading. I am happy to be corrected, but that is what the alliance documentation says.
Many oppositions look for opportunities to target government. I look at my colleagues here, and I see the shadow minister - soon to be minister for Health - holes all through the health system. We have the child protection shadow here - holes all through child protection. We have the shadow Treasurer here who is going to become the Treasurer with bucket loads of debt. We will not know where to turn because of Delia’s debt ...
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, yes. … to refer to the Treasurer by that title, thank you.
Mr GILES: Debt?
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr GILES: Sorry. We have the Treasurer’s debt. We have the problem with the live cattle trade, we have education outcomes, we have tourism falling apart, we have procurement problems - where do I stop? The poor people in multicultural - and I have already spoken about ICT and how the minister for ICT is not doing anything. I stand here in Infrastructure with a port falling apart, the roads not being rebuilt properly, regional development not happening in an economic sense, and Indigenous policy - the biggest failure of government. Where does the Independent member for Nelson have to look?
Mr Conlan: The expert Independent.
Mr GILES: The expert Independent who holds this minority government in place. I mentioned before my respect for the member for Johnston. We do not agree on everything, but I respect that he has more of an experienced opinion to be able to speak freely on different things. Everyone else on that side holds a portfolio that is failing. Yet, the Independent member for Nelson seems to think this is a government that deserves praise and to be held up. I have a message for the member for Nelson: it is time to withdraw your support. It is time to review what maladministration is, as written in your agreement with the Chief Minister. The time has come for the end.
Whether he withdraws his support or whether we go to an election, I am happy either way, because the time has come. No one in their right mind, with a high degree of morality, a principles-based person, could stand by and let child protection get to the way it is, or let the education standards and outcomes come to such poor levels. We have the lowest school attendance in the Northern Territory ever. You have killed the live cattle trade, courtesy of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister. You have killed it. Who even knows who the Tourism minister is on their side? We do not hear a peep.
Mr Conlan: Oprah Winfrey.
Mr GILES: Oh, that is right. We had the $400 000 helicopter ride. What has that done for tourism? You try to talk about American numbers coming in and out, well, that happens through Pine Gap every year. Good call that one!
I look over there and see an absence of talent, an absence of performance, and a bit of a waste of space ...
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Unanimous support for another 10 minutes, Madam Speaker – unanimous!
While these oxygen thieves sit over here and lie back in their chairs - those who are here - bereft of intelligence or performance, I will come back to one of my funny topics. I do not think the member for Greatorex heard my opening remarks ...
Mr Conlan: Oh no, please.
Mr GILES: Member for Greatorex, at the opening of this debate condemning the government about its performance in handling the situation with the people from Yuendumu, I reflected on my public arguments with the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann - the current South Australian Premier, Mike Rann. At the time, I called him a racist because he wanted to kick the Aboriginal people out of South Australia, while he was very happy to have 300-and-something illegal maritime arrivals come in as refugees or otherwise. He had fun saying that I was a Rugby League player and I wore my IQ number on my back. I said: ‘Well, getting insulted by Mike Rann is like getting hit with a bit of wet lettuce’. The chickens have come home to roost. While Mike Rann was on his overseas trade mission it turns out that his political support is written on his back. He is now the fullback, wearing number one as Jay Weatherill gets ready to come in.
Madam Speaker, I would like to put the motion. It has been great to have the support of the member for Macdonnell, and particularly my colleagues. The member for Nelson, we will wait and see. Perhaps he still supports poor performing child protection systems; erosion of the live cattle industry; debt, debt, debt; poor educational outcomes; tourism going backwards; the health system in disarray; business floundering; no plan for ICT for the Northern Territory; and an Indigenous policy framework and platform that seems to be going nowhere fast and doing nothing but putting Indigenous people into the corrections system.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as a result of the division, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes, accordingly the result is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, as there is not a majority of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VICTIM PROTECTION ORDERS) BILL
(Serial 145)
(Serial 145)
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Sentencing Act to provide for a court to make victim protection orders in certain criminal proceedings to protect victims of a crime from having any contact with the offender for a period of 20 years, or such longer or shorter time as the court might order, including the lifetime of the victim or offender.
Government does not believe this bill is necessary. We have legislation already in place that does everything this bill sets out to do. What is proposed in the bill can already be achieved through a variety of orders. In the case of an offender released from prison on parole, pursuant to section 5(5)(b) of the Parole of Prisoners Act, the Parole Board can make a parole order subject to conditions. These conditions could include prohibiting contact with or coming within a certain distance of the victim. For a person on bail, similar orders to the Parole of Prisoners Act can be made under the Bail Act and, in fact, non-contact provisions are routinely made when a person charged with a sexual or violent offence is granted bail.
We have the Domestic and Family Violence Act. If a domestic relationship exists between the victim and the offender, a domestic violence order, DVO, may be obtained under the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
We have the Justices Act. If there is no domestic relationship, a personal violence restraining order, PVRO, under the Justices Act may be obtained. DVOs and PVROs are court orders that can be sought by the person wanting protection or by a police officer. Either order can be renewed if necessary.
For offenders who have committed sexual offences against children, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act provides that a court may order an offender found guilty of specified offences, a reportable offender, to be placed on extensive and detailed reporting obligations for periods of time from eight years up to the remainder of the person’s life. A failure to comply with those reporting obligations is punishable by a maximum term of two years imprisonment.
If a court is satisfied the reportable offender poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, the court may also make a child protection order prohibiting the reportable offender from certain conduct. That prohibited conduct includes contact or association with specified persons; being in specified employment; engaging in specified behaviour; and, from entering or remaining in a specified place, even though the reportable offender has a legal or equitable right to be at the place. A child protection order can remain in force for five years. Failing to comply with a prohibition order carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The bill proposed by the opposition differs from the existing law in three ways. By providing that the order must have effect for 20 years or another period specified in the order, it could be easily circumvented by a court. It is unlikely a court would make a blanket order for a 20-year period if given the option to make the order for another period. It is far more likely that the length of the order would be tailored appropriately on a case-by-case basis. The member for Port Darwin implicitly acknowledged this in his second reading speech when he referred to the 20-year period as: ‘simply a default period’. If the intention of including a 20-year default period is to advocate a tough on crime stance, it is simply empty rhetoric. In any event, from a policy perspective, it is preferable for a court to make a non-contact order for a reasonable period and extend the order if there is a need to do so. Making a blanket 20-year order would not provide for appropriate judicial oversight.
Placing the onus on the offender to remove him or herself from public places at the request of the victim, even when the offender is in that place lawfully and without any intent to be in the vicinity of the victim; placing an onus on the offender to leave public places if the victim arrives, is not realistic. Although the bill provides the offender must comply with any reasonable request to absent himself or herself from the proximity of the victim, there is no guidance as to what would be a reasonable request. Would it be reasonable, for example, if the offender is having a meal in a restaurant with his or her family and the victim arrives and demands they leave immediately 19 years after the order was made? If the offender is at the football, does the victim arriving at half-time mean the offender has to leave? If an offender were charged with a breach, the question of what was or was not reasonable would be a matter that would need to be determined by the courts. It could be envisaged that if a 20-year order was made such matters would invariably be defended.
Requiring the victim to make the application, not the DPP or police, is an important point of difference between the opposition and the government. We believe this argument places too much responsibility on the victim of what are very serious offences to either make the application personally or engage a legal representative to do so. If the victim is a child, there is no capacity for an adult to seek the order on behalf of the child. The existing law already protects vulnerable victims from the offenders who initially harmed them and, in the case of child sexual offenders, protects not only the people harmed, but potential victims as well.
Madam Speaker, there have been no reports published, no groundswell of public opinion, and no gap in the current law. In fact, there has been no call at all for a law of this type. This is merely the whimsy of the member for Port Darwin. The government does not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was asked some time ago to look at this bill the member for Port Darwin has introduced. I did that, and I received a media release from a Raelene Webb QC, President of the Northern Territory Bar Association and Mark Johnson, who works at William Forster Chambers. The media release says:
- Victim rights bill not necessary.
Existing legal mechanisms already exist to cover the issues raised by the Sentencing Amendment (Victim Protection Orders) Bill 2011.
The bill contemplates victim protection orders made at the time of sentencing and having effect for a period of 20 years or other period specified by the court from commencement. The question is whether there is sufficient basis for implementation of such a regime.
In the case of an offender sentenced to imprisonment and being considered for parole, the Parole Board can impose such restrictions/conditions upon the parolee as it considers appropriate. This could include an order that the offender does not contact or place himself or herself in close proximity to the victim of the relevant offence. It is also open to any victim to seek protection by way of a domestic violence order or personal violence order, irrespective of any other court or Parole Board order.
Such applications would be considered on the basis of the situation existing at the time the application is made. If such an order is justified, it would become effective immediately. On the other hand, the bill contemplates that the court will be asked to consider the imposition of such an order for a period of 20 years. In many cases, this will be long before the necessity for such an order may arise, for example, when the offender is required to spend an extensive period in gaol. That is, the bill contemplates that the court might be asked to make a victim protection order without consideration of whether the order is, or will be, justified at the time it has any practical effect.
Problems which could potentially occur as a consequence of the bill outweigh the benefits. This is particularly where there are already mechanisms for protection of victims of the relevant offences.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am particularly surprised. When I announced the Country Liberals were going down this path, and the bill was brought into this House, something I did not expect occurred. I received three telephone calls, all anonymous, from women who said they hoped this bill would get up because, in spite of the arguments from both the Independent member for Nelson and the Attorney-General, the not necessary component of this legislation seemed to not necessarily extend to those women. Those women who telephoned wanting to remain anonymous said they had had experiences similar to the ones outlined in the second reading speech, and they felt as if they continued to be victims because they were not protected. If it is indeed true - and I accept to a large extent that it is true; that there are current mechanisms within legislation to afford these forms of protections - then they are not being applied by this government.
That is what this bill is intending to do. With this bill, there would be policy under a Country Liberals’ government. Not only would the legislation enable it to occur, but it would be sought as a matter of course unless the victim indicated otherwise. It would be policy that during the sentencing process, an application for an order exactly like this one would be sought for the period outlined in this bill unless it was determined by the court that, for example, the victim did not want the order for whatever reason, or the victim wanted the order to go for a longer period. That is the reason this discretion was built into the act.
However, if these orders do exist as outlined by the Attorney-General, the question is: ‘Why do we not use them?’ Why do we not protect the victims of these horrendous crimes beyond the sentencing practices currently imposed? It is not happening in the courts. That is the experience of the women who contacted me. That is the experience of other people who spoke to me, whose relatives have been raped, and who indicated to me that when their relatives walk into pubs they have the same experience. It is a clear message that the Country Liberals want to send to the women, children, and families of our communities: we are on your side if you are a victim.
I was disappointed with the almost churlish attitude of the Attorney-General in relation to this: ‘Oh my God, here we go; I have to condescend to talking to the House again’ attitude we so often see from this Attorney-General. Sadly, this government did not accommodate or in any way acknowledge the suffering of these victims. The Attorney-General was so anxious to point out: ‘All this already exists, why are you wasting our time with this?’, that she forgot to think about victims. The opportunity to attack, if you like, the member for Port Darwin was entered into with way too much relish to remember that this is not about the member for Port Darwin or the people in this Chamber; this is about rape victims in our community.
Whilst I am unsurprised by the government’s attitude towards this bill, and while I am disappointed in the member for Nelson’s position on this bill, I take heart from Victims of Crime NT, which cast an approving eye over this bill. I take heart from organisations like Bravehearts, which took the time to contact me from Queensland to express their support for this bill. I know where my preferences lie.
Whilst the member for Nelson wants to quote from the Law Society and whoever else, one of the great concerns I have about the legal profession is they tend to be a little removed from victims. Victims are something you deal with as part of the court process and, if you can make them ancillary to the process, so much the better.
Whilst I am a lawyer, I will not forget the victims in our community. They will always be the priority in these types of matters. Should there be a change of government at the next Northern Territory election, I let the people of the Territory know right now there will also be a change of law. That law will reflect what I have brought before this House. It has been defeated this once, but that does not mean it will not come back.
Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I hope the victims who are created take heart that whilst they might not enjoy the comfort of this law, there will be victims in the future who will.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
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 Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If it may assist the House, whilst I realise that the strict interpretation of the standing orders is 9 pm, perhaps we can go into adjournment now. I cannot see much point in bringing something on for five minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: I think it depends on the person whose business it is.
Mr ELFERINK: That is a fair call.
Madam SPEAKER: We will call General Business and we will see how the member for Braitling is feeling about that. Is it the member for Braitling who has the call? No, it is the member for Port Darwin actually. You have continuation of 13 minutes.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, Madam Speaker, if it may assist the House …
Madam SPEAKER: You can speak for five minutes now.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, what is the topic, Madam Speaker?
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
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, regarding crime in Alice Springs, here is a suggestion to the House: do something about the way we do welfare in Central Australia. It is as simple as that. We have so many problems and whilst I realise it is not within the boundary of the Northern Territory government, the product of welfare being paid into the hands of the idle produce the results we have seen. The devil finds work for idle hands and what the federal government has done is fund it.
A member: Is that in the Bible?
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know whether it is or not. It is just an old expression. Using that expression, I find it curious that whilst the devil may find work for idle hands, it is unnecessary for the federal government to have to fund it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion and I agree with Mr Giles on this. There do have to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry. Member for Braitling.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: I have crossed paths with you again. That has to be the third time today, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. Apparently you have already spoken on this, so resume your seat.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak for the remaining one minute? I will just check to see if you have spoken, Leader of the Opposition. You may speak, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Not long.
Mr MILLS: Right, okay. I went to Alice Springs not so long ago. The failure to address the needs of Alice Springs citizens has caused them to come together in a quite impressive way. That is impressive, and it is good that they have come together, but they came together out of grave concern that their families, their livelihoods, the community they love, and the future for their children, is at risk. Antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs should not receive a superficial response such as: ‘crime is a problem, let us have more police’. That is too simplistic, but it needs to occur in the first place.
Just as we see - Madam Speaker, how much more time is there?
Madam SPEAKER: Until 9 pm, Leader of the Opposition. At 9 pm I will ask you if you want to continue your remarks and you have up to 10 minutes or you can just have it adjourned until the next time we debate this.
Mr MILLS: Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker. Debate has occurred over whether it is an issue of more police or if there is a requirement to have more thoughtful consideration of the underlying issues and address those and thinking that those are two separate issues …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes or do you wish to adjourn this?
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I wish to adjourn and continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we now complete the item of business before the Chair and the Assembly does now adjourn. Is there anyone who wishes to adjourn?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of the success of the 2011 Darwin to Dili yacht rally held in July. I was fortunate to attend the event in Timor-Leste on behalf of the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government. While there, I met with counterparts in the Timor-Leste government, including Mr Joao Freitas, the Minister for Education; Mr Gil Alves, Minister for Tourism; Secretary of State for Professional Training and Employment, Mr Bendito Freitas; and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Mr Liborio Pereira.
The Darwin to Dili yacht race was Australia’s first international yachting event when it was first held in 1973. The last official rally between Darwin and Dili was held in 1974. The Timor-Leste government decided to recommence the rally in 2010 with the help of the Cruising Yacht Association of the Northern Territory and the proud support of the Northern Territory government. Minister Knight, and a representative of the Timor-Leste Minister for Tourism, Commerce and Industry, officially launched this year’s event from Cullen Bay on 9 July. I was pleased to be aboard the boat when the shotgun was fired.
This year, six yachts participated in the event, including the rally’s first international entrant. All entrants successfully completed the rally. The rally provides an important opportunity to strengthen ties with our neighbours in Timor-Leste and to assist Timor-Leste achieve stability and greater prosperity through support for their tourism development strategy.
The recommencement of this historic event, after a break of 35 years, is a continuing source of pride to the government of Timor-Leste, CYANT, and the Northern Territory. It is noteworthy that the original trophies are used for the awards. They survived Cyclone Tracy in someone’s garage. The award ceremony for the event was a highlight attended by the Timor-Leste Minister for Tourism, Mr Gil Alves, along with rally entrants, officials, and organisers from both Dili and Darwin. It was a big hit with the locals as well, and it was great to see such enthusiasm and local support for the event. I certainly enjoyed it. My wife, Elizabeth, was also able to accompany me on this trip.
Six yachts participated, including the rally’s first international entrant, the French-owned yacht, Sun Dance. Lorna Marlise, skippered by Matthew Baker, set a new rally record arriving in Dili at 1710 hours on Tuesday, 12 July with an elapsed time of 78.17 hours. The corrected handicap time for the Lorna Marlise was 55.89 hours, which assured it first place in the multihull division. In the mono division, Scot Free II, skippered by Barrie Morgan, took line honours with a corrected time of 72.77 hours. Fleet person of the rally was awarded to Mr Ray Jones, skipper of Parlay, for carrying on board his yacht 10 large boxes of medical supplies to be delivered to the historic humanitarian sailing vessel VEGA. Jim Grierson from Cattitude also received an award for providing rally communications and support throughout the event. Jim is certainly a character.
This year, each entrant in the Darwin to Dili yacht race donated $100 of the entry fee to support a new marine education scholarship established by the rally to promote skills development and capacity building to support Timor-Leste’s marine tourism industry. The funds raised have been matched by the International Labour Organisation through AusAid funding and private donations. This will enable eight young Timorese to take a coxswains course delivered by the Timor-Leste Maritime College under the auspices of the Timor Australia Development Facility, a first aid course sponsored by Compass Charters, and an English language course run by the ILO. This is a wonderful example of how a small amount of funds can be leveraged to make significant contribution to the development of skills and workforce training in Timor-Leste.
The organisers of the rally are to be congratulated for their hard work which ensured the success of this year’s event. There are a few people I would like to particularly mention. From the Timor-Leste government: Mr Jose Quintas, Director of National Tourism; Mr Aquilino Santos Caeiro, Director of Tourism and Promotion; Mr Alberto Pereira, Dili Port Authority; Mr Gregorio Pinto, Immigration; and the staff of the customs service. From the Timor-Leste Tourism Centre, a big thank you to Mr Robert Crean and Ms Kym Miller, both Territorians at heart - spent much time in the Territory - doing a great job in Timor-Leste, and a wonderful link between Timor-Leste and Darwin.
From the Cruising Yacht Association of the Northern Territory, I make special mention of the terrific rally coordination by Mrs Anne Kemp, and the important behind-the-scenes work by Mr David Woodhouse and Mr Chris Davenport. Special mention must also go to the participants of the rally who committed their time and expense to participate in this year’s special event, and to the magnificent yachts: Lorna Marlise, Cattitude, Scot Free II, Parlay, Skookum, and international entrant Sun Dance. The hard-working team from the Department of Chief Minister also supported the event, in particular Brendan Doran and Katherine Walker. There is much enthusiasm to see this event grow, particularly in Dili. The Darwin to Ambon race is important, and I believe this event will become more and more important as years go by.
I was also glad when we were in Dili to not only have some good conversations with Robert Crean, but also inspect the Jape Plaza in Dili. The Jape family is well-established here in Darwin with large business interests. They came to Australia via Timor-Leste and their development is absolutely great. It is the single, largest private sector investment in Timor-Leste at present. They are showing much confidence and it is a great facility.
I encourage all members to build their relationships with Timor-Leste. Try to get to Dili as much as possible. Madam Speaker has organised some parliamentary visits but, as a parliament, we should be trying to reach out to them and have a close relationship with Timor-Leste. I commend it to members. There are strong business, social, and cultural links between Darwin, the Northern Territory, and Timor-Leste. I was also glad to discuss some of these matters with President Ramos-Horta at the function at the Portuguese Timorese Club in Darwin on 23 July 2011 - I think the member for Sanderson was there also - where the President made a gracious speech about the important relationship between the Northern Territory and Timor-Leste. It is very important that, in a bipartisan way, we try to maintain that relationship.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to report the outcomes of my visit to Dili.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I raise a serious issue relating to health and the administration of health in the Northern Territory. To lay the foundations, the Country Liberals have been critical of the inadequacy of the government’s public health warnings and campaign such as mosquito control after outbreaks and deaths due to Murray Valley Encephalitis. Also, the government’s failure to notify the public that counts of Legionella in this building, Parliament House, in the cooling towers in 2009 exceeded safe levels. They are a couple of examples, so there is a precedent for this type of issue, and the failure of this Northern Territory government to notify people about serious health concerns.
I will read the following, which was obtained by the Country Liberals under freedom of information:
- A clinical audit undertaken by Dr Gary Sinclair, a senior rural medical practitioner, identified an active problem with the MedChart prescribing program, a program used in many remote health centres as one component of the Primary Care Information System, PCIS. The problem identified has caused patients’ chronic medication to be removed from their prescriptions automatically.
Resources were immediately allocated to assess and address the clinical impact of the problem. To date, all cases where a medication was withdrawn in error have been identified and rectified, and all possible future instances have been identified and appropriate strategies put in place to ensure this problem does not recur.
A definitive fix to the MedChart software was deployed in early June and appears to be effective.
In-depth clinical analysis has been undertaken and identified cohorts of clients affected by the medication error.
An ethical analysis and legal analysis on who and what type of open disclosures are in progress.
Two clients have been identified as having a significant clinical deterioration, and 12 clients have undergone minor clinical deterioration. In both instances, the medication error cannot be excluded as being a contributing factor.
There are 77 clients where it is not possible to ascertain whether or not clinical deterioration has occurred and who will require further non-urgent clinical assessment by their treating practitioners. There are 50 clients where no clinical deterioration was able to be detected.
Open disclosure training will be undertaken by a small number of people in Remote Health, who will attend to the open disclosure requirements of the 14 clients concerned.
Remote Health will lead the development of a draft policy statement on open disclosure, which will be utilised across the department. Appropriate education and training will be provided to the relevant staff.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that was accessed through freedom of information, so the telling parts of this document are that two clients have been identified as having significant clinical deterioration and 12 clients have undergone minor clinical deterioration. We have 14 clients whose medication was removed from their prescription through this MedChart prescribing program. The MedChart prescribing program is essentially a web-based electronic medication management system replacing our everyday paper-based prescriptions. The disturbing part of this also is the fact that no public health warnings were made by the Northern Territory government. Not one public health warning was made to those people in remote communities who require this particular medication, who utilise that web-based MedChart program and, as a result, those people have experienced significant deterioration in their health. If not discovered by the opposition through freedom of information, this may never have seen the light of day.
How many people out there who utilise the MedChart program, this web-based electronic medication management system called MedChart which, by the way, is a key plank of the e-Health. We saw today a dorothy dixer question to the minister for ICT about the effectiveness of e-Health, this is a key plank of e-Health. Clearly, there are some problems with e-Health, not insignificant problems either, problems that are contributing to people’s health, potentially life-threatening problems, as stated in this Hot Issues document sourced under freedom of information where it says: ‘Two clients have been identified as having significant clinical deterioration’. It is just another example of this reactive government. The next step is this open disclosure training, another example of the government needing a disaster before putting into place sensible policies to assist Territorians.
The failure to notify the public about a serious malfunction within e-Health is a serious problem. The department knew about this. The minister knew about this. This is a document sourced through freedom of information. The minister has seen this document. The department has seen this document, yet the department has failed to notify the general public of the Northern Territory that there are significant problems with MedChart, the Primary Care Information System, otherwise known as PCIS; there are serious problems with it, problems so serious that it has resulted in two clients being identified as having significant clinical deterioration. Another 12 clients have undergone minor clinical deterioration.
It is not just a coincidence because in this document it says that in both instances, those two with serious clinical deterioration and the 12 with minor clinical deterioration, the medication error, the failure to provide their medication, cannot be excluded as being a contributing factor to the deterioration of their state of health. It is a failure to notify the public about such a serious malfunction within e-Health and MedChart; the prescribing system that is of grave concern. Such a failure has potential life-threatening consequences as we have seen in two of these cases.
Again, it is part of this culture of cover-up. You have to ask yourself, where does this end? You have to ask yourself, how many more cases are there of this? This was found in a pile of freedom of information documents trawled through by the opposition, sourced under great expense, and there it is, a glowing example of the culture of cover-up alive and well. This is so serious that it has people’s lives at stake, potentially life-threatening. Two clients had their health seriously diminished as a result of this program fault through MedChart and PCIS. If that is not bad enough that there are problems with this prescribing system, we have a situation where the Minister for Health and the department who knew about this failed to inform Territorians that there is a problem, failed to inform Territorians that they may not be receiving the appropriate medication they require to continue a healthy life.
Two clients have had serious deterioration in their health and 12 have had some minor deterioration in their health and the contributing factor is directly related to the failure to provide that medication. The culture of cover-up appears to be alive and well and the minister should be ashamed of himself for once again standing in this Chamber and telling us how wonderful e-Health is.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the people of Yirrkala and its homelands, and the people of Nhulunbuy and indeed people well beyond our region were deeply saddened by the news of the passing of Mr Maymuru, a senior man of the Mangalili clan last month. A special memorial service was held at Yirrkala on Thursday, 14 July, ahead of more formal preparations for a full ceremonial burial for this amazing man. This service attracted many people, including people who had travelled great distances to be there. It was a clear sign of the high esteem that Mr Maymuru was held. I was both greatly honoured and humbled to be invited to speak at Mr Maymuru’s memorial service, and was one of a long list of people who paid tribute to him.
It was an incredibly sad occasion as he was taken from us too soon, all too suddenly, and with no chance to say goodbye. The memorial service was an important occasion to allow people to come together and to share their feelings of grief but also to remember and celebrate the many wonderful things about the extraordinary man that Mr Maymuru was. He was remembered for many things, from being a brilliant artist to a talented sportsman and athlete, but perhaps most importantly as a strong Yolngu man and leader. Mr Maymuru was one of the most hard-working people I have ever known. He worked hard, he worked passionately, and he worked tirelessly, not only for himself, but for others and especially for the rights of Yolngu people and for the rights and future of young people.
There was barely an organisation he was not involved with: Dhimurru, Laynhapuy Homelands, NAAJA, Northern Land Council, the East Arnhem Shire, Miwatj, Landcare, ATSIC, and Yambirrpa School Council and, at the time of his passing, he was the Indigenous engagement officer with FaHCSIA working with the government business manager at Yirrkala.
He never made any secret that he bitterly resented the intervention into the Northern Territory, especially on the premise on which it was driven. I will never forget, as the candidate in the lead-up to the last election, sitting around the table at a board meeting of Laynhapuy Homelands, him thumping the table and saying angrily: ‘You show me where the child abuses are in my community and I will deal with them’.
Meetings would interrupt his working day, like many of the strong leaders of the Yirrkala community: meetings about the intervention, about homelands, about education, about leases, and about young people, to name a few. He would make it his business to be at those meetings and would always speak up on behalf of his community, never afraid to offer a strong view or to challenge the views of others and often in very colourful language. No one was ever left in any doubt as to where Mr Maymuru stood, but he was statesman-like and gracious and at the conclusion of a meeting he would shake hands and commit quite genuinely to working with others to try to resolve matters and work together to find a way forward.
After working all day he would often be found with the night patrol working to get children off the streets and back home to their families and their beds because he knew that was and is the safest place for them to be so they could be ready to go to school the next day. Education, he knew, was the most important thing in a child’s life to provide them with a pathway to the future.
I offer very sincere condolences to Mr Maymuru’s family; his wife, Barb, and children, Michael, Dominic, Luke, and Araluen and their children, his brother, Graham, and his sister, Nhaminapu, on their loss of a much-loved husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother. I also offer condolences to the friends, the work colleagues, and the wider community on the loss of a strong and passionate leader and advocate for Yolngu people.
Mr Maymuru was one of a kind, and one of the kindest people you could ever know. His passing leaves a big gap in the lives of his family, in his community, and in all of us. May he rest in peace.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight on three matters.
The first is the subordinate legislation relating to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Synthetic Cannabinoids) Regulation 2011, a product more generally known as Kronic. Kronic is a product of a synthetic cannabinoid contained in products which is mixed with herbs and smoked to produce a similar effect to cannabis. I understand that with the tabling of Regulation No 33 of 2011 that the product known as Kronic will no longer be available for sale from Friday.
Nevertheless, with the banning of that product, I understand new products containing different components have now become available. Kronic will be banned from Friday and, as part of the process with the problem, retailers and small businesses in the Northern Territory have not been advised of this banning and have excessive supplies of stock. By banning this product without running a community campaign to educate retailers in particular, that a stock has been banned and supply is now prohibited, small businesses will be out of pocket and will be in a position where, without knowledge of the banning, could commit an offence under the act.
I encourage the Northern Territory government tomorrow, being Thursday, to provide education to small businesses in the Northern Territory, swamp the media airwaves so small businesses and purchasers are aware of the ban and understand that this product will become illegal from Friday.
The second issue I would like to speak on is my statement today as the new shadow Transport minister and restating the Country Liberals’ position on the open speed limits. The Country Liberals, within 100 days of winning government, will bring back open speed limits to the major highways in the Northern Territory after a thorough assessment is done on the safety and suitability of our road infrastructure. That is because the roads have deteriorated because of under-investment by this negative Labor government in the Northern Territory. I reiterate that the Country Liberals will bring back open speed limits to the Northern Territory within 100 days of winning government, after we reassess the roads and bring them up to conditions that is deemed safe to do so.
In relation to the bushfires around Alice Springs, my concerns and my heart go out to the people who are in a difficult situation with bushfires surrounding them. I have been made aware the bushfires are encroaching on Alice Springs. They have gone through the Golden Mile; many people have evacuated. My understanding is the fire is now lapping at the door of Larapinta, part of the Braitling electorate. I hope the people in that area are safe. I hope their families are safe, their animals, and cattle are safe. I wish the firies and the volunteers who are fighting those blazes all the best. I wish I was there helping. Unfortunately, I am in parliament.
The Northern Territory Labor government was warned about the possibility of fires in the Northern Territory. We had a Wet Season last year with 800 mm of rain. The ground cover has put Central Australia, in particular, at risk. Concerns were raised during the estimates process about how well prepared the Northern Territory government was to fight the fires, and how well resourced the Bushfires Council and the staff within Bushfires NT were to build firebreaks and be ready to put the fires out. These concerns about insufficient resources to build firebreaks in Central Australia with only one grader available to build those firebreaks have been raised over a long period. The transportation and movement of that grader is insufficient, so the grader sits between Elliott and Tennant Creek. What we are seeing with these fires is a result of inaction and an inept approach by the Minister for Central Australia, and Environment minister, Karl Hampton. Now, we have bushfires burning across Central Australia, people are in fear, property is being burnt, and cattle are being lost.
Families should not be put in this position. When they were warned, they were asked to invest, they were asked to provide resources. Karl Hampton sat on his hands and did nothing and, now, Central Australia is burning - and it is not good enough. He should be out there explaining to the people who live in Central Australia on the Golden Mile and in Larapinta who are being evacuated from their houses, worrying about what tomorrow will bring. It is a terrible situation and the Minister for Central Australia should hang his head in shame. The Minister for Central Australia, Karl Hampton, knew about the risk of fires and did nothing about it – did not resource Bushfires NT, did not resource the Bushfires Council. He has had report after report provided to him, telling him of the dangers, asking him to do something, and he has failed to act in the interests of Central Australians, which is something that I and my colleagues in Central Australia have come to be all too aware of; that is, the minister failing to do his job.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on two topics. The first is that a baby participating in a government-funded television advertisement on family violence was allegedly subjected to real violent behaviour to elicit an authentic and believable fear response. People involved in the production of the advertisement, who wish to remain nameless, say they were disturbed that the government-funded production crew seemed unconcerned about the potential effects the violence might have on the infant.
The point of the production of the advertisement was to illustrate that family violence is never acceptable. Then, an infant involved in the production of the advertisement was subjected to violent behaviour. By condoning this infant’s exposure to violent behaviour, the government has failed to demonstrate their absolute rejection of family violence – on or off the screen. The government needs to behave in a highly ethical manner on the issue of family violence, and they have failed to do so by adopting unethical practices in the production of this advertisement.
The government needs to undertake a full investigation of this matter. An investigation should not only include talking to the mother of the infant, but the production crew, who will inform you that the child was present and indeed witnessed the violent behaviour of the adult male actor, which elicited the desired distress response in the child. We have it on sound advice that the child was directly exposed to the male actor shouting and behaving in a threatening manner, as can be seen in the family violence advertisement. We have it on sound advice that the child did witness this behaviour and cried as a result. I call again for the government to immediately remove the advertisement from the television.
The second topic I would like to talk about tonight is the issue of childcare in Alice Springs. The demand for childcare in Alice Springs is at a crisis point. There is a critical shortage, which is affecting families and businesses, and stifling the Alice Springs economy. In response to what I assessed as being a crisis, I organised a meeting of all childcare and early childhood education stakeholders in Alice Springs.
The first meeting was held on Wednesday 1 June 2011. The purpose of this meeting was to work together to develop more childcare options in Alice Springs. I invited Mr Paul Fitzsimons from Charles Darwin University to chair this important meeting. Those invited to attend included individuals and representatives from the various childcare agencies in Alice Springs: Gap Childcare Centre; Congress Childcare Centre; Alice Springs Childcare Centre; Sadadeen Childcare Centre; YMCA Childcare Centre; Braitling Childcare Centre; Lil’Antz Childcare Centre; Charles Darwin University; the Under Three-year-old Kindy; Family Day Care; Alice Springs Town Council; and the Mayor of Alice Springs. I also invited the various preschools in Alice Springs: Bradshaw Preschool; Gillen Preschool; Ida Standley Preschool; Larapinta Preschool; Rona Glynn Preschool; the manager of the Alice Springs Hospital, one of the major employers in Alice Springs; Northern Territory government representatives from childcare licensing; and federal government representatives including from DEEWR.
I decided, for the benefit of Alice Springs, to approach this in a bipartisan manner. All elected members of Alice Springs needed to be involved to achieve the best possible result for Alice Springs. I extended an invitation to the Minister for Central Australia, the Minister for Education and Training, Dr Chris Burns, and the federal member for Lingiari, as well as my two Country Liberal colleagues, the member for Braitling and the member for Greatorex. The Minister for Central Australia, the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, and the federal member for Lingiari were not able to attend the first meeting; however, they sent their respective representatives. This was a successful meeting, with over 30 people in attendance, and much enthusiasm and commitment demonstrated.
The second meeting of this group was held on 3 August 2011, with the same level of enthusiasm. I asked Ms Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government to chair the second meeting. The Minister for Central Australia was able to attend this meeting, and I asked him to address the meeting. The group was also addressed by a representative from DEEWR and the Northern Territory government childcare regulator and licensing body. The group is now moving beyond the information collection phase, and a working group is meeting in the next two weeks to develop an action plan to define exactly how the need for more childcare places will be addressed.
I applaud the commitment of the people who have become members of this group, their time and commitment to childcare and early childhood services in Alice Springs. These dedicated people are committed to this process, helping desperate families, helping desperate businesses, and making our community more responsive to the needs of working parents and other people in our community who are desperate for childcare.
I have also written to the federal minister for Childcare, Kate Ellis, asking that she consider providing federal funds for the establishment of a new childcare centre in Alice Springs, and federal funds to extend existing childcare centres to increase their capacity.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Alice Springs is an incredible community of genuinely caring people who freely give of their time again, again, and again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak on three topics tonight. One is about the rural centre plans. I was pleased to launch these plans today with my colleague, the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick. These rural centre plans are an alternative to the proposal by the Northern Territory government - draft rural village plans. The idea behind these rural centre plans is to show we can develop the rural area in a logical and planned way, which will allow some small block development whilst at the same time retaining what many of us believe is an important lifestyle; that is, the rural lifestyle and these plans show the way to do that.
We have identified a number of rural centres that have been around for many years, but we clearly identified a boundary around these centres. Our proposal is to allow small block subdivision, blocks of 4000 m2 down to 800 m2, including multiple dwelling land to be developed within those centres. Those centres would be:
Howard Springs, which to some extent is limited because it is mainly private land, which is already subdivided;
We put forward these plans as a reasonable and positive alternative to the government’s plans. Some people in government and some developers were concerned that these plans would knock development on the head. Some in the CLP thought we would be going against the CLP’s greater Darwin plans. It does not do that. It actually fits in nicely with the plans the CLP have put forward for the greater Darwin region and it fits in with the concepts the government has.
The one thing that differs from both of those plans is that we want to retain the rural lifestyle and we want to retain the minimum lot size as 1 ha and there has been constant pushing by certain developers to reduce that lot size down to 0.4 ha. These plans allow 0.4 ha blocks, but only within district centres.
If people would like a copy of these plans talk to me or the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick, and I thank her for her efforts in the development of these plans. She is a genuine rural person at heart. As you would have heard from the discussion about how much Palmerston rubbish ends up in the Howard Springs tip, she has been a long-term resident and she knows how passionate many people in the rural area are about retaining that rural lifestyle.
The second thing I would like to talk about is a letter I received tonight from Pelly Road residents. I will read it as it is and people can make up their own mind. It says:
Dear government departments,
Yesterday, Tuesday, 9 August, while listening to parliament time on air I am outraged that your departments have still not made any clarification of what options we have as residents in Herbert from the flooding which occurred back in February 2011! If government cannot come to some sort of solution besides putting a drain in, as this seems to be the only answer your departments are offering for a quick fix way out.
…
… I feel with its lay back attitude waiting upon yet another Wet Season to arrive and drive people towards this decision …
Do departments realise that long-term residents have been dealing with this situation since firebreaks were allowed to be put through the middle of the lagoon when the blocks were first subdivided into 5 acres, since it was approved for development back in 2006 by the government.
Not one of your departments has taken the blame for approving this development to go ahead in the first place when residents had put forward photos and submissions of why this should not have been developed. If you require these submissions I am more than happy to show your departments the documentation.
From your own biodiversity vegetation survey it stated that this lagoon was of unusual significance due to water not flowing anywhere until it reaches its maximum level then naturally flows and seeps into adjoining blocks.
Residents don’t want a quick fix, we want all avenues reviewed and assessments made on the future outcomes of this lagoon including: (1) environment impact of draining the lagoon; (2) septic tanks under the Q100 line; (3) proper processes of the future planning of the Litchfield and other rural areas
These are only a couple of the inquiries residents are asking and I do believe Mr Gerry Wood has also been asking these questions to no avail.
When is government going to give the residents options instead of a quick fix and causing more erosion of the land since the government allowed the developer, Mr Graeme Chrisp, to bulldoze an area leading into the lagoon to be pumped alongside a resident’s fence line with no revegetation of the land which was stated by the vegetation survey to be of ‘unusual significance’. Back in June 2011, Dr Leeder, in Question Time, stated that the Crown owns the water rights so how does Mr Chrisp be allowed to pump water that is owned by the department.
In the NT News Tuesday 9th on page 9, residents find out that Mr McCarthy confidently told parliament the Ombudsman was doing a review, and in the next line that there was a problem because the Ombudsman was not reviewing the matter…What is going on with this government, please explain.
On another matter residents feel that poor solutions have been put forward in the past by the developer as stated by one resident:
- ‘My driveway has been eroded and there is still the tarp they were using to channel the water laying there, I was under the impression that he was going to fix all that up. If this is any indication of what will be left or not left behind after any earth works are completed, I’m not feeling very confident’.
Even the EPA has uncovered some issues through preliminary inquiries which the government have still not responded to date.
At this point in time I feel a vote of no confidence in this government or the developer of any decisions made by either party given to residents.
On behalf of the residents of McKinlay, Pelly and Lorikeet Roads,
Regards,
Debbie Walker.
That highlights the concerns these people have.
The last issue I would like to talk about is the member for Sanderson has brought forward this issue on smoke alarms. On 23 February 2011, the Chief Minister said:
- We will be looking to provide for mandatory alarms post-1997 before the middle of the year. I will recognise the opposition in bringing that forward at the time.
Further on he says:
- As I said, we will have this issue resolved by the middle of the year. The time has come for the Northern Territory to step up to the plate, to ensure we do everything we can to protect life and property from house fires, no matter how they occur.
He goes on further to say:
- We will be introducing legislation to resolve this issue and have that passed by the middle of the year.
That has not happened. I had word today that the government might be looking at regulations, but the government has supported, in principle, what the member for Sanderson has put forward. I put it on record that if the government does not change the legislation, either in regulation form or bring forward its own motion, I am happy to support the member for Sanderson if he puts in the amendments the government has asked for, if they see areas that need to be fixed up. The government has supported the member for Sanderson’s legislation and should get off its bum and put its legislation forward otherwise I will support amended legislation from the member from Sanderson.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I would take a quick trip down memory lane for those with short memories. They appear to be the members for Casuarina and Johnston, and perhaps even the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister.
I say this because, in the last few days, we have seen ministers of the current government come here and tout what a great job they have done and take ownership of many things, which perhaps they do not have full ownership of. In fact, we even saw a debate in this House where we censured the government because we had moved from a point of bipartisanship to where the Chief Minister chose to steal the light and claim all for the cattle trade was his. He was even refusing to include the Leader of Opposition in going to simply the loading of a cattle ship. He claimed ownership that he had fixed all when, in fact, he had not, and he had come to the table kicking and screaming.
I take you down memory lane because, obviously, you need to be reminded. This is a media release dated 28 July 2008 by Mr Terry Mills MLA, Leader of the Opposition, ‘Planning Palmerston Hospital’ – and I will read the whole lot:
- The Country Liberals have committed $100m over 15 years for the planning and staged construction of a new hospital at Palmerston as the centrepiece of its health and infrastructure policy.
‘Palmerston and the rural area are growing at a tremendous rate, and now is the time to put down the pegs of where the new hospital should be and begin the design work for that facility’, says Terry Mills, Leader of the Country Liberals.
‘Add the significant growth in population that will occur in the area after the satellite city of Weddell is developed, and a case for a Palmerston hospital by 2023 is fiscally sound. A Palmerston hospital is also necessary to ensure the growing pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital does not turn into patient gridlock in the future. Good health planning demands beginning that process now and not waiting until greater Darwin’s health needs become acute.
Stage 1 of the Palmerston hospital, encompassing design and start up costs would be completed by 2012. Stage 2 would see the construction of an emergency department and emergency surgical facilities by the end of 2014. Stage 3 would involve the construction of a 130-bed facility with associated services by 2023.
The people of Palmerston and the rural area have received the rough end of the stick from Labor in health matters. The Country Liberals would rectify the disgraceful lack of after-hours bulkbilling services in Palmerston immediately by reinstating the subsidy to the Farrar Health Clinic. Labor closed the after-hours bulkbilling service at the Farrar Health Clinic to save just $300 000 a year. That funding would immediately be reinstated and continue until the promised federal health clinic provides an equivalent, or better, service.
The Country Liberals are also going to create a 7 day-a-week, 24-hour ambulance service at Humpty Doo. There are only four full-time ambulances providing 24-hour coverage for greater Darwin. The people of the rural area are not adequately serviced by the current arrangements.
Hospital promise for Palmerston is a mirage.
Health Minister, Chris Burns, has described Terry Mills and the CLP opposition’s promise to deliver a hospital in Palmerston in 15 years as a cruel farce.
Palmerston families deserve to have their medical services provided now – not in 15 years as the CLP has promised, Dr Burns said.
To build a hospital in 15 years would cost a lot more than $100m. In fact, to build a hospital today would cost more than $300m.
By the end of the year, we will deliver an after-hours service in Palmerston - the CLP wants people to wait 15 years for better services.
We will continue to expand health services in Palmerston – and a hospital will be built when needed - not on some made up date 15 years into the future.
There were some extra figures added on the back of that release:
Why CLP hospital promise is a mirage?
In today’s money, the CLP’s project would cost up to $300m to build, with recurrent funding of $77m a year. In 15 years that cost will be much greater.
In South Australia, an 800-bed hospital is being built at a cost of $1.7bn, while a 650-bed hospital in Western Australia is costing $1.75bn - based on these costings a 130-bed facility would cost at least $300m in the Territory.
They are great figures considering they are either untrustworthy, or the governments in those states, both Labor at the time, are somewhat untrustworthy, because in South Australia an 800-bed facility will only cost $1.7bn, whilst in Western Australia, under a Labor government, a smaller 650-bed hospital would cost $1.75bn. How can we use figures that are so dramatically different? How can that be trusted as an example, and at the time examples were given as to why the $100m figure was suitable?
It is ironic that, although the Country Liberals do not have government, the peer pressure of the Palmerston residents on this Labor government, the fact that their clinic, although slow in reopening, slow in delivering all its promised services, has shown a dramatic need for a hospital. It has proven our case that in 2008 when we promised a hospital, it was needed and, without doubt, if it had been a CLP government at the time, we would have been in a fantastic position to negotiate and deal with the federal government, of any kind, to get funding quicker and sooner. But it was a plan. Back in July 2008, Labor did not have a plan for a hospital. In fact, they called it a cruel farce. No wonder he is no longer the Health minister.
It is ironic that only this year, after much pressure and threats of re-elections of new federal governments failing around this country, the Labor Senator from the federal government has come out and said: ‘We will do a $110m hospital’, and we applaud that. We recognise that is a good idea, nowhere near as many beds, and an indication today of an emergency department and some other specialist facilities, no specifics, no plan, but some anyway. So, we can trust there will be something there, of no number, perhaps more than one, maybe not more than two, you never know, but we commend the fact that yes, you have seen that, in 2008, our plan, our vision for a hospital was needed in Palmerston.
It is a shame the then minister called it a cruel farce and has not had the decency to stand in this House and withdraw his comments and say: ‘No, you were in fact right to plan for a hospital’. The Country Liberals planned for a hospital. The Labor Party found no other choice, when they looked at the needs of the Palmerston and rural areas, than the need to start planning for a hospital now. It is ironic that in less than 12 months our plans would have been completed, initial stages would have been proceeding, and perhaps with the extra support we now have in the Northern Territory, and in Palmerston and the rural area, we would be moving to building this hospital. We started the plan for this hospital in 2008, and it would be decent of this government, if it is going to take an idea, to recognise that it was a good idea planned by the Country Liberals in 2008.
I remind you again, the former Health minister, duly sacked, called a hospital in Palmerston a cruel farce. He deserved to be sacked.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about seniors’ issues. I note on 2 August, the Minister for Senior Territorians issued a media release claiming 200 senior Territorians gathered for an official launch - and that was great.
The calendar for Seniors Month is out, albeit it could have been out a few weeks earlier to give people a chance to book some of the events. Seniors just love to participate in the range of events on this calendar. My office has received numerous complaints that many of these events were booked out on the very day the event was registered, which indicates to me that some of these events are being pre-booked prior to the calendar being printed, released, and put up on the Internet. Many seniors, who are quite savvy in relation to the use of the Internet, got hold of this, got online and on the telephone, and tried to book things within 30 minutes of this calendar being released, and were told that events were booked out.
This occurred last year, and I am led to believe by reliable sources many people contacted the minister’s office and complained, and said they tried to book these things and were told within hours they were booked out - in fact, some within minutes. It is Seniors Month and given the number of seniors we are trying to retain in the Territory, and attract the grey nomads here - these people come here and they really enjoy the Territory lifestyle.
In relation to tourism, one would hope these people leave the Territory with a positive image and they go back to wherever they come from in Australia, take their caravans, their four-wheel-drives, and sit around barbecues down south and talk about their experiences in the Northern Territory. It saddens me that some of the people who have been up here for a number of years during the Dry Season are finding history is repeating itself, and they are frustrated by not being able to participate in many of these events.
The events I clearly recall last year were the harbour cruises. Local seniors, many of whom struggle and live from fortnight to fortnight, are facing ever-increasing costs - and I will get to that matter because that has, again, been raised with me, not only by locals, but tourists, especially senior tourists who are travelling on limited budgets. They have a budget for travel, but with the global financial crisis and shares going up and down, many of these self-funded retirees struggle. They are finding it difficult with their income - one month being reasonable and next month it is way down. They are concerned about their budget.
When it comes to Seniors Month and the things we try to do, the things they come here to enjoy and participate in - as some of them have been doing for many years - they find they just cannot get on some of these trips. I ask the government and, in particular, the minister through his department, to look at these issues and see if there is a way to prevent these things occurring next year. It is a bit of a pattern with harbour cruises.
Another one is a World War II sites bus trip that leaves Darwin and goes to the Adelaide River War Cemetery, and stops at various places along the way. I am led to believe by a couple of people who contacted my office that they rang up immediately this came out and found the whole trip was already booked out. So, there is a problem. Of course, what happens is these people form a dimmer view of the Territory. If we try to get some of these things right and not have history repeat itself, they will take a positive image back.
While these people are in my office and on the telephone enlightening me about some of the issues and problems, they also mention many other problems. There are people who come for four or five months and, sometimes, even six. They leave the southern winter and provide valuable resources to our community in the form of volunteers. They bring expertise, many of them having recently retired. They bring a voluntary capacity with them, and they fulfil all sorts of roles, part-time jobs in the tourism industry. They are usually reliable, they turn up, they do not mind putting the time in, and they enjoy the weather, the social aspect of working here and the mixing in the tourism industry and other industries.
However, a range of issues has been raised and the minister for Seniors might consider this and raise it with his Cabinet colleagues. These people have time to read the paper, many of them are on the Internet reading media releases, they read interstate newspapers, they read the NT News, and they look at a range of other things to gain information. They are seeing increases in the cost of living, the cost of rents in caravan parks is going up and caravan parks are filling up.
Rents are so high that caravan parks are filling up with people who have to live in caravan parks because they cannot afford to live in a house. Supply and demand kicks in and the price they have to pay overnight, weekly, or monthly increases. They cannot stay for five or six months and set up camp permanently because of changes in legislation regarding permanent caravan residents. They look at the rising waiting lists in hospitals and what is happening with public transport. When they look at these things - the health issues – many of these people as they get older are concerned about waiting times, they are concerned about response times for ambulances, they get out and about, they would like to have the comfort and confidence that there are not going to be long waiting times and delays at the hospitals. These are the things they talk about; these are the things they complain about.
They also enlighten me when I have lengthy conversations with these people. They are on the Internet and websites. There are caravaners and grey nomad websites and they use Facebook. Many are quite savvy. They are on Facebook and they are posting notes and comments on what they believe to be the current situation. Whether it is real or perceived, it is what they see as the current situation. Their perception equals reality.
As a Territory, we try to offer a positive and different experience from that down south or our neighbours in Queensland and Western Australia, and it is something we need to take seriously. It is an emerging issue and an emerging problem and if we do not deal with it as a community, and if the government does not deal with some of these issues, we are going to start to lose many of our grey nomads to places like Western Australia and Queensland.
When the legislation was mooted in relation to not being able to stay in caravan parks any longer than 90 days, a number of seniors told me they will go elsewhere. They have been coming to Darwin for 25 years, since they have retired. They are now older and go where it is easier. They are getting to the stage where it is too difficult.
Many of them object in principle to handing over their ID for alcohol purchases. They are offended by that; they think it is the only place in Australia, they think we are crazy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a range of issues that affect seniors and, given it is Seniors Month we should take into consideration their needs. We should be working collaboratively to improve their lot, attract them again, and they will go back and express a more positive view of the Territory to their friends and encourage their friends, relatives, cousins, and neighbours to visit the Territory and therefore …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016