2011-10-27
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for wearing red today in support of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. At the beginning of the CPA meeting at 12 noon, if you are willing to have your photograph taken, we can send it to the foundation, and media may attend as well. I understand parliamentarians across Australia are going to be supporting the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and child protection today by wearing red. I thank you for your support today.
Madam SPEAKER: On a housekeeping matter, as you would be aware, we have flowers in the Chamber for the swearing-in of the new Administrator next Monday. I have been asked to remind members to remove everything from your desks tonight because if you are not coming, there will be other people sitting in your seats, and obviously …
Dr Burns: What?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am afraid so, Leader of Government Business. We need to have everything removed. I know some members have a lot of material in the Chamber - if you can please take it away. If you need a box, let the Legislative Assembly staff know and we will organise that.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 8 Palmerston Christian School students accompanied by Mrs Ana Abbott and Ms Amy Taylor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184); Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 (Serial 185); and Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 (Serial 186):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): We note for the record that we have no objection to dealing with these legislative instruments in that fashion.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Work Health Administration Bill 2011; the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011; and Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011. These bills deliver on the Northern Territory’s commitment to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation Australia-wide. On 3 July 2008, the Northern Territory, along with the Commonwealth and the other states and territories, signed the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety (IGA). The IGA provides for the harmonisation of workplace health and safety laws by way of model legislation and for the establishment of Safe Work Australia.
Safe Work Australia is a Commonwealth statutory agency constituted by representatives from each state and territory, as well as employer and employee representatives. The NT representative on Safe Work Australia is the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe. The reforms agreed in the IGA form part of the overarching Council of Australian Governments, COAG, Regulatory Reform Agenda under the national partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy. Since Safe Work Australia was established in September 2009, it has led to the development of a National Model Work Health and Safety Bill, the National Model Bill, under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council.
The development of the National Model Bill followed a comprehensive review of Australia’s occupational health and safety laws by a panel of independent experts. During the 2008 review, the panel consulted widely with business, and employer and union groups, took submissions from the public, and made a number of recommendations.
While the National Model Bill was being developed through Safe Work Australia, extensive consultation and negotiations were undertaken across the country. In the Northern Territory, the consultation process involved ongoing input from key Northern Territory stakeholders who have been involved in every step of the process. There have been regular meetings and one-on-one meetings conducted by NT WorkSafe with all stakeholders, including employer and union groups, advice provided through the Workplace Health and Safety Advisory Council, and other regular consultative and education forums.
Overall, NT responses have been supportive of the reforms. It is noted that submissions by NT stakeholders have influenced a number of changes to the regulations underpinning the bill.
The National Model Bill is supported by comprehensive National Model Regulations and Codes of Practice, which are also to be implemented by all Australian jurisdictions. These have been the subject of separate intense consultation processes which have necessitated a large amount of ongoing revisions. This comprehensive and inclusive consultation process has resulted in a much better and more robust set of regulations and codes which will stand the test of time.
All jurisdictions have progressed the drafting of the legislation, and in New South Wales, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory, the bills have passed. The bill is currently before the respective parliaments in South Australia, Tasmania, and the Commonwealth and is yet to be introduced in Western Australia and Victoria and, of course, here in the NT.
There are many reasons why it has been considered necessary to harmonise the occupational health and safety laws nationwide. Although all Australian governments have generally taken a broadly similar approach to regulating workplaces, there continue to be substantial differences. Most notably, these have been in relation to duty holders and their duties and compliance regimes, including penalty levels.
The harmonisation of laws through the adoption of the National Model Bill will provide a number of benefits. Business will benefit from a national system through reduced complexity and red tape. In developing the national Regulatory Impact Statement, Access Economics identified that one of the most significant costs to business from the existing system is from the duplication required to comply with regulatory differences across multiple jurisdictions. The introduction of a single, nationally-consistent, and modernised legislative regime will address this.
Employers and managers generally will also benefit from having a simpler legislative regime to understand and apply. Workers will benefit from the harmonised regime providing greater certainty and rights which are easier to understand. They will also benefit from the enhanced protections contained in the bill. There will be greater fairness, as all workers will have access to the same rigorous systems of laws wherever they are in Australia, irrespective of whether they are employee, contractors, or labour-hire workers.
The new harmonised regime will also improve the transferability of permits, licences, and training qualifications across state and territory borders. This means that workers’ safety-related qualifications and training will be recognised wherever they work in Australia. This will assist in the mobility of individual workers in the general Australian workforce and contribute to increased productivity.
I will now turn to the details of the various bills. To provide a quick overview, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill implements the substance of the reforms to harmonise the national occupational health and safety laws by repealing the current Workplace Health and Safety Act, the WPHS Act, and replacing it with the National Model Bill. The Implementation Bill supports the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill by providing for the consequential amendments to other acts as a result of the repeal of the current Workplace Health and Safety Act.
The Work Health Administration Bill 2011 creates a new act that deals with the administrative aspects of the work health and safety legislative regime, namely the establishment of the Work Health Court and the regulator, the Work Health Authority.
The national agreement is for all jurisdictions to implement the national model bill, essentially word for word, adopting consistent numbering and penalty levels. However, the National Model Bill does provide for jurisdictional notes which allow jurisdictions to depart from the National Model Bill in certain aspects to ensure it can operate smoothly within the relevant jurisdiction’s legal, judicial, and local frameworks. These include references to the relevant regulator and courts operating in each jurisdiction.
In many ways, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill is similar to the current occupational health and safety, OH&S, framework under the existing Workplace Health and Safety Act which commenced in July 2008. This has positioned the Northern Territory well for the national harmonisation process. The 2008 bill reflects contemporary legislation, and is substantially compliant with the endorsed National Model Bill and National Model Regulations. For example, duties under the Workplace Health and Safety Act are similarly defined. The process for health and safety representatives, HSRs, and workgroups are similarly provided under the Workplace Health and Safety Act, and the Workplace Health and Safety Act has a similar enforcement regime including enforceable undertakings.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill includes the following key elements:
a primary duty of care requiring persons conducting a business or an undertaking to ensure, as far as is reasonably practical, the health and safety of workers and others who may be affected by the carrying out of work;
an entry permit scheme that allows authorised permit holders, for example, union representatives, to inquire into suspected contraventions of work health and safety laws affecting workers who are members, or eligible to be members, of the relevant union and those whose interests the union is entitled to represent; and consult and advise such workers about work health and safety matters;
civil penalty regime for breaches of the act relating to work entry permits;
provision for enforcement and compliance, including a compliance role for work health and safety inspectors. The reforms are underpinned by a national compliance and enforcement policy agreed by the Ministerial Council on Workplace Relations on 10 August 2011; and
As I mentioned, many of these main aspects are similar to the current Northern Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act; however, I would like to specifically highlight the main points of difference between the current Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
First, a number of key terms have been redefined with the effect of extending the scope of the legislation to take into account contemporary work practice and to ensure that duties apply appropriately. For example, the primary duty of care for the health and safety of workers will lie with a person conducting a business or undertaking, known as a PCBU, alone, or with others, whether or not for profit or gain, including as a partnership, self-employed person, and as an unincorporated association. It is a broader notion than employer which currently relates only to businesses. It is not necessary for the existence of a formal employment relationship to attract the duties of a PCBU under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
Under clause 8 of the bill, the term ‘workplace’ will now be clearly defined to mean a place where work is carried out for a PCBU from time to time. This term is currently not defined and can contribute to confusion and increased legal costs. Additionally, a place is a workplace for the purposes of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill even if no work is being carried out at a particular time; for example, a shearing shed where work is seasonal.
As mentioned earlier, ‘health’ is defined to clarify that it is to be used in the broader sense and covers both physical and psychological health. Currently, psychological risks to health are not expressly covered by the Workplace Health and Safety Act, although it can arguably come within the scope of the act. The wider definition of ‘health’ puts it beyond doubt that the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill covers psychological risks to health such as stress, fatigue, and bullying, and raises awareness of these types of injuries.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill will also require all PCBUs to develop an issue resolution process in consultation with workers. This is currently not a legislative requirement under the Workplace Health and Safety Act; however, it is common practice for employers to adopt resolution processes. For example, the Northern Territory government’s process is adopted through employment instructions issued under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, and other employers regularly adopt processes through industrial instruments. The reforms reflect these practices and by creating an obligation for all PCBUs to develop and adopt a process specifically for work health and safety. If no process is developed, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill sets out a default process. The parties must make reasonable efforts to achieve resolution of the issues in accordance with the agreed or default process. Where the issue cannot be resolved, the matter is referred to the Work Health Authority for resolution.
While the current Workplace Health and Safety Act contains provisions relating to HSRs and workgroups, which is similar to those contained in the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, these are being expanded to allow for the appointment of Deputy HSRs and the establishment of work groups where there are fewer than 10 employees.
As already mentioned, clause 27 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill introduces a new personal duty of due diligence for all ‘officers’. While there are no real changes to the nature of the duties, there is a change to the scope of people who might potentially have a personal duty. Under the bill, an officer includes: officers within the meaning of the Corporation’s Act 2001 of the Commonwealth; officers of a public authority, but not elected members; officers of the Crown; and a committee member of an association, whether incorporated or unincorporated. These new officer duties of due diligence will now apply to all officers to the extent of their influence. The bill will bring in personal liability to exercise due diligence in relation to OH&S matters on a range of officers not currently covered. Currently, not all officers have personal liability, as it is the employer who has the liability. This new liability will apply down the line to all employees with a decision-making role, to the extent that the individual has control. This, then, will include CEOs, management involved in decision-making, and even, potentially, project officers. An officer can be found guilty of an offence regardless of whether the PCBU would be liable.
The types of things that officers will need to do in order to exercise due diligence could include things like taking reasonable steps to:
acquire and keep up-to-date knowledge of work health and safety matters;
Another important aspect of the reforms is the increase in penalties for offences under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. Under the bill, Category 1 offences carry a maximum penalty of $3m for an offence committed by a body corporate and up to five years imprisonment for an individual. These penalties apply to the high-risk breach of work health and safety duties. Breaking down the breach of duty offences to different categories under clauses 31, 32, and 33 of the bill recognises that there can be a range of offending. It also recognises that at the lower end of the scale, there should be emphasis on compliance.
The increase in penalty level, particularly at the higher end of the scale of offending, was agreed nationally in recognition of the seriousness of offences of this nature and the need to send a clear and consistent national message to employers. Deterrence was considered a key factor in the decision to adopt high penalty levels.
Penalties are also expressed in monetary terms rather than penalty units. As the value of penalty units varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, adopting express monetary amounts was considered the best way to ensure consistency.
Another new aspect of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill relates to the introduction of a civil penalty regime for breaches relating to the work health and safety entry permit holders. These are issued to union officials and are similar to authorised union OH&S representatives under the current Workplace Health and Safety Act. This regime provides for the bringing of proceedings by the regulator against a permit holder for a breach of a requirement relating to the work health and safety entry permits under Part 7 of the bill. A different standard of proof applies; that is, the balance of probabilities, and a finding that a breach has been proved does not amount to a criminal finding of guilt resulting in a criminal record. Non-payment of a civil penalty can be enforced similarly to a judgment debt through civil means such as warrants of seizure and sale.
Other offences in the bill, however, are criminal offences that will be dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; for example, breach of duties of an employer, officer, or worker. It was agreed nationally that most offences in the National Model Bill will be strict liability offences to reflect the complexity and seriousness of the new offences.
The bill also provides added transparency and fairness in relation to the decision to prosecute. Clause 231 of the bill provides the right for a person to request a prosecution - this could be a union, an individual worker, or other person. This request can be made in relation to a Category 1 or 2 offence, breach of employer duties, and only after six months after the occurrence of the act, but before the 12-month limitation period has expired. Additionally, the bill includes a comprehensive appeal process should the regulator fail to take prosecutorial action. The original review of the national occupational health and safety laws made it clear that there should be a clear path for appeals.
Another important facet of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill is that it brings the regulation of dangerous goods under the umbrella of the work health and safety legislative framework. Currently, these are dealt with separately under the Dangerous Goods Act.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill and Regulations will create a single legislative regime for all occupational health and safety matters and add to simplicity and ease of use. Most of the detail relating to the labelling, storage, and handling of dangerous goods and substances will appear in the regulations; however, it should be noted that explosives, including fireworks, as well as ammunition and the licensing of gas fitters will not be regulated under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill and Regulations. The Dangerous Goods Act without amendment will be retained to regulate these areas.
Madam Speaker, as previously mentioned, in adopting the National Model Bill, all jurisdictions have undertaken to implement consistently and without modification. However, the National Model Bill does contain a range of jurisdictional notes which provide for a number of aspects where jurisdictions can depart from the model. One of the areas that jurisdictions have needed to have different provisions is in relation to the tribunals that can deal with the various applications and review proceedings under the bill. Under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, the Work Health Court will have jurisdiction in relation to most matters, although criminal prosecutions will obviously still be brought in the relevant criminal court.
Currently, the Work Health Court has very limited jurisdiction under the Work Health and Safety Act, which is confined to issuing injunctions and hearing appeals, and these jurisdictions have rarely been exercised in the past. Under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, the Work Health Court will have expanded jurisdiction.
These include:
jurisdiction to hear matters to determine applications to disqualify health and safety representatives who misuse their powers;
to issue work health and safety entry permits to union officials, and suspend or revoke those permits where appropriate;
determine disputes about right of entry;
to deal with breaches of civil penalty provisions; and
conducting an external review of decisions made by the Work Health Authority and inspectors.
Clause 223 of the bill sets out a list of 13 such reviewable decisions, including decisions in relation to workplace consultation; provisional improvement notices; and notices issued by inspectors. As the Territory does not have a specialist industrial relations court, it is appropriate that this additional jurisdiction will be vested in the Work Health Court.
Part 15 of the NT model bill also sets out the transitional arrangements for the legislation. The transitional arrangements are consistent with the transitional principles agreed by all jurisdictions through Safe Work Australia and the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, and provide for the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill to apply at different stages, depending on what stage a product is at; that is, design, development, and manufacturing stages. However, for any processes commenced after the commencement date, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act will apply.
Schedule 1 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill allows for the regulations to specify certain dangerous goods and plant for the purposes of regulating them outside the workplace environment. This is aimed at issues of public safety.
Schedule 2 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill duplicates the existing provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act which set up the Work Health and Safety Advisory Council. The council has a valuable role in providing independent advice to government on work health and safety matters from the whole range of stakeholders. It is not proposed to make any changes to their role or composition, and the provisions have been duplicated as they currently exist in the Workplace Health and Safety Act into the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for the regulation-making powers. These are important, as much of the fine detail and specific technical requirements related to the labelling, storage, packaging, and handling of dangerous substances and hazardous materials will be contained in the National Uniform Regulations.
Importantly, the regulations will now regulate all Class 4 to 8 goods under the Australian Dangerous Goods Code; that is, flammable solids; oxidising substances; toxic and infectious substances; radioactive material; and corrosive substances. These are not currently regulated in the NT.
As I have indicated, at all times industry and employer groups have been kept informed of the progress of the model bill, and education and training has been ongoing for some time and continues.
Obviously, these types of reforms will incur some additional cost for businesses and employers. However, these costs will be offset to a large degree by the advantages of harmonisation; that is, through the reduction in red tape, increased productivity, and improved safety. The very thorough and robust cost-benefit analysis undertaken during development of the bill, undertaken by Access Economics, clearly showed that the benefits outweigh the costs substantially.
To ensure the process of harmonisation and consistency is not undermined over time, there has been a robust process developed for the adoption of later amendments. Under the IGA, the fundamental objective of the harmonisation project is to produce the optimal model for a national approach to OH&S regulation and operation. To this end, Safe Work Australia is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the national model laws and will do this through a jurisdictional audit of the model laws’ implementation.
Safe Work Australia is required to report to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on the progress of the jurisdictions in implementing the reform, and the audit will go some way to informing SWA on this issue. Safe Work Australia will also be tasked with overseeing the national consultation process under the IGA for future amendments to the national model laws, and the consistent adoption of any future amendment across jurisdictions.
I now turn to the Implementation Bill. This bill provides for the implementation of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. This bill contains a range of consequential amendments to the Northern Territory statute book as a result of the commencement of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. The most notable amendments are to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Dangerous Goods Act. The Implementation Bill also repeals the existing Workplace Health and Safety Act which is being replaced by the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
The amendments to the Dangerous Goods Act are essential to provide guidance on how the Dangerous Goods Act and the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Act are to integrate. The amendments make it clear that the Dangerous Goods Act only applies to dangerous goods to the extent that they are not regulated under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. This is the mechanism to allow for explosives and ammunition to continue to be regulated under the Dangerous Goods Act. The Implementation Bill also makes it clear that the Dangerous Goods Act is to always be subject to the scope of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill so that if there are any inconsistencies, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill will take precedence.
The amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are more complex. The bill repeals current Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which provides for the establishment of the Work Health Court. The court will now be established under the Work Health Administration Act, which I will discuss shortly.
The Implementation Bill inserts a range of new provisions relating to the appointment of inspectors for the purpose of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, clarifying that their role is to monitor compliance with, and enforcement of, the act. Inserting new provisions is necessary because this function is currently exercised by workplace safety officers under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. These officers are being replaced by inspectors under the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. However, the National Model Bill and jurisdictional notes do not allow for inspectors to exercise powers or functions under any other acts. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a new regime for inspectors to exercise the separate powers and functions under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
They will perform similar functions and have similar powers as they currently have as officers under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. However, this exercise has enabled their powers and functions to be streamlined and made more consistent with their role under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The Implementation Bill also makes minor technical amendments to accommodate the new administrative arrangements for the regulator, the Work Health Authority, and the Work Health Court, under the new Work Health Administration Act.
I now turn to the Work Health Administration Bill. This bill creates a new act for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority and the Work Health Court to reflect new arrangements necessitated by the adoption in the Northern Territory of the National Model Bill.
In relation to the Work Health Authority, the establishment of that office is currently unclear and referred to in both the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, yet there are no clear and specific appointment provisions in either act. During the drafting of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill it became clear that it was preferable to have the Work Health Authority and the administrative provisions relating to its operation in one stand-alone separate act to reflect the fact that the authority will have powers and functions under both the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Act.
The Work Health Administration Bill also provides that there is no longer to be a separate statutory office of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as that position is superfluous and confusing. This is especially so given that the current Executive Director of NT WorkSafe also has a separate role as Executive Director of the Division under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The statutory office of the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe is currently only appointed for the purposes of constituting the Work Health Authority and sitting on the advisory councils under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Instead of having this additional statutory office, a person will now be directly appointed to be the person constituting the authority and that same person will be referenced under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to sit on the respective advisory councils.
The Work Health Administration Bill also will provide for the establishment of the Work Health Court. Currently, Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act provides for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Court. However, now that the Work Health Court is also to have wide jurisdiction under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act, it is no longer appropriate for the court to be established under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, therefore Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has been taken out of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and put into the new Work Health Administration Bill. The current provisions under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act have been retained as much as possible and have only been amended to comply with current drafting practice.
National harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has been on the agenda for over 20 years. These bills represent a culmination of many years of multilateral and tripartite engagement and discussion between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, business, union, and employer groups. Compromise was made by all parties involved to ensure the overall objective of enacting workable and effective harmonised laws. It is a credit to all involved that this has been achieved. Overall, these bills will benefit the Territory as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members. I table copies of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the machinery for holding the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention to be held in April 2012 and meeting again in 2013, and to take the next step towards statehood for the Territory.
Statehood may be achieved by either of two ways. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth parliament to admit a new state, and it may do so on terms and conditions including as to representation in the federal parliament, as it sees fit. Alternatively, a national referendum may be held to amend the Australian Constitution to provide for a seventh state of Australia.
Importantly, the Commonwealth government has indicated that, in principle, it would support the Territory becoming a state provided the Territory government provides the Commonwealth with a clearly developed proposal for statehood based on sound financial, legal, and social foundation which demonstrates the proposal for statehood is based on broad consultation with, and support from, Territory residents.
The preparation of the proposed constitution of the new state is crucial to that process. This constitution will provide for the blueprint for the Territory, should it become a state. What that blueprint will look like is a matter to be determined by the elected delegates at the Constitutional Convention, in consultation with the wider Territory community.
One might ask why there is a need for a bill, or an election for that matter, for the Constitutional Convention. Some of the answers are found in the history of the movement towards statehood for the Territory. Members might recall in 1998, in a Territory referendum, 51.3% of voting Territorians rejected the statehood model put to them. The convention leading up to that referendum comprised 53 appointed delegates, of whom 26 were elected by nominated organisations. Evaluation of that referendum and the process leading up to it pointed towards the need for a more consultative and community-focused future statehood program.
Madam Speaker, on 23 February of this year, you presented to this Assembly the final report and recommendations of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee. That steering committee was formed in 2005 and, between 2005 and 2010, it engaged in education and consultation with the Territory’s community about statehood and, in 2010, 50 forums across the Territory involving almost 900 Territorians. The steering committee has now been succeeded by the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee.
The steering committee noted in that report that the 2011 program for statehood should not repeat the mistakes of the 1998 referendum; namely, that the future process should include democratically-elected delegates to the Constitutional Convention. To that end, the steering committee made a number of specific recommendations including that:
an election process for delegates should take place with all necessary promotion and support, so as to inform Territorians how to become involved well ahead of the convention; and
This bill provides for the machinery to support the election of candidates who will act as representatives of the Territory community in preparing the blueprint for the future state. I now turn to details of the bill.
The key components of the election are:
voting will be compulsory for all electors enrolled to vote in the Territory who are 18 years of age or older, and it will be an offence not to vote, attracting a penalty of one penalty unit or an infringement notice of $50, unless it can be shown the person has a valid and sufficient excuse for not voting, such as being precluded from doing so because of the person’s religious beliefs;
Three delegates are to be elected for each of the 25 divisions. This comprises two ordinary delegates and one reserve delegate. Ordinary delegates will be permitted to vote on a motion in the Constitutional Convention and the bill provides that reserve delegates may participate and take the place of the ordinary delegate as will be provided by the rules adopted by the convention. Reserve delegates are to be elected in case vacancies arise during the convention period due to illness. Reserve delegates are to be elected so that the person filling any vacancy has been involved in the process from the beginning. In the event that more than one vacancy arises in a division, or in the unlikely event that an election is declared void, the minister may appoint a person to fill the vacancy after consulting with the Electoral Commissioner.
Candidates must be enrolled to vote in the division in which they are seeking election. They must be an Australian citizen, must have been resident in Australia for at least six months, and in the Territory for at least three months. Nominations for candidacy must be made by at least six persons who are entitled to vote in the division. Nominations open 57 days before, and close 23 days before, polling date. Candidates are elected if they receive a quota of votes being 25% of all votes plus one, with preferences to be distributed.
The integrity of the conduct of the election is supported by offences in the bill including campaigning offences like publishing misleading campaigning material or failing to state the details of the person authorising a push poll, and including voting offences such as improperly influencing another person’s vote. The offences in the bill generally replicate those in the Electoral Act. Importantly, members of the Territory and federal parliaments may not nominate as candidates. In addition, persons who have published a statement about their intention to consent to nomination at the next Legislative Assembly general election or have been announced as an endorsed candidate of a registered political party at the next general election in a statement published by the party with the person’s consent are excluded from being elected under the bill. This is to ensure that it is the voice of the people that is heard at the convention.
It was a significant criticism of the 1998 statehood convention that it was a creature of politicians rather than of people of the Territory. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended therefore that the participation of political parties be limited through preventing members of parliament nominating as candidates and not allowing for the printing or publishing of party affiliations on ballot papers and other official electoral material produced by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
The election is to be held on 24 March 2012, which is the same day as the Territory local government election. This will keep down the cost of holding the election for the convention and avoid the need for holding a separate poll. Generally, the conduct of the election will be the same as for other Territory elections and will be conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
Clause 15 of the bill proposes to use Commonwealth electoral roll information for the election. To facilitate this use, an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Regulations will be made. This is a technical requirement because the current Commonwealth legislation only refers to the use of the electoral roll information for an Assembly election or for a referendum. The amendments will extend those uses to include elections for a convention of this type.
I have received advice that this means the bill cannot receive assent until the Commonwealth has completed amendments to its regulations, but the Assembly can debate and vote on the bill as planned in the November sittings of the Assembly. If the bill is passed in the November sittings and in the event that the Commonwealth has not amended its regulations by that time, it is intended that the Executive Council will advise the Administrator to delay assent of the bill until that process has been completed. Following commencement of the act, it is planned that nominations for candidacy on the Constitutional Convention election will open on 27 January 2012 in time for the election on 24 March 2012.
I urge all Territorians to consider becoming involved in the Constitutional Convention and to put themselves forward for election. Following the election, the Constitutional Convention will convene in Darwin from 21 to 29 April 2012 at Parliament House and at the Darwin Convention Centre. Following the first convention, there will be a community consultation period to consider a draft constitution. The convention will convene again in Alice Springs during 2013 to consider the consultation outcomes and to finalise the draft constitution. It is envisaged that a Territory referendum to vote on the question of statehood will be held in 2013.
The Constitutional Convention has very important work to do when it convenes as planned in April next year and this bill represents an important step in achieving a Constitutional Convention that represents the entire Territory community in developing a model for the future seventh state.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me two documents relating to pairs. One is from 11.30 am to noon today for the member for Arafura and the member for Port Darwin.
The second one is for the member for Casuarina and the Leader of the Opposition for 6 pm until the end of the sittings.
Both documents are signed by the Whips.
I table those documents.
Continued from 18 August 2011.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is widely recognised that heavy-handed regulatory systems are not a particularly effective way to achieve best practice outcomes. This is recognised by both industry and government, and a more holistic approach to regulation was and is required. The ideal situation is to have government and industry jointly setting goals and reviewing progress towards those goals. This situation has worked in the past, and I would like to see it continuing to work into the future.
Over the years, governments, including the NT government, have shifted away from the traditional command and control prescriptive-style regulation to self- and co-regulation with government, with its increased emphasis on company responsibility. There was a strong view from government that companies must perform. Benchmarking, or benching, in the areas of environment, health, and safety were key steps in this shift.
By way of background, in 1997, the government approved a review of the Mining Management Act to address changes necessary for the move towards more self- and co-regulation. The new legislation was passed in July 2001 and focused on the issue of a licence or authorisation to operate with a provision of Mine and Environmental Management Plans, or as I will call them, MEMPs, by operators being central to individual developments and final approvals. The concept of Mine and Environmental Management Plans was initiated to incorporate planning principles into the operational phase of mining. A MEMP details the work which will be carried out in the next period, usually one year, including the initial MEMP, both in terms of environmental practice, and health and safety. The plans do contain other operational information; however, environment and safety are key components.
A MEMP plan does not mean that an operation will achieve a high level of performance, but its implementation provides a structured and systematic tool that can contribute to optimal outcomes for all parties. Ideally, a MEMP should evolve from a pre-mining assessment process, picking up environmental objectives from this process with which to compare later performance. A MEMP lends itself to the philosophy of continual improvement through goal setting and audit, and ongoing improvement. A MEMP is a working, operational document and, as such, is a document that guides, instructs, and assists a company to achieve best practice. Having said that, I know from the beginning it was intended always that if a company had no issue with their plan being a public document, then that is what it became.
I can recall when the Tanami mine was the first Tanami mine, Stan Padgett was the mine manager, and he had no issues with his project’s mining and environmental plan being a public document and going to stakeholders. Matilda Minerals, when they were exploring, had no issue with the public release of their documents. However, there are companies that do have an issue with that document being a public document, and I can understand that position. From information provided at the briefing, I gained some comfort - and so will the industry and companies who have issues with a MEMP being a public document - that it is government’s view that this not become a public document and be predominantly an operational document, and I support that position if it is true.
There is no doubt the mining industry, along with many other industries, has come a long way over the last 20 years in the areas of environmental management, with current operations expending enormous levels of resources to research, manage, comply, include, and then articulate to community, their record and performance in environmental assessment and management. There is also no doubt that the future of the Territory’s mining industry is inseparable from national, if not international, sustainable development and principles. Working, operating, and gaining from the mining industry in today’s world needs to be balanced with the needs and wants of future generations wanting to work, operate, and gain in the future world.
In working under the premise of sustainable development, industry is very aware of the need to work across many levels of community, and within the confines of business they do, which is extract, process, and produce minerals for the benefit of the company, its shareholders but, more importantly, the community at large. Industry is acutely aware that it requires what is commonly called its licence to operate; that is, the mining industry must include the community, involve the community, demonstrate benefits to the community, and then be underpinned by a strong, honest, and lasting engagement with the community.
A social licence fundamentally changes the manner in which mining companies are required to do business. In many cases, it is seen as being even more important than government approval licences and is one that is renewed every day. In talking with the industry recently and attending the recent mining conference in Darwin and, of course, from my past employment within the industry, there is no doubt industry is committed to the concept of a social licence to operate and see this form of licence as complementary to government’s legislative requirements to hold a licence. Operating with a social licence simply means companies are engaging with their communities, whoever, or wherever they are deemed to be located, and know they must work with government, as it is a shared responsibility.
Quite simply, if a company cannot work and engage with community, it will not get any licence to operate. While I understand the government wanting to encourage companies and industry to do more, be more involved, and provide lasting benefits to community, it would seem these matters would be difficult to legislate. Industry and companies currently deliver a range of social and economic benefits to regional communities by way of infrastructure, services, employment, social activities, environmental improvements, and provide a much-needed backbone to regional economic development in the Territory. As such, I do not believe there should be a requirement for these processes to be mandated, as one runs the risk of compliance being the minimum requirement. We know if a level is mandated most, if not all times, that is the only level a company or person will work towards. Mandating community commitment will not contribute to best practice or aspirations to improve.
In regard to this and the community trust, I seek clarity as to how the requirement to provide or establish community trusts and benefit plans fits with the other requirements placed on industry. For example, where does an Indigenous land use agreement under the Native Title Act sit with this requirement? Will an ILUA suffice? Moreover, where does an agreement under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act sit in relation to this requirement given that agreement is generally between traditional owners, the company, and the land council? If a company has an agreement through the ALRA with traditional people, where will this go in the future under this amending legislation?
While I am seeking clarification, I would like to know if it is the intention of the government, through this legislation, that a trust be established; that is, a legal instrument, as the words used in the minister’s speech were ‘community benefit trusts’. If this is the case, will the government be a partner in this trust?
Also, the minister stated:
What does that mean exactly? Do you mean such a trust or similar item will need to be detailed in full as part of an approval to gain an authorisation? Again, will this requirement be placed on explorers, on extractive operators? How can an exploration company detail employment options that might be available in such a community benefits trust at a mining stage when they might not know if they have an ore body, how big it is, or for how long they will be mining? Again, I need clarification as to whether this community benefits requirement will be placed on all extractive operators in the Northern Territory.
In reviewing this community benefits trust requirement, I ask whether this will be applied to the petroleum and geothermal industries? If your government is to be consistent and fair across resources sectors, why are there not consequential amendments to the petroleum and geothermal acts? How is it you are seeking to enforce this community benefit arrangement only on hard rock miners? What is going to be the arrangement for INPEX? Are you going to place such requirements on that company during the assessment and approval processes and, if not, why not?
Do not get me wrong, minister; philosophically I have no issue with what I see as the intent of this provision. However, you must provide assurances to the whole of industry about exactly what you are trying to achieve and how it will work. It is no good saying ‘trust me’, as that does not wash.
Where in this bill is the requirement to undertake this work and commitment of establishing a community benefits trust? Can you advise me if it is in gaining the authorisation to operate process or somewhere else? If this is the case, will it be reviewed annually, and will there be a requirement to report changes to any community commitments?
I turn my attention to some definitions and seek clarification. In your speech, minister, you referred to:
My question is: what is a large-scale mining development? How is a large mining development going to be determined? By whom? Will it be based on capital expenditure? Will it be based on the size of the ore body and the quality of the ore body? Is it the number of employees, or is it the scope of works? The proposals include how this will apply to high-risk sites. What is a high-risk site? Do we currently have high-risk sites, and where are they? Or are they all just sites that have risks that need to be managed? Reporting should relate to environmental performance against the risks assigned to an operation, and reporting should be risk-based and based on sound management systems.
The term ‘serious environmental incident’ and ‘environmental incident’ appear to have been expanded to cover more events than allowed for in the current act. Can you explain to me the difference between ‘serious environmental incident’ versus ‘environmental incident’? Further, how do these two terms then relate to ‘material environmental harm’? Is it the intention of this bill to have an operator report absolutely every type, kind, or manner of incident associated with the environmental management? I understand reporting of environmental incidents such as major spills of hydrocarbons; however, will it include every minor incident, such as dropping a small bottle of brake fluid? If this is the case - and I understand from the briefing that it will be, and I thank you for the briefing about these amendments - has the department plans to ensure it has adequate resources to cope with the potential increase in notifications and subsequent investigations?
Further, will each and every reported incident be investigated and, if so, how will this be undertaken, in what time frame, and who will undertake the investigations? Will they be mining officers or some other person within the department? I understand the reporting of environmental incidents could be made public, is it the intention that all and every incident will be put into the public domain and, if so, how and where? How will this be undertaken? Reporting requirements can differ between sites but, because each site works under a specific licence, the amount of ambiguity is limited. However, it would appear that under the proposed amendments reporting would be required for all incidents, serious or otherwise. Who will determine what should be reported and, as I said before, how will it be determined what could cause a detrimental impact on the environment?
Under section 90, the minister or Chief Executive can direct the release of information. Who is it? Both or one of them? I would like to see an example of when the minister would direct the release of information, as opposed to the Chief Executive of the department directing the release of information. By way of example in relation to reporting, I seek clarification on a couple of areas. Some mines in the past have used molasses as a dust suppressant, and it is usually delivered in large containers. What would be the requirement if one of the large containers fell off a truck, broke open, and spilled 800 litres of material? Given the natural nature of this material, would there be a requirement to report?
I also require clarification about what happens to companies that have inherited environmental legacy issues, have a standstill agreement, and are voluntarily doing as much as possible to clean up the site or sites. Is it going to be retrospective for those companies? They have inherited openly and would be working to manage the sites but, by the nature of their environmental legacy, there could be issues associated with reporting. Will they be detrimentally impacted on by this legislation? What baseline do you use in circumstances such as this? I know of two companies in the Territory that are in this position. What will happen to them?
I turn my comments now to the new reporting requirements. From my discussions with industry, there is currently great frustration within industry over the current malaise in assessment and approvals involving expression of mining developments. There is, clearly, confusion between the various roles in government, between protection and assessments, specifically in the public environmental report and environment impact statements. There are serious issues with getting any proper engagement with the department of Natural Resources and Environment. Why is it taking an extraordinarily long period to get anything out of that environment department? I know of one company that waited upwards of 14 months to get guidelines for the level of environmental assessment required – 14 long months; in excess of one year. Why was it so difficult?
The proposed project was not a massive large-scale mining development worth billions of dollars – no, it was millions of dollars only. Yet, this same department can very comfortably issue guidelines for the massive billion-dollar project called INPEX, a much more complex project, within a much shorter time frame. What is going on? Is there some sort of favouritism existing within the environment department?
Then, we have this same anti-development, anti-mining environment department issuing guidelines which will see companies and projects unable to comply - ever. Why is it that the HNC project near Batchelor received their guidelines for environmental assessment - 66 pages – yet, the guidelines for the INPEX project - billions of dollars of project - was a mere 20 pages? Another applicant for an industrial-type project put in a notice of intent some three months ago, and they are still waiting. They have had meetings with government people, senior people, and have been told it is not political. So, if it is not political, what is going on? Is it that the notice of intent is still sitting somewhere in the environment department?
Minister, I know you try to do your best for the industry; however, from where I sit I cannot say the same for other government agencies; they appear to want to hinder, if not completely obstruct, proponents in their quest to provide economic benefits and wealth to the Territory and Territorians. How can an industry have any real faith in government processes when the environment department gives grants of money to groups that actively campaign against the minerals industry, if not every industry?
In the recent environmental grants, $185 000 was given to the Environment Centre that wants to shut down the Northern Territory, plus another $25 000 to the Marine Conservation Society that wants to shut down our recreational fishing industry. There is more: $15 000 to the Environment Centre, again, to develop a greenhouse gas emissions management model for the Territory. I am slightly confused and bewildered why government gives money to a group that actively wants to shut down industry in the Territory. I do not believe it is acceptable. No wonder the industry has no confidence in the environment department; it gives money to groups that want to shut down the industry and the Territory.
I suggest there needs to be some serious dialogue with your colleague, the minister for Environment, to get some honest processes in place for assessment and establishment of guidelines, and for improved engagement with industry, and for things to get out of that department in a much shorter time frame than they currently are.
I turn my comments now to reporting. Section 37 includes a new requirement for those mining for minerals, excluding extractive and exploration, which I will come back to, to submit an annual environmental report based on what was included in the Environmental Impact Statement and past yearly performance. This seems reasonable on the surface; however, I have some questions.
Industry already does an enormous level of reporting to community through many public company and community commitments, such as the Australian Stock Exchange requirements for companies to report material matters relating to their environmental performance. Will this type of report suffice under this new legislation? There is data provided for the national pollutant inventory and national greenhouse energy reporting schemes. Will this be sufficient in their reporting? What exactly will be the criteria for the actual reporting? What will be the situation for a company operating under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the Commonwealth Aboriginal land rights act approved through the land councils and traditional owners; has this been taken into consideration? How will these reports be made public – in what format and by whom?
Minister, did the department people talk to the Western Australian government department of Resources to find out exactly why they do not make environmental reporting documents public documents?
One word of caution - if a company has documents made public and has not done so previously, it would be prudent for that company, and their report which is going to the public domain, to be reviewed, not only by industry experts but also possibly legal people. Given most companies are publicly-listed companies, has this been taken into consideration in any time frames for reporting?
Contained in the background to this legislation is a consideration by government of third party environmental monitoring. Understandably, the situation surrounding the McArthur River mine expansion was an exception rather than the rule; however, I am most concerned if government is considering outsourcing its regulatory role with additional cost to industry. Is it that government itself is risk adverse and considering abrogating its regulatory responsibility, or is something else driving this consideration?
Contained in the minister’s speech is reference to change in language and inclusion of principles in Part 2AA(a) of the Criminal Code Act. What does that exactly mean? Have penalties been expanded and raised and, if so, for what offences, and by how much?
In summarising, the minerals industry seeks to improve always in the area of environmental management and engagement with community as this provides a vehicle for industry differentiation and leadership, and helps build reputation capital within the community, government, and the general business community. Sound performance in the broad area of environmental performance and management also assists the industry to operate in a manner which is attuned to the expectations of the community, which are constantly changing, and which seeks to maximise the long-term benefits to the community.
While I believe this legislation does provide the opportunity to move towards its individual and industry goals, there remain some areas of concern and ambiguity which I need assurances about, so I can take comfort knowing that the legislation will work, and work well, and not be hijacked by the tree-hugging, loony, lefty greenies …
Madam SPEAKER: You probably mean my electorate, member for Goyder.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Goyder was referring to some people in your electorate, be that as it may.
Madam SPEAKER: And very nice people they are, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I have not said they are not nice people. I would like to thank the member for Goyder for a fulsome and complete response to the Mining Management Act. Many of the issues she covered also concern me. I believe we are going to go to committee, although the member did ask so many questions, they might be answered by the minister in his response, but I would like to go to committee as well.
It should be said at the outset that mining is our biggest industry in the Northern Territory, so we have to find a balance between encouraging mining, developing our economy, as I keep saying; we need to be less reliant on Commonwealth funding and more reliant on developing our own economies, of which mining is one.
The mining industry has had issues through its life, right back to Rum Jungle and problems with pollution of the Finniss River that occurred after the mine had closed down. Mt Todd is an ongoing issue, which has substantially cost the taxpayer. In recent times, the spill at Alcoa created environmental damage issues. It is really important that we get this Mining Management Act right and find that balance between looking after the environment and, at the same time, not putting the types of restrictions in place that discourage mining in the Northern Territory. The member for Goyder raised the issue of a company having to wait 14 months for a response from NRETAS and, as she said, compared with the response for INPEX - there was a vast difference in the time period required.
The government has found a good compromise between pressures from certain groups in the community that the mine management plan should be available to the public by separating the environmental side from the mine operations. That issue came out in the dispute about the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. The balance you have here is allowing the public to see, through the environmental plan, what the company is doing in response to the environmental impact statement, which required approval before the mine was allowed to go ahead and is the area the public will generally be concerned about or interested in.
Before the mine is approved, an environmental impact statement is drawn up and approved. After consultation with the public and going through a draft stage, eventually a series of environmental objectives or requirements is produced. I see that the environmental plan can then be used as a tool to see whether, in fact, the company is sticking to what was agreed in the environmental impact statement. That is a good compromise, because environmental issues are the concern of most people. I give the examples of anywhere from Rum Jungle back in the 1950s and 1960s, to Mt Todd, to Alcoa. It is a very good approach. As with most legislation, time will tell, but let us see how it goes; it is a good approach from the government.
My response is less fulsome than the member for Goyder; she has a background in this area which is reflected in her response to the bill. It is great that we have people in this House who have background in some of these areas. In parliament, we need people with experience in industry. Agriculture is a classic example; there are not too many pastoralists in this House. We do not have enough people or a range of people with expertise across an industry which certainly helps when it comes to looking at important issues like this mining management plan. The member for Goyder is a classic example of why we should be looking for people with that type of expertise.
I will ask questions about community benefits during the committee stage, which may be answered by the member for Goyder. She raised the issues about how prescriptive can you be - who will gain benefits, who are the people, who will be called the locals? Should those agreements be secretive? The Alcoa agreement is not public; it should be public. Is it because it is on Aboriginal land that it is not public? If we are to know whether companies are making agreements with local landowners, what are those agreements? We expect agreements the government makes to be open and transparent, and we would expect the same from companies when dealing with these landowners.
Extractive mining concerns me because much of the extractive mining is in my electorate and parts of the member for Goyder’s electorate. Vast amounts of gravel, top soil, sand, and rock are removed from the Litchfield and greater Litchfield area - if you want to call it that - and is the foundation of much of the construction economy in Darwin and, without that, Darwin would not grow. It is important to find the balance. Extractive mining does have an effect. It is not classified as large-scale mining but, cumulatively, it can have an effect, so we have to ensure, from a cumulative point of view, there are no environmental downsides.
The other important issue, as the member for Goyder mentioned, is NRETAS. The mining industry is concerned that we do not duplicate legislation. The government is proposing changes to the clearing of native vegetation, which raises the issue of whether a mining company would be required to fill in the forms required under NRETAS’ proposed draft vegetation management, and do the same thing for its environmental impact statement and environmental management plan. The two departments have to get together and ensure there is no duplication. If the issue of land clearing requires a permit, they should be required to fill in one permit, not two. Government needs to look at this area to ensure processes are efficient and development is not stifled through unnecessary red tape. That is one example of where changes could occur.
I also agree with the member for Goyder about the amount of money we give to the Environment Centre and the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I am not saying they should not exist, but they move from being purely environmental to being quite openly political.
The issue about uranium mining in Alice Springs …
Ms Purick: Exploration.
Mr WOOD: … exploration, sorry, much of that protest came from groups like the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I do not mind them objecting to things on scientific grounds, saying they believe there is danger to this and danger to that; however, at times they cross the road and move into a political sphere and we fund it as taxpayers. Some of us could put up our hand and say: ‘We would not mind doing something similar to promote a particular goal’. I do not believe our environment groups are in any way pro-mining. They would probably prefer no mining in the Northern Territory, whereas I believe their role is more about accepting mining, and ensuring mines are not detrimental to the environment. There is no doubt that mines will have some effect on the environment. That should be their role, rather than what appears to be taxpayer-funded opposition to mines. It concerns me that, at times, that becomes more their role, rather than the role they should play, which is keeping a watch on the government and companies to ensure they are doing the right thing when it comes to the environment. I have no qualms about that at all. However, as I said - and I think the member for Goyder would agree - they cross that line and become political. Some of us despair that we are at times funding a group that steps outside what should be its main purpose.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy for this to go to committee, after the minister has given his response. I am sure the member for Goyder will have many questions and if her questions take over mine, I will not bother asking any questions, but we will see what happens during the committee stage.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Resources on this Mining Management Amendment Bill. The government introduced the bill into parliament in August this year with significant revisions to the current Mining Management Act. It is overdue, and I acknowledge the member for Nelson’s statements about the extractive industry. The Daly electorate has considerable extractive industries - more than the electorates of Nelson and Goyder put together. Anyway, I digress.
It is a significant issue. I have several mines and several proposed mines in my electorate. The one sticking point is around environmental management and the effect on the community. The Batchelor expansion to Area 55 is a classic example. It simply requires a degree of risk management, and allowing communities to be at ease with the way the risks they identify are being addressed. The guidelines which came out for Area 55 was an example of trying to manage risks in that area, and the requirement on the company to clearly state how that actually happens.
This is a maturing of the mining industry and the extractive industry. It is the way to go. The minister and his department have been actively engaging with the Minerals Council on this. The current and previous CEOs were keen to engage in this process and move the industry forward, because I do not think the industry would have survived community reaction if there were not refinements, or an acknowledgement. The community wants reassurance about the way mines are operating and about safeguards in place.
My experience with the Batchelor development is that most of what they did in the mine management plan was not something they were worried about. There were intellectual property issues which are quite understandable. However, there was nothing secretive about the majority of what they did and this is a way of progressing through it.
The mining sector will continue to be a strong and significant part of the Northern Territory’s growth for many decades to come. The mining sector employs almost 4000 people in both full- and part-time employment. That was in the May quarter 2011 and represents 3.2% of the total number of people employed in the Northern Territory, so a significant section, and I would hazard a guess that the number is direct and there is significant indirect employment into our economy as well.
This new bill provides a sound and improved platform for the next step forward for this vital sector. It will ensure the sector’s contribution to the Northern Territory’s economy does grow and remains strong. The main purpose in amending the bill is to ensure the sector meets its expectations to the community in protecting the environment while contributing to the economic growth, employment, and social development of the Territory and the nation.
The bill represents the first systematic revision of the way in which the act applies and regulates mining operations since it was introduced 10 years ago in 2001. The key improvements of the bill include the tightening up of the compliance requirements of the act and the introduction of compulsory reporting on all environmental incidents, which is important to our community. The broadening of offence provisions with the introduction of a new offence that captures incidents which previously escaped the environmental offences in the act; there are many good operating miners and this will not affect them but the industry wants to protect against operators which do not do the right thing by the sector.
One of the other provisions is the tightening of the definition of substantial disturbance to clarify the activities needing approval and this includes the coverage of seismic surveys in Territory waters. Also, a requirement for those undertaking mining operations on a mineral lease to publicly report their level of environmental performance on an annual basis. Also, the clarifying of circumstances surrounding the varying of the grant authorisation and introduction of a provision that allows the government to require the delivery of a community benefits plan as part of the approval of a mining project.
This final point carries significant implications for the business and employment areas of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has taken this step to ensure the sector remains strong and continues to contribute to the overall economy. The impacts of mining on the economy are both direct and indirect with substantial investments in the industry to support this flow-on effects and improve the Northern Territory’s business operating environment.
The Northern Territory has a sound and well-supported business operating environment through my Department of Business and Employment. It supports businesses in a variety of ways to ensure this government listens to the business people of the Northern Territory and strives to deliver programs and facilitate projects to benefit business.
This government policy strives to support business, making sure they are strong and well-supported by government. This government has, over the last few years, received support, clarification, and acknowledgement through the Sensis Business Index as the highest-supported jurisdiction in the nation for business confidence.
It is well known that mines are located in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. While this represents challenges for the construction and operation of those mines, it also enables regional and remote communities to participate in major projects and provides an avenue for communities to be more self-sufficient. The community development plans will provide training and employment opportunities for members of those communities and I spoke earlier this week about the collaboration between the Minerals Council, the land councils, and the mining companies with Indigenous traineeships. It is bearing fruit and I look forward to the government, through its ITEP program, to continue to support that. What I heard the other night was that the programs which have run so far, the graduates who have come through, have been men, so they are trying very hard next year to run a women’s program.
From my experience in the mining industry, and talking to people in the mining industry, women are gentler on equipment and concentrate much more than men do. They see that women are a vital part of the mining industry as well, so we look forward to Aboriginal women coming through that program. We also know, with the transient nature of mining sector employees from job to job, that having some permanently-based, long-term employees from the local communities, means continuity, experience, and skills development can be retained. Through the community benefit plans, incorporating the training programs for the local Indigenous staff will be vital. Also, incorporating the industry participation plans we have on a number of jobs, so we ensure local businesses get the opportunities within those major projects. It all trickles down; if local businesses are getting work, they are employing more local people, and we can see that happen.
Madam Speaker, this is an amendment to the bill, which is long overdue. In my area, I have a mix of pro-miners and environmentalists as well, people who want to live on large, rural blocks, people who want to live in regional areas where much of this mining activity occurs. It is about being open and transparent, managing risk, and working with the local community. This is a great step forward. I congratulate the minister and his department for working with the industry to come forward with these amendments. It will be well-appreciated by the local community. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources for presenting significant amendments to the Mining Management Act. These amendments will enhance the operations of the Territory’s mining sector, especially in underpinning lasting benefits, and they are benefits that deliver for Territory communities across the Territory relating to mining developments, both large and small.
During these sittings, the Labor government has highlighted its commitment to driving the Territory’s economic growth, but not at the expense of the Territory’s environment, which is important. The environmental accountability amendments in the bill will mean compulsory reporting and direct investigations of environmental offences at any level. Territorians understandably expect that the resource sector works to mitigate its impact on the environment and does everything possible to achieve that outcome. The amendments will provide greater transparency in the sector, giving our community confidence that the environment is being protected and treated with respect. Our environment will be better protected, shifting the onus on mining companies to demonstrate best practices and appropriate risk management. These amendments align with our government’s Territory 2030 strategy.
I am also pleased to see the introduction of the requirement to deliver social and economic benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to the environmental regulation amendments. Mining projects provide real opportunities in some of our most remote areas, boosting job opportunities, enhancing the skills and knowledge of local people, supporting local operators in service and supply, and services to the community. Even in the face of the global financial crisis, mining has contributed to a quarter of our economy, supporting jobs for Territorians, and they continue to grow.
The Bootu Creek Manganese Mine, located 120 km north of Tennant Creek, has recently commissioned a secondary processing plant. It now has the capacity to produce one million tonnes per annum of manganese for shipment to Darwin for export. Recent drilling has identified further resources, extending the mine life, which is further great news.
Of course, mines do not happen overnight. You could accuse me of promoting mining as a real career opportunity, because I do, and I continually talk to young Territorians in the Barkly about those opportunities. I use the example of two of my own boys who both secured trades, then transferred that knowledge into the mining sector and work these new mining shifts - the new fly in/fly out shifts. One is 10 days on and five days off, and the other works 14 days on and seven days off. They both earn very good salaries. They are working with some of the best people in the industry; and are motivated and focused. They have financial plans. They are kids who grew up in the bush, but grabbed that opportunity. They had a relationship with the cattle industry - the pastoral lands of the Barkly - then focused on mining. Tennant Creek, as members would appreciate, is a celebrated mining town with a celebrated mining history and was once the powerhouse of the Northern Territory.
The old Tennant Creek was an area that produced greater gross state product than Darwin. There was a dynamic, multicultural community, which provided not only employment, but also real social outcomes. Sport and recreation flourished, community events flourished, community organisations flourished, and we saw prosperity that delivered real outcomes in a regional remote community.
Tennant Creek is on the way back, which is why I welcome the minister’s amendments to parliament, and the hard work the minister for Resources does because this period in history - if I focus on the Barkly, which I love to focus on, the area I have spent more than half my life - it really is coming back. I tell constituents it is the minerals breadbasket of the Northern Territory and will be for decades to come. We have a strong history with the mining sector and once again, exploration is booming in the Barkly. We have great confidence this exploration will lead to a number of new mining developments in the coming decade, benefiting not only the Barkly, but also the Territory.
In the Tennant Creek goldfields, Emmerson Resources, in a joint venture with Ivanhoe Australia, has invested more than $18m in exploration over the past three years, targeting gold and copper mineralisation. This project is generating great interest, not only in the community of Tennant Creek, but also the wider Barkly community. The Emmerson Resources venture has recently used a state-of-the-art helicopter-based geophysical technique known as HeliTEM to remotely detect mineralisation.
The locals are always excited when we see evidence of exploration around Tennant Creek and within the region. I well remember the exit of the drill rigs and I remember them coming back to town. The global financial crisis hit, they parked up briefly, but then it was great to see them rolling again. With all the new technology - when the locals see this exploration program is big, it is bold, it is bringing benefits to town, it is benefiting the economy - we are on a good thing.
Emmerson Resources first started drilling anomalies and surveying for anomalies, which led to their early discoveries of an intersection of high-grade copper in an area never previously drilled in the region. These exciting results suggest there is much more copper and gold to be found around Tennant Creek. Gold and copper is not limited to the historic Tennant Creek tenements. Concerning the legendary Rover field, about 70 km southwest of Tennant - drilling by Westgold Resources and Adelaide Resources is taking place and has discovered a new field of significant gold and copper resources. The most promising prospect in this field is Rover 1, where Westgold Resources have defined a resource of more than 8 million tonnes of copper and gold ore. Westgold Resources is planning to put in an exploration decline at Rover 1 to drill out the deposit, which it will do, undertaking a feasibility study on the development of a new underground mine within two to three years.
It is great when I am in town talking to local contractors who secure work out there. I always ask for updates. The latest update from an electrical contractor who was out there working on air conditioners, advised me there were 30 people on the site about 70 km southwest of Tennant Creek, but doing business and attending functions in Tennant Creek, and being very open and honest with the local community about their plans and ambitions.
When we talk about the next phase of development in the mining of ore, then we are talking about jobs. OM Holdings, mining manganese at Bootu Creek, is very open with us. It wants a minimum 30% of its workforce to come from Tennant Creek. It has been great to see a gradual increase in that workforce. I am out there talking to young Territorians in the electorate of Barkly: ‘Take up the offer, have a go’.
I am not all about creating the ultimate miner, though. What I am advising the young people around the electorate is, if they go into this industry, they will secure skills and gain experience that is transferable into all aspects of employment - construction, and transport, for instance - and it will take them all around the world. It is about opportunity. These projects offer real opportunity, not only in delivering prosperity, but also delivering people with real experience, real focus, in real industry. That is what is exciting about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, when we see these exploration projects taking place.
At the same time, Westgold and Adelaide Resources are continuing to drill a number of promising prospects in the same area, with many targets yet to be drilled.
Another very important commodity that has reared its head, known about for a very long time by Barkly residents who go back a long way, but now in real demand on a global scale, is phosphate. Australia’s largest underdeveloped phosphate deposit, Wonarah, sits adjacent to the Barkly Highway, 250 km east of Tennant Creek. This massive resource of over 600 million tonnes of phosphate ore has the potential to be a major mine with a life of many decades. The project owners, Minemakers Limited, are undertaking a feasibility study on the project in partnership with a major Indian company. This feasibility study is looking at development of a mine and downstream processing facilities to produce beneficiated rock phosphate for export, along with phosphoric acid and fertiliser products.
The phosphate potential of the Barkly region for phosphate has recently been highlighted further by Rum Jungle Resources’ discovery of a new deposit known as Barrow Creek No 1, located 120 km east of Barrow Creek. Only a year after the first discovery of this prospect, Rum Jungle Resources has defined resources of more than 50 million tonnes of near-surface phosphate. Rum Jungle Resources will be accompanying the NT government delegations, including the minister, minister Vatskalis, to China, Korea, and Japan this year to seek a major partner to assist them in bringing the project towards development.
These projects are attracting international interest and we are very proud of that in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. We are very welcoming of new people who want to come and work with us. When we talk about the phosphate deposits, we have some incredible opportunities, not only in the product and the mining of the product, but in the transport logistics that will move these products through to Darwin and the East Arm Wharf to be exported. Franco Martino, another celebrated community member of Tennant Creek - when I was campaigning to enter politics to try to win the seat of Barkly, we had many discussions, he gave me lots of advice, and when I talk to him about how we are going to maximise these opportunities, going back to the grass roots of a mining community, maximising our resource potential, growing the transport logistics to get these products to market - said to me:
When you think about those logistics, that is what it is really about, and Tennant Creek being the concept that my wife coined; the inland port. The centre of the Barkly, an area that can capture resources coming out of the region and on-sell them, transport them on to other ports, and to other destinations. With phosphate, we are seeing opportunities, whether it be a road transport model with road trains moving that product across our major arterials, or whether we see the construction of a rail link that will link Tennant Creek to Mt Isa; both projects will bring real benefits to the Northern Territory - particularly putting Tennant Creek on the map - to return to those glory days when gold was literally running in the streets of Tennant Creek in the 1950s, 1960s, and the 1970s, where it was the economic powerhouse of the Northern Territory due to the mining industry.
As the Minister for Transport and Minister for Construction, I recognise the importance of appropriate infrastructure to get minerals to their world markets. Highlighting the Barkly, in the last financial year, this government has delivered $1.6m for roads projects and $6.8m to construct the McArthur River Bridge and it approaches, and this year in the Barkly, this government is delivering $5.4m on various projects to improve roads in the region. A further $10.6m is being invested to strengthen and widen the Barkly Highway, supporting the mining industry. This project is a very important asset to our transport industry which assists in accommodating access to the Barkly region and surroundings.
Madam Speaker, that does not come easy; that is working with a team. That is working with a Henderson Labor government that has a clear policy around beef, around mining, around community and these …
Mr Wood: What about Carpentaria Highway?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, the Carpentaria Highway. I pick up on the interjection. The Carpentaria Highway suffered incredibly in the last Wet Season, the record Wet Season, and the tender has just been let to seal all those gravel patches that were necessary to get that highway opened and to get the trucks and the constituents rolling again. But in the bigger picture of policy, it is very clear what this government has done. It has extended that vision to a 2030 vision, it is in consultation with industry and community, and it is about delivering those important transport logistics - the supply chain. It is good to see this focus on the Barkly and, as a local member, I am at the table lobbying, and I get a few letters from the other side, which is good to see. I do not see many letters from the other side, but from this side, I get many letters …
Ms Purick: I send you letters.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Goyder, you are one of my regular reads - always good letters, always very articulate letters, always lobbying strongly for her constituents, and that is the way it works. From this side, I get bombarded! It translates into local members who know the system, work the system, and deliver results for their constituents, and I am proud to say that the crossover between a local member lobbying, and the minister, and lobbying at Cabinet level is a real team effort to put it all together for the Territory.
Investment in key roads, for example, the Tanami, where this year we are again funding extensions to the seal, provides greater access to move products from our mines to the markets. I have been criticised - when we talk about the great highway, the great Tanami Highway, over 780 km in length – regarding that Territory section. I announced that we are sealing a further 4 km, and people have to try to make mischief with it, but we now have over 120 km of that highway sealed. There is more being done every year. I say to the critics: ‘That is 4 km more than we had last year and 120 km more than we had 30 years ago’. This is big business, this is expensive work, but it is targeted under good policy, and it is targeted at growing the Territory.
Members who have recently headed to the Darwin Business Park at East Arm will now know that the construction of the new rail pass into the port is receiving its final touches. Already traffic is driving over the bridge and, as one commuter has reported, it is pretty amazing to go over the bridge as the train is going under. I have experienced that on the Stuart Highway at the Ali Curung turnoff. It is an incredible sensation when you are using a major arterial in the Northern Territory, the Stuart Highway, and crossing underneath you on the north-south railway is a locomotive, 1.8 km long, moving goods in the supply chain between the top and bottom of the continent, moving resources from across our jurisdictional boundaries, and using our port as the end point of their supply chain. It is a wonderful feeling. I acknowledge the extensive work under way at East Arm, led by the Darwin Port Corporation Chief Executive, Terry O’Connor, to enhance and expand infrastructure at the port to facilitate more export growth.
Our government is very proud to support the Territory’s mining industry, and I commend the minister for driving these amendments, because it is important to get the balance right. It is a world of opportunity. There is incredible opportunity for prosperity, but there are also real responsibilities for government, and the community and business, to get that balance right to protect the Territory’s environment. It is a great opportunity to be able to stand and speak on government policy; policy that has the machinations of legislation, the real nuts and bolts of ensuring we get the best outcome. It is great to listen to other members talk about their experiences and how it translates to their electorates, and their constituents.
As I have outlined in my contribution to the debate, Tennant Creek and the Barkly - a mining history, a pastoral culture, and some of the most fabulous Territorians in the place. We are excited. As the Treasurer outlined the other day, things are looking good in Tennant Creek. Real estate values have increased, and a land release program from this government, the first we have seen for 30 years in Tennant Creek, has been extremely successful, with more to come …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Thank goodness, we built all that infrastructure down there for you.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, that is a beauty. It should be recorded in Hansard; it was that good. It was all about ‘we did, we did’. Well, I am talking about now. I am talking about what we are doing. I am talking about our government servicing those blocks …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine! Member for Drysdale! Cease interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the area that is now being developed in Tennant Creek was abandoned; it was left abandoned. Our government went in and redid the services. We had to redo the sewerage and water; put the power in; and resurface the roads. It was abandoned infrastructure, as that area and that town had been abandoned for quite awhile under the Country Liberals. If you want to talk turkey, then let us talk, because when you have lived in that region for over 30 years, you can make comment. Some half-cut comment from interjection - let us debate it with the locals, let us talk about capital works programs, lucky to make four pages in an annual report in the Barkly region under the previous government. Let us talk about people determined to turn that around, and let us now celebrate what is happening in the Barkly.
Interjections are interjections, one-liners are one-liners, and that is about all they are. It might create some media spin for the member for Katherine, but bring it on! As I said recently, I do not just talk about my home town and the region where my kids have grown up; I like to share stories about other regions as well and I recently shared a story about Katherine which may have struck a nerve with the member for Katherine. People in Katherine are happy to hear good news stories about what our government is doing.
Madam Speaker, I digress. I go back to my home town and the Barkly I represent. I can talk about the good stories, and it is a good news story under a Henderson Labor government, and that is a fact of life. What we are doing is aligning with the opportunities - it is about talking the place up - and those opportunities are going to deliver prosperity to support future generations. These future generations do not all have to be miners, but if you get a start in an industry which has real world conditions, you can translate that anywhere you like.
I reiterate the other concept I am pushing within the regional and remote communities, the fly in/fly out culture. There has been much criticism of the fly in/fly out culture. We are about turning that around because the fly in/fly out culture can be fly in/fly out of Darwin from Yuendumu, or fly in/fly out of Tennant Creek, so you do not have to stay home for a job. You can have a job and, in these new shift breaks, you can work hard in supported accommodation environments with some of the best tradies on the planet, and be home in a regional or remote area. You can be on the Davenport Ranges or at a favourite spot of mine, the old Policeman Waterhole, and camp there for a few days. You can spend time with your family at home in Canteen Creek or Epenarra. You can come from Corella Creek and still access the prosperity of the future being delivered through our resource sector or the prosperity available in our pastoral sector. That is what the kids around Tennant Creek and the Barkly are now focused on.
That relates to preparation and, within our education system, we are getting the bare bones right. We are focusing on every child, every day. We are securing the opportunities so these kids are prepared for what can be theirs, what will be theirs, and what is rightfully theirs – opportunity.
I once again thank the minister, and this House, for the opportunity to speak about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, and a future that looks rosy under a Henderson Labor government.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of officers from the Department of Resources and Mr John Fogarty from the United States Environment Protection Authority. Mr Fogarty is in Darwin to speak at the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulatory Network Conference which is being held at the Convention Centre this Thursday and Friday. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also acknowledge the electorate officer for the member for Nelson, Ms Kim Lawlor. 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 House censure the government for:
1. conduct leading to the government being in a state of crisis, namely:
an inability to properly address law and order;
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business …
Mr Mills: They have accepted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): I have already accepted. If we could have it distributed – I do not know if they have enough paper out there, but hopefully they do, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Is it signed, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MILLS: That list has been compiled by your actions and lack thereof, and what I have seen and what we have come to see and know ...
Ms Scrymgour: You are a liar, Terry, you are a liar! If anyone …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is already out there.
Ms Lawrie: This is your swan song, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: Tenuously hanging ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Treasurer!
Mr Conlan: No, it is your epitaph …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms Lawrie: You do not decide that ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This starts with a government that is able to spend its time talking about things that create an impression in their own minds – a sense of delusion that they are doing okay. They have turned their attention away from Territorians, who are deeply concerned and are looking to a government to do something that makes a real difference to them.
They talk about things they have numbers around; they have certain quantities around. However, when it comes to values and important things that mean something to Northern Territory families, they could not care less; they have become so consumed with the spin cycle. We have the little clever tactics being played from the other side which is a demonstration, in my view, of an entirely desperate government, clinging to the last vestiges of power.
The member for Casuarina says: ‘Mark my words: this is going to be a dirty campaign’. He is predicting something terrible is going to happen from the Country Liberal Party, by imputation. The fact is, we have that type of tactic being played from the other side. With their vast resources, all they can come up with is grubby little tactics to try to focus attention on the government. This is an opposition with its limited resources that has focused its attention - and is continuing to do so - on the things that matter.
We are fed up with this type of behaviour from the members of our government - who scoff and laugh and mock. I tell you that Territorians are watching you; they know what you are up to. We have people talking to us, believe it or not, and you have turned your attention away. You have turned your attention away to a small circle, and you believe your own lie. You believe you are doing okay; you are clapping each other on the back. You have your little group up there working out clever, gutter politics to try to advance your desperate political game – and you are not going to be supported in that.
If you are going to defend yourself, have a look around and see how many people are actually supporting you in real terms. You have lost your connection. You are not fair dinkum. You are not actually drawing support in the wider community. The people who are sitting on this side of the Chamber, who have come from our community, who are working with our limited resources in the community to hold this government to account, are being sustained by this community which is desperate for a change. They are desperate for something they can hang on to.
All this government holds on to is the hope over the horizon that something good is going to happen. They talk about infrastructure, which are things, but the things that matter are law, order, and families feeling safe in their own community. You do not talk about that. The Chief Minister was standing and mocking the opposition, saying: ‘They do not want to hear about it, Madam Speaker. They do not want to hear about all these great things that have happened in Palmerston’.
Well, I am pleased, as a resident of Palmerston, that there is a school finally built - two schools. However, I know, as a resident of the city, we have had no end of petitions calling upon this slow-acting and callous government to release the pressure on those overcrowded schools, which have been overcrowded for eight years! Now, you have finally done something, you expect the whole crowd to applaud you for doing what a government should have done in the first place!
You do not have a long-term plan, you have a short-term plan, which is a political plan to save your political hides – that is your own interest. The people of Palmerston, yes, sure, we do not mind a waterslide, we do not mind that type of infrastructure, but what we do mind is a government that has neglected the basic needs of a community - which is safety, protection in the street - and policies that work and strengthen a community. We do not have that; we have gutter politics and sneaky little tactics being played to try to bring the opposition down, so you can all laugh with glee and think you have tripped us up.
The fact is, we are not going to be deterred. I do not care what you have on your side. You can bring it all out, because the people will decide. They will make their own decision. They will see right through you because they remember the 2008 election. They knew where you were coming from, and they cast judgment on you because the game you played was not in the interests of the Northern Territory - it was just so you could hang on. You got the fright of your life because quiet Territorians right across the length and the breadth of the Territory had already made up their minds. They do not like what they see; they do like that kind of behaviour. You keep it up and they will make their judgments. I do not care what you have.
There is stuff everywhere but we are not going to get into that game. We are not going to get into that game because Territorians expect better of us, they will be looking to the opposition, and we know that. You can go on with your little clever mantras and say: ‘Where is the policy?’ I tell you what, Chief Minister who has been in the Chamber as long as I, cast your mind back in 2001, try to recall, go back in Hansard and recall the atmosphere in the Northern Territory in 2001. Recall the arrogance of a government at that time, and how you were posturing. You thought you had won every session in the parliament. You would go out into the lobby and think you had done really well - high five - you have done very well; but quietly the mood had changed in the electorate.
This time, the mood has not just changed in the northern suburbs, Palmerston, Darwin, Katherine, and Tennant Creek, the mood has changed in the bush. They have turned their attention away. They want something better and if you keep going the way you are, mark my words, the quiet people, the ones you cannot hear anymore, will make their decision. It is not about you. They can see - no matter how cleverly you spin the line - how you convince each other, and you are all convinced up there on the fifth floor, and all those back slappers will applaud your tactics, but you are the only ones. They can see right through you.
No matter how hard or how cleverly you spin the line, or how much you convince yourself - to deliberately withhold crime statistics and make that change - people will see that and read it for what it is. It is no coincidence that you bring in measures, serious response to a serious problem; well, it is a political response to a serious problem. That is, the problem of alcohol in the Northern Territory.
I put this challenge out there: in 2012, I want to see, Chief Minister - it could be in your own electorate, I do not care - you name the place and the time and I will be there for a public debate on this. Out there where the people will be making that decision, we will discuss these things, the facts will come out, and let people judge it, because the rhetoric and bullshit that goes on in this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would ask that you withdraw that.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw bullshit, Madam Speaker. I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Leader of the Opposition. I remind you that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … that which you believe, the deception you are under, the backslappers, those in your little groups who think you are doing very well out there in the lobby, and the three-and-a-half hollow men upstairs who are egging you on, and you have lost your connection. Let us play this as a pub test: have your debate on alcohol reform, head-to-head, out there in the community. The real measures that are being applied; they will be able to pass their judgment on this government, on its failure with law and order.
No clearer monument to your failure in this area will be established than the spend of $0.5bn on a prison. A previous government leaves a legacy - a railway - which is wealth-producing and demonstrates a vision for the Northern Territory that is in our DNA, and we see that. No matter what you say, we can see it - something that will produce wealth, produce hope, and a direction for the Northern Territory. What you produce is a monument to your failure, your failure to address law and order, and you build a $0.5bn monument to your failed policies in law and order. You can talk about the things you came up with during Question Time, but no one believes you.
You have been accused of falsifying records in child protection. It has been excruciating to see this government over the years, with the community absolutely appalled; and I still feel sickened to my gut when I read some of those accounts. One was in my own electorate, Deborah, who is no longer with us. This government spent its time and energy managing a media problem, managing the issue so it could find its way out of a political problem. The second one was: ‘What can we finally do?’ You were dragged kicking and screaming to offer and render assistance to children, to protect children in our community.
The accusations are absolutely devastating: falsifying records; covering up; denying; moving the blame; one minister to another minister to another minister – no matter what you say or how well you thought you went in Question Time; no matter what you say about the opposition; no matter what little grubby tactics you come up with, the community has already made up their mind. They have already made up their mind on that point. How could that occur? How could you let that happen?
What has happened to the Labor Party that this could occur after 10 years, that you get yourself to the point where you do not mind that occurring, and you can stand up here under assault from the opposition who want to hold this government to account? That is our responsibility, wanting you to protect children, and you spend all your time moving from minister to minister, changing your stories; and the accusations that come, and then you turn your attention to those who blow whistles, raise the alarm, trying to elicit a proper response. Believe it or not, there are people who make telephone calls. There are people who call us who are genuinely concerned, good people who are very concerned across a range of areas.
We know what you did with Mataranka. It is plain for all to see. Yes, you can laugh about it and think: ‘We are bulletproof because we have enjoyed government and we love the power that goes with it but, unfortunately, it has made us a bit deaf and blind’, but the people can see quite clearly. They can see what you did with Mataranka. You can point it in any way you want, but people can see quite clearly what you did, what the will of this government is.
Okay, we have an executive. I do not understand how this executive works. Have they lost control? Have they been taken for a ride? Are they actually in power? They make excuses and transfer responsibility away from themselves constantly. I have concluded, many times when you have come up with answers to accusations levelled at you from the media, from the opposition, from members of the community, even a dear whistleblower who said something, that you do not seem to care. You do not respond in a proper way, and the answers are basically excuses. You can easily conclude that there is no point in having this Territory Labor government. They seem to be figureheads. They do not have answers to questions. They do not take responsibility. They will offload that responsibility to someone else, and it becomes complete gobbledygook.
Who takes responsibility in a government? If a government takes no responsibility, there is no point in having a government; and this is a government that does not trouble itself with responsibility. The only problem it has to deal with is a political problem, how you manage that, and I can see what is happening here. We have perhaps 10 months to the next Territory election, and judging by the member for Casuarina who prophesises that there are going to be grubby tactics played: ‘Mark my words’. Well, lo and behold, next day, out comes this, shock, horror; report to the police, we have a letter here. I mean, fair dinkum.
He predicted right, because we know the form of this Labor government. It is desperate to hold on to power, will resort to whatever measures are at its disposal to try to hold on to power, and discredit their opponents. At the end of the day, Territorians are going to wonder who is paying any attention to our needs? Who is dealing with the pressures on our daily budget? Who is dealing with the long-term and strategic plans for urban development? Who is providing some hope for families living in the bush, remote communities, Indigenous people, who have looked to the Labor Party and been encouraged by the Labor Party all those years, all those votes, and all that support that has been given to the Labor Party, and what have they been repaid with? Confusion; they have been used and misused quite badly and they have lost their faith.
You might not believe that, but I have been around long enough and I can read the play. The tide has turned away from you. It has turned away from you in the bush for a very good reason, because there was hope and expectation and you failed to deliver, failed to give an adequate account of yourselves, and now you have resorted to tactics uncovered in this parliament through the member for Katherine. We know what is going on. People talk; people tell us what is going on. People make reports because they have lost their confidence, interest, and respect in this government. They tell us what is being said behind the scenes. The member for Daly says: ‘It is just politics; that is all you are playing’. Someone who makes that judgment is someone involved in that level of activity all the time and, frankly, we are not.
You have failed to assume responsibility on so many fronts - let us take Palmerston for an example. Do you think the people of Palmerston are going to applaud you because you built things in Palmerston? You actually believe that. You built all these nice things: Rugby League and soccer fields, put lights around the football field, built some change rooms and a grandstand, a water park and that sort of stuff and, as a result of building these things, you believe people are going to vote for you. They will say: ‘That is the type of thing a government should do’. ‘We want a health system that works, not a slogan; we do not want something that sounds like something it is not’.
People do not want to be oversold on basic things like health provision; they want a school that works and want to see their kids making real progress. They want to see the crime stats - if we could see them - showing real signs of improvement. They do not want all the hype about the scanning of your ID: ‘Do not worry, we will cherry-pick some data because we cannot give you the full data because people might misuse it for political purposes. We will give you some cherry-pick data and demonstrate this is working, to reassure you’. People are not to be taken for fools - they know. They have seen these measures put in place in other jurisdictions and they will not work because you are failing to address the real problem.
The withdrawing of data makes it difficult to prosecute the argument; however, they have already made their judgment; they know what you are up to. They want to know a scheme really does work, have confidence in it, and know you have their best interests at heart. If you had their best interests at heart, you would have kept the data going, but you do not. You do not want to be held accountable. You found an explanation why it is taken out of the equation: ‘Just take our glossy brochure’s word that it is working. Take our selective choosing of data as a demonstration this is working’. That is called deception and you cannot fool the people like that. You cannot have a Question Time where you talk about all the infrastructure you built and think everyone is going to love you for it. That is what governments do; however, people want good governance. They want a government that is fair dinkum and honest with them, not playing games.
Mark my words - the member for Casuarina is quite correct - it is going to be a grubby campaign, but I know where the grubbiness is going to come from, and I know the electorate is going to make its judgment. I do not care; the people will make their own judgment. They want something better than they have and this government is deserving of censure, make no mistake.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion. It is quite long, with many points, and I will try to address each point as best I can.
By way of background, Question Time today was a very weak effort by the opposition and this censure motion is a fairly weak attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to bolster his position. Looking back over the two weeks of these sittings, the strongest Question Time by the opposition was …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … the strongest showing by the opposition was on the first day of this two-weeks’ sittings when the member for Fong Lim led the charge on the carbon tax. Since he has withdrawn, there has been a fairly weak showing by the opposition during these …
Mr Elferink: Talk about withdrawn. Look around you. Look around you!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you will cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: They talk about bullyboy tactics and all the rest of it. They are the ones who are indulging in it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: I gave the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy, when he spoke, to listen in silence and listen carefully to what he had to say. I ask members of the opposition to extend the same courtesy to me. They might not like what I have to say. I make this observation …
Mr Elferink: Your own colleagues do not like it; look around you!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: There has been much mentioned today by the Leader of the Opposition about the election in 2008. He said, and rightly so, the CLP improved their position in 2008. One only has to look on that side of the Chamber to see that. However, since 2008 and 2009, there have been some pivotal turning points within the term of this parliament. What we have seen, from my perspective, but then I am biased …
Mr Elferink: A government in crisis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, what I have seen is a Chief Minister who has had difficult issues to deal with, and has built a team - and a disciplined team …
Mr Elferink: Discipline? Look at the backs of their chairs! Where is the discipline?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Westra van Holthe: What about your ministers who jumped ship?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Dr BURNS: What I have seen and experienced firsthand is a Chief Minister who has grown in the job, who has built a team around him - and that team …
Members interjecting.
Mr Elferink: They are gone; they are not here!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we are seeing who the bullyboys are, and the arrogance here today …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin will cease interjecting! Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: They do not like what I am saying, but I will say it – or I will continue to try to say it. The Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, has exhibited leadership through very difficult …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: I will talk into the microphone, and I will not let you interject again, member for Port Darwin, because I am sick of your arrogance. I am sick of your stupidity, which was evidenced today in Question Time …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is a censure motion brought on by the opposition. I would have thought members of the opposition would like to hear the government’s response to the censure motion. I will be putting people on further warnings. Leader of Government Business, address the censure motion, please.
Dr BURNS: I am addressing it, Madam Speaker. I am addressing some of the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition who mentioned the upcoming election several times, the 2012 election. He also mentioned the 2008 election, and I am addressing some of the issues he raised.
What I have seen since 2008 is a leader who has grown, who has built a disciplined team. That is what I have seen. What have I seen on the other side? I have seen an Opposition Leader who, in the words of the member for Port Darwin, brought the opposition to within a whisker of government. Since then, I have seen it unravel for the Leader of the Opposition. He is not a leader; he cannot lead. His leadership is, and will continue, to unravel …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: … over the next 10 months, and Territorians are aware of that - Territorians can see that. The Leader of the Opposition sometimes reminds me of a sheep. When the sheep dog is around, the lead sheep stamps its foot trying to look authoritative. That is what he does when he comes into this parliament. However, he has no authority. The only authority is the member for Fong Lim, who really has de facto control of the party opposite. That is the fact of the situation. Territorians will see that. They have a clear choice between leadership and lack of leadership, between honesty and someone facing difficult issues, and someone who hides …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … for seven hours in a restaurant because he is too gutless to go outside!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister.
Whilst this is a censure motion, the normal rules apply for the parliament in relation to behaviour and, honourable members, the disorder is well beyond anything normal.
Leader of Government Business, there are a few members who are already on warnings, so bear that in mind.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first element of their censure motion is an inability to properly address law and order. The CLP had a freeze on police numbers for several years in the 1990s. This government invested in 400 extra police across the Territory; a substantial investment. We commissioned a former Police Commissioner of Queensland, Jim O’Sullivan ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin will cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: ... to submit a report, and we acted on that report – very important. There was neglect we inherited from the CLP with law and order.
A great deal has been made about the gaol, the $0.5bn gaol the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. He said it was a monument to the failure of this government. Unfortunately, I need to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that governments have responsibilities; we have responsibilities to build schools, we have responsibilities to build health clinics, we have responsibility to build all types of infrastructure and, as government, we also have responsibilities to build prisons. It is an unfortunate fact of life that governments have charge of the Corrections system and have a responsibility.
God knows, if there were any way we could have avoided building a new prison, we would have taken that course of action, and the member for Nelson, through his journey, found out exactly the same. There is no way, and the Treasurer ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... alluded to this earlier in these proceedings ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: … about the inefficiency of trying to rebuild on the current gaol site, for all kinds of reasons. So, we are building a new goal, unfortunately. We would much rather spend that money on something else, but the reality is, it has to be done, member for Blain, I am sorry, and it is part of the responsibilities of government to do so …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: It is a completely spurious view to argue in that vein.
The second point, the complete neglect of the people of Central Australia. That is hyperbole and, as a government, we have invested in Central Australia. We acknowledge that Alice Springs, in particular, has quite a deal of social problems, and we are trying to address those problems.
The opposition says it will put 20 extra police in Alice Springs ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... and that is their policy. We do not have just 20 extra police, we have 400 extra police, and we leave it to the Police Commissioner to deploy those police and cover-off on police operations.
We have an opposition, and the member for Greatorex, in particular, who is quite disdainful and dismissive of police, and whenever police might challenge or not agree with them - they talk about brutalising public servants, but they are quite vicious in the way they attack anyone who stands in their way, who might not particularly agree with them …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Here we go, lumbering every Territorian with unsustainable levels of debt, and I can roll that one into recklessly spending GST revenues.
So, is the opposition saying we should not have build schools throughout the Northern Territory, or build services, or health clinics? I have travelled in the bush ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... a fair bit, and what was out there, or not out there, was a disgrace ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: ... and members opposite like to talk about the testament of the CLP achievement. The member for Braitling often talks about this - he has been in the Territory a couple of years - but he needs to really get around and have a look at what was there in 2001 …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know it is impossible for the minister to construct an argument without obsessing over the CLP. It was flattering; it is now getting a bit creepy …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Mr CONLAN: ... and we might need to get a restraining order out against him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat! Member for Greatorex, remove yourself from the Chamber, please. You were already on a warning. Remove yourself under Standing Order 248.
Mr CONLAN: You are kidding!
Madam SPEAKER: Remove yourself from the Chamber!
Mr CONLAN: Am I able to put …
Madam SPEAKER: Remove yourself from the Chamber, member for Greatorex, or I will name you!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, all through this censure debate, I have tried to conduct myself with some dignity and decorum, but we have a rabble of an opposition. That is what they are; they are out of the box. The member for Blain is a nice bloke, he is a good bloke, but he cannot control them. They are out of the box and, basically, that is what Territorians will look at also …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … your inability to discipline, member for Blain, in stark contrast to our leader, who has a disciplined team.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, are they saying we should not have invested that GST revenue into delivering 400 extra police officers across the Territory? The number would have to be in the 400s, 400 extra nurses and extra teachers - are you saying we should not have invested? No! So, what are you saying? It is hard to know what you are saying, because you do not have any real policies. In contrast to 2001, which the member for Blain mentioned, I was a candidate then, and the opposition, although small, smaller than you, had a suite of policies. I do not see that from you.
I see very little policy development from you, and that is a crucial difference, because the people of the Northern Territory could look at those policies and make a decision, but with you it is a vacuum, a policy vacuum. Even when you do have a policy, you back away from it. We saw that last week with your policy on greenhouse and climate change. The Leader of the Opposition released a policy in 2009, which was quite plain and acknowledged that climate change was measurable and action needed to be taken on greenhouse gases; and then we had the member for Brennan come in here repudiating the lot. It is chaos on your side, there is no discipline in terms of policy …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: And are you saying we should not have employed an extra 208 doctors? Well, you are a joke, that is the reason why this motion is a joke. Are they saying we should not have gone into debt in relation to the GFC and spending on infrastructure? They are the only ones in the Territory who are thinking that way. Business accords with what this government has done with going into deficit. I might add that we had - I think it was eight years of surplus prior to that deficit - eight years of surplus. I well remember the last budget of the former CLP government where Mike Reed, and I have much admiration for Mike Reed now that I have been a minister for a while, I understand that Mike Reed was a very good minister. I know for a fact that Mike Reed raided the pantry, the hollow log, the Conditions of Service Trust. He pulled $150m, from memory, out of the Conditions of Service Trust when he had a debt of $149m so he could have a surplus of $1m in an election year.
We have shown ourselves to be better fiscal managers than the opposition. Even when you had a good Treasurer like Mike Reed, the rest of it was just a rabble, really. We have had surplus budgets. I know the member for Port Darwin is getting desperate. I know the shadow of the member for Fong Lim is falling on him, and he is losing control of his troops. When they came in here they were all newbies, and here was the expert, doctor, professor, member for Port Darwin, and they are smart enough to see what he did today was shoot himself in the foot in a mighty way with calling imputations and inferences in questions. They are seeing you are not the Herr Doctor Professor after all, member for Port Darwin. You really bumbled it today, and you are losing your grip on the position you hold; however, I digress.
Much has been made of the crime statistics and the Chief Minister explained in this House today how we are moving in line with national publication of crime statistics. There is nothing sinister about it, nothing being hidden, nothing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, you have been warned.
Dr BURNS: … like the job offer he made to Leo Abbott. That was hidden and only came to light because there was a verbatim transcript which clearly showed he made a job offer to Leo Abbott. He dropped Tony Abbott in it as well, and Tony Abbott heard about it and said he knew nothing about it. One of those two is not telling the truth …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I think I know who it is. Anyway, I digress.
Mr Elferink: What about the things that matter to Territorians? What about the government’s absence from this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a further warning. You will be removing yourself very shortly!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, in relation to climate change there is a thing called the ozone layer; however, in this House there is a thing called the bozone layer - a substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. It was illustrated in the debate on climate change, the way the member for Brennan completely left his leader high and dry on that issue. There is much bozone layer happening on the other side.
Driving up the cost of living through failed land release policies: we are releasing land at five or six times the fastest rate ever. You only have to go out to Palmerston East and see the development …
Mr Westra van Holthe interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Dr BURNS: … and what is going on out there. There is a phenomenal amount of land release.
Standing with Julia Gillard is the allegation in support of the live cattle bans. The Chief Minister has made it very plain …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … as has the member for Casuarina, that we fought hard for the resumption of the live cattle trade. We were in accord with the Cattlemen’s Association because we did not politicise the issue, unlike members opposite, who were grasping after straws trying to politicise a range of issues.
Repeatedly ignoring the motions of this House: we are in minority government and we accept that, from time to time, we will lose motions on the floor of this House. However, we have a rock solid agreement with the member for Nelson regarding supply and a want of confidence in the government. We have that, and the member for Nelson probably knows, after all this time, he made the right decision. He only has to look at the rabble, disorder, and chaos on the other side – I believe he said so publicly - to know why he went with this side of the House, and rightly so. At the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition is unable to control his troops. It must exasperate him to see what goes on; must drive him to distraction that he cannot have a disciplined team.
We hope they are going to support statehood and the convention on statehood. I am not going to pre-empt debate, but we had the introduction of legislation today. I am hoping in the November sittings the opposition will be wholeheartedly supporting statehood and will have learnt from the mistakes of the past when Shane Stone tried to politicise the Statehood Convention and the whole shift to statehood, and the vote was lost. As Paul Keating famously observed: ‘They are like the Bourbons; they have learnt nothing and they have forgotten nothing’. It is history repeating itself. I hope not, but let us hope they can wholeheartedly and honestly support statehood and the Statehood Convention; however, they have form.
We have seen what they did on CDL and they are having a little tickle-up in this motion. They are very ambivalent about CDL, and I have mentioned their Janus face before - the two faces of the CLP in relation to container deposit legislation. We saw it with Angela Pamela. It was a difficult introduction to political life for the member for Araluen who, I believe, is a very sincere person. She found it hard. She made undertakings to the electorate then the heavies came down on her and others - I think the member for Greatorex as well - to completely reverse their position. That is the CLP; they cannot stick to a policy or a position. I do not believe they can be trusted. I hope the electorate, when they come to consider which way they are going to go next August, will look at these things.
Yes, they will look at where government may not have delivered, where government may not have been everything they wanted of us, they will look at you as well, and they will make a decision. The people are never wrong, member for Port Darwin, and we will see what decision they come up with next November.
We do know there are members on the other side - I will not name them – who are completely terrified about any challenge in their seat - completely terrified that a decent candidate will be named against them and they will lose their seat. The answer is: ‘You should have been working a bit harder!’ You should have been coming to the Rapid Creek Markets every Sunday, not just every time there is an election or an issue around. People can see who is working and who is not. People talk amongst themselves about what their local member may or may not have done for them. We fall or stay, largely on the basis of what we do in our electorates. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
You mentioned the tragic death of Deborah Melville, and we have debated this issue and talked about this very serious, sad issue in this House on a number of occasions. I have placed on the record my feelings and thoughts on this particular case. However, to say this government has – I think you said we forged documents, falsifying records in child protection. I ask the Leader of the Opposition - he mentioned it a few times but never substantiated it - is he alleging that a minister has falsified records? Is he alleging that a minister has directed a public servant to falsify records? If that is the case, that is a very serious allegation. We know in this House that falsifying records is a very serious thing we should not be engaging in - whether we are members, whether we are opposition members, or any member in this House. I ask, if there are further speakers from the other side on this censure motion, for them to substantiate what you are saying about falsifying records, because that is a very serious allegation.
The hyperbole about bullying public servants and hiring a private detective to intimidate a whistleblower: the minister has been on the record about how, in industrial claims against the department, there certainly was someone looking into those allegations against the department. It had nothing to do with bullying the person who, allegedly, was a whistleblower. This was a matter of process, of getting to the bottom of allegations - serious allegations - that had been made. I say that is transparency and openness, not bullying.
Knowingly delayed the release of pollution levels in the harbour: I am not sure what that is about. The member for Brennan talked about …
Mr Bohlin: Where is the Chief Minister? Has anyone seen him today?
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If you could remind the member for Drysdale that reference to the presence or absence of any member in the Chamber is against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. Member for Drysdale, withdraw whatever comment you made.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment that the Chief Minister is not here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no need for commentary, thank you.
Dr BURNS: The assertion that, somehow, we knowingly delayed the release of pollution levels in the harbour, raised earlier in a draft report the minister has not even received yet, but that is in line with many other things the member for Brennan does on the floor of this House to try to get a headline.
Container deposit legislation I have mentioned. Culpability for the Montara oil spill: the member for Casuarina detailed in legislation, in statute, what our responsibilities are.
Engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians: I see the gutter politics is getting a bit of a run. I read a transcript from the member for Macdonnell on Rohan Barwick this morning about gutter politics; she mentioned gutter politician about four or five times, so this is obviously a line developed by the CLP. I note with some amusement that when asked whether there was an agreement between herself and the Leader of the Opposition about her being a minister, she said: ‘There is no agreement. True God. True God, Rohan’. You might recall the other day I talked about people putting their hand on their heart, fingers curled, and saying ‘true God’, and I said be very careful when someone says that, so instantly when I read that I thought to myself: ‘Whammy! There is an agreement …’
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe in God; He is true.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order!
Dr BURNS: Picking up on the interjection by the member for Brennan. There are many deities in the world and maybe the true God in that case was Shiva the Destroyer. I digress Madam Speaker.
I worry, I have seen it in action, I have seen the hand on the heart and true God, and every time, there has been no truth, it has not been the truth. I know the mannerisms, I know the ‘tells’, and as soon as that was said, I said to myself: ‘There is an agreement, nothing surer’.
That is what lies at the bottom of the problems for the Leader of the Opposition. Agreements with Leo Abbott had to be dragged kicking and screaming, still denied it, stayed in a restaurant for seven hours, and now an agreement between him and the member for Macdonnell. I believe it exists, just like I believe God exists, member for Brennan, and this is a vain attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to try to shore up his leadership. I do not think he can lead these people over there, I think they are in revolt against him, I think he is having deep difficulties with his leadership.
Madam Speaker, this censure motion is a vain attempt for him to shore up his support. What I can say on this side of the House, our support for the Chief Minister is rock solid on this side of the House. He is a leader, he will lead this party to the next election, and the people will make their choice.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this censure motion brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I have never seen such a poor performance by the retiring member for Johnston. It was quite disappointing listening to this very retiring performance. All we heard from the retiring member for Johnston were deflections and hideous speculation about the leadership once again. We have heard it all before; it all comes back to this process of …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I considered the member’s performance to be Oscar winning.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order!
Mr Elferink: We agree, Madam Speaker, but he is just an actor.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that is not a point of order either!
Mrs LAMBLEY: If that was Oscar winning, gee whiz …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mrs LAMBLEY: If that was Oscar winning, Madam Speaker, it speaks volumes about the capacity, potential, and performance overall of this government. Continually harking back to the performance of the CLP 10 years ago and more is so boring, irrelevant, tiring, and quite embarrassing. They do not have anything else to pin on us, apart from endless speculation about the internal mechanisms, dramas, and apparent goings-on in the opposition ranks, and what we did 10 years ago or more.
This government has no retort or defence, and never accepts responsibility for its poor performance over the last 10 years. The retiring member for Johnston was a lone soldier, a voice in the mist, he had no friends and support during that speech, and I felt almost sorry for him; a little boy lost in the mist.
He said there is quite a deal of social problems in the Northern Territory, which is a complete understatement. This government has failed to address the social problems in the last 10 years and we are left with the mess we see in the Northern Territory today. Ten years of Labor government and look at the mess before us, look at the mess the next government has to clean up. God forbid, I hope it is us who gets the job to clean it up, because another term of this government and we will be looking down the chute at something unimaginable. Ten years of the Henderson Labor government and the state of government and governance has never been as bad.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine! Member for Arafura!
Mrs LAMBLEY: In January this year, we saw a piece in the NT News, ‘Northern Territory government rates the worst in the nation’. It talked about a survey done by the Australian Property Council …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, put that down, thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … talking about how this government rates the worst in the nation in affordable housing; land release; planning and management; and urban growth. The worst in the nation - that is how the people of the Northern Territory rated this government in January this year. The report card of this government is grim, grim, and grim. All we get are lies and manipulation of data and statistics, which I will talk about a little later.
Nowhere has this government failed more than in Central Australia; the poor cousin left out to dry in the desert, literally. This government has unashamedly neglected Central Australia.
Law and order: last summer, I heard the Minister for Central Australia admit it was a diabolical shame what happened - a tsunami of crime like we have never seen before; property offences up, juvenile crime up. The report tabled – it was not tabled actually – released by the Department of Justice, the review into juvenile justice is a lengthy and well-written report by my predecessor, a former Country Liberals’ member, profiling what a failure this government has been in juvenile justice.
They allowed a former Country Liberals’ member of parliament to tell them what a sham the juvenile justice system is. Work that out. It is a mystery to me why they asked the former member for Araluen to do that, but she did so, and she did it incredibly well. She tactfully outlined how juvenile crime has escalated in the Northern Territory in recent years; and how very little has been done to create a system that fully responds to the needs of juveniles in trouble in the Northern Territory. The recommendations are a report card saying: ‘Shape up government, get your act together, start reforming your bureaucracy, and start responding’. You have had 10 years to do that in juvenile justice, as you have had 10 years to do it in many other areas. This is just one example.
Alcohol reform - we have had five years of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. As I have said many times in this Chamber, we in Alice Springs, in Central Australia, are the experts on alcohol reform. We know what works. We know what happens. We know what does not work. We know what the truth is, and we have never heard any truth about alcohol reforms, and what is actually happening in terms of the restrictions and how they have failed to achieve any great change in alcohol-related crime and alcohol-related social problems in Alice Springs.
We have heard much about the Banned Drinker Register over the last couple of weeks; 1500 people placed on the Banned Drinker Register. That alone says absolutely nothing; that is one figure in isolation. What we need to know is how many of those people are still drinking, are continuing to drink. What is that figure, minister for alcohol reform? No, we will probably never get a measure of that. How many of those people are being surveyed, are being tracked, to find out whether they are actually drinking? Those people should be monitored so we get some reliable data around this, but no, the government continues to peddle out figures in isolation, which mean absolutely nothing but serves to mislead the public of the Northern Territory time and time again.
In regard to businesses closing in Alice Springs, we heard a sincere report on the radio early in the week, as my colleague mentioned earlier in Question Time, from the CEO of the Alice Springs Chamber of Commerce, Kay Eade. She said businesses are closing in the town, and I quote:
We are not listened to, anyway.
Businesses are indeed closing in Alice Springs; however, we get the banter from the Labor government saying: ‘Oh, but Bunnings is opening, and Best and Less is moving in, and it is all fantastic’. Once again, we are getting that information in isolation; we are not getting it in context of anything else that is happening in the town. We know from the national invasion of many of these big companies, particularly Bunnings, there is a major cost to these big projects - these big multinational firms coming in. They tend to cannibalise the employment of the town they move into.
In the town where I was born and bred, Grafton, Bunnings moved in and the two local hardware stores closed down. You can hardly rave on about the virtues of Bunnings without acknowledging there is a significant cost. Undoubtedly, within the next couple of years after Bunnings goes into Alice Springs, you will almost definitely see businesses close. You do not get that honesty from the other side of the room; you just get raw facts floating in the air without any contextual explanation or ownership of the fact that it is not all good. Bunnings coming is great news in relation to investment in the town, but there will definitely be a cost. We need to acknowledge, as a government, as a parliament, that these things are not always as rosy as they seem. What about all the locally-owned and operated businesses in Alice Springs that will suffer as a result of these big businesses going in? What about those? No mention from the government of the cost at all.
We have heard a great deal about Kilgariff, the amazing new land release and suburb development in Alice Springs. I waited six weeks for a briefing, to even get word back on a briefing, on the progress of the Kilgariff subdivision – six weeks. Am I wrong to feel slightly suspicious of why they have stalled me; why they put me off for six weeks? I suspect nothing much is happening. There is no hiding from the reality, the truth, and this government works hard to hide from the truth. Unlike the government, the opposition has absolutely nothing to hide. We have not put ourselves in this huge, deep hole the government finds itself in at the moment.
You talk about the CBD of Alice Springs; we have 2 ha of vacant land in the middle of Alice Springs which has been levelled over the last 10 years – 2 ha in a small, regional centre such as Alice Springs. That is outrageous and you have to ask why this is so? I will tell you why: this government has done nothing to stimulate development and business in Alice Springs. It can talk until it is blue in the face, but I know it is telling you rubbish about how it has worked on stimulating business and trying to get things happening. Neglect, neglect, and more neglect is the theme of how it has treated Central Australia over the last 10 years.
No new developments in the CBD of Alice Springs for over three years! The last ones to go up were the Imparja Building and Little Antz Childcare Centre – they were both built over three years ago. The Minister for Central Australia yesterday had the hide to bring up the revitalisation project of the CBD of Alice Springs; six years of consultation and we have not seen a red cent spent on anything else apart from consultation, consultation, and consultation. Lies, deceit, misleading information; it is all a bluff, it is all a charade, and this government has a heck of a lot to answer for!
Education: the Children’s Commissioner informed me and several colleagues earlier in the year that school attendance has never been so low in the history of the Northern Territory; 40% school attendance rates in some schools in the Northern Territory. How shameful is that? I picked up the annual report from the Department of Education and Training a couple of days ago. This is a complete and utter embarrassment for this government. They must look at this, turn away, and try to hide it under the table or something, because it is pages and pages of statistical data saying this government has failed in education.
Minister for Education, I know we have some amazing teachers out there. A teacher who lives in my electorate has just won the Teacher of the Year Award - the national Teacher of the Year Award. I am so incredibly proud of her. I do not know her personally, but it gives me shivers down my back to talk about the amazing achievements of people doing the right thing, working hard.
However, this government has done very little to help Northern Territory teachers do the job as best they can, to get the kids to school. Why are you not getting the kids to school? Why is the government not getting the children to school? It is mind blowing - absolutely mind-blowing how, after 10 years of being in government, school attendance in the Northern Territory has never been so low. There is no explanation for it apart from neglect, mismanagement, and this government taking its eye off the ball.
The Northern Territory population is shrinking in some places. In Alice Springs, it has not grown for years. The recent Census might show something different but, over the last 10 years, there has been no population growth whatsoever in Alice Springs and, quite possibly, in other parts of the Northern Territory. We are not growing at any great rate, anyway. We all know that. More people seem to be leaving the Northern Territory than arriving. What does that say about how this place has been governed over the last 10 years? What it says to me is this government has, once again, taken its eye of the ball.
The cost of living is one reason why. This is a place where people cannot afford to live. It is about housing, affordable housing, land release, good economic management, and controlling law and order in places such as Alice Springs. People do not want to live in a town in which they feel constantly fearful, checking their backs, and where there is no, or very little, economic confidence, or economic confidence is shrinking or diminishing.
The critical shortage of childcare in Alice Springs is a major problem. We have waiting lists throughout the town of over 100 children - 100 children waiting to be placed in a childcare centre so their parents can work and contribute meaningfully to the economic fabric of Alice Springs. This is a shameful situation, particularly when you talk about what is happening in Palmerston. Palmerston has a brand-new childcare centre sitting there, not open, not used, ready to go. For what reason? Why is this so? Why has the government not made it happen? Why have they not got on to the various providers and people responsible for operating this childcare centre? For goodness sake, you have people screaming out for childcare in Alice Springs - absolutely desperate, hamstrung. They want to contribute, to earn money, they want their children to be stimulated during the day and know their children are safe in a lovely, new childcare centre. However, in Palmerston, you have one that has not even opened; it has been sitting idle for months. Then, we are hearing stories that two other childcare centres in Palmerston could likely close or be moved - or some such story.
What is this government doing about enabling people to work and contribute in a meaningful way to the economy of the Northern Territory, so they want to stay here for years and years and enjoy the beauty, natural surrounds, and environment of the Northern Territory? I find it completely unfathomable why this government would not act, would not enable, and would not jump on these issues as they arise.
The Bushfires Council in Central Australia: bushfires in Alice Springs have never been so bad. We have been hearing about it for weeks. The planning for the current bushfire season was inadequate, the resources provided to the Bushfires Councils were inadequate, and, thus, we have had a situation where everyone involved with controlling bushfires has felt deeply disappointed and unsupported. The management, we have been told, of the Bushfires Council of Central Australia has been centralised to Darwin from Central Australia.
This is another theme of this government: centralise, centralise, centralise. Big Brother! This is the way of a Communist regime: ‘Let us bring all the control into the centre. Let us take it out of the regions, take it away from people they do not know and trust, and bring it all into the centre, all into Darwin’. It is typical Labor Party politics, it is typical communist regime, socialist regime tactics, centralisation, and this is what we have seen for years in Central Australia. It is absolutely shameful!
In the last couple of years, we have seen the Alice Springs office of the Commissioner for Public Employment close; Alice Springs CCTV monitoring move to Darwin; Alice Springs police communications move to Darwin; the Ombudsman’s office move to Darwin; the police media liaison position move to Darwin; Childcare Licensing Officers move to Darwin; and now we have seen the Bushfires Council management move to Darwin. Centralising is one of the great themes of this government - an absolute disgrace; they have absolutely no commitment to regions in the Northern Territory, they do not care about anywhere else but Darwin. It is plain for anyone to see.
The cost of living, as I said, has skyrocketed, and petrol prices have escalated almost out of control. I have heard very little from the government in response to irrational, unfair pricing around petrol. This is a critical part of everyone’s life in this day and age and we have heard next to nothing about petrol pricing.
Madam Speaker, I quickly go to child protection, which is my area of most interest. Child protection is probably the saddest area when it comes to the neglect of this government. When it comes to protecting children and strengthening families, this government has failed, failed, and failed again.
Six independent inquiries into child protection, six damning reports into this government’s failure in child protection, including 315 recommendations from these six reports all advising and recommending reform from top to bottom within the child protection system. Late last year, we saw that dreadful Four Corners program detailing three horrific cases of child abuse and neglect. It was called Dangerous Territory. Most of us in this Chamber saw that program and were shocked and distressed about what we saw. It profiled the case of Susan Mansfield, a woman who stepped outside the realms of the bureaucracy. She took a risk, reported a case to the media, used an e-mail instead of a verbal notification, and my goodness, is she not paying the price of showing a little initiative and showing she truly cares about children because this woman was subject to bullying and intimidating by this government. They like to shoot the messenger. On the other hand, the opposition would appreciate and value people like Susan Mansfield in the system.
Child protection is a sham in the Northern Territory. They have so much to hide, they have years of neglect and failure, they have made themselves impotent with regard to reforming the system. It is another example of the absolute failure of this government. This government has buried itself in lies and fabrications for years. The Ombudsman’s report, minister for Education, outlined …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Mr ELERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The clock still says 20 minutes.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been reset for the next speaker. Are you rising to speak?
Mr ELERINK: There was no wind down of the last minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was waiting for an extension. There was no wind down and …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just double-check with the Clerk. Resume your seat, thank you.
I am advised the clock did wind down and it was reset for 20 minutes. I am advised by the Clerk and I accept that advice.
Mr ELERINK: It did not happen, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am on my feet anyhow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, wow, look at this. Here is a government that is so interested in these matters that it leaves the retiring member for Johnston to run the defence. It could not be less interested, and it has demonstrated the height of its arrogance by taking this position. They do not sit here. I heard the member for Johnston, not supported by any of his colleagues, and I hope his colleagues are enjoying the cups of tea. This reminds me of another government in 2001 which took the same attitude whilst a very passionate opposition continued to raise issues that concerned Territorians.
The enfeebled defence by the member for Johnston was precisely that, and it was enfeebled for a single reason. It was enfeebled because the member for Johnston was unable to articulate any coherent argument to defend against the allegations in the censure motion, but rather, his position was to do exactly what this censure motion suggests the government does; that is, engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians. The demonstration by the member for Johnston that all he cared about was what was happening on the opposition benches demonstrated that is all the government can do. That is the best it can offer this House. This is the best it can offer Territorians, to try to trawl through the rumours and lies it has generated about the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to do a single thing; that is, to diminish the Leader of the Opposition, because they know, in the public mind, the Leader of the Opposition is considered to be a decent and upstanding man.
If there was ever going to be a strategy backfire on government, it is a strategy it is currently engaging in, and I encourage it to continue. I encourage it to continue with the lies, because it is not long before the lies and deceptions are seen for what they are, as we witnessed in today’s Northern Territory News.
Yesterday, the Northern Territory’s chief legal officer was on her feet in here alleging criminality on the part of the Leader of the Opposition - the second time the Northern Territory’s chief legal officer has used her position for nefarious, despicable, and deceptive purposes. Why would she do so? Because she is desperate. She once wrote to the federal Electoral Commissioner to allege criminality, and the federal Electoral Commissioner batted it away and said nonsense, this is nonsense. Nevertheless, it did not prevent her from abusing her position, and yet again she comes into this House and her opening line is to quote the Criminal Code in relation to offences of bribery, based on a letter she knew was an outright lie - a lie – nevertheless, she continued to pedal that lie and continued to do so today.
If you read Hansard from yesterday, you will note that she very carefully crafted her words to not reveal that the letter referred to a 2009 offer which was widely reported at the time. She would rather use her position to try to mislead Territorians to suggest the letter was referring to something much more recent; an offer that does not exist. That is the quality of governance that the people of the Northern Territory have.
What do we hear from the Leader of Government Business? He lurks in here like Monty Burns: ‘Excellent, excellent’, and what is he doing? He attacks the former ALP member for Macdonnell, who is now the Country Liberals member for Macdonnell, and how does he do it? Does he criticise her for the quality of her integrity, her political integrity, which is what you would expect from someone who calls for, and demands, a debate be conducted in an upright and forthright fashion? No, it is an attack. It is a nasty, personal, little attack. It is the type of grubby thing we have come to expect from the members opposite, because that is all they can offer the people of the Northern Territory.
They are exhausted. They are spent. There is nothing left in the tank. They are not even here in the Chamber to deal …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. As you know …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the fact that they are not here in the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, when I am speaking, you are not. Thank you for withdrawing. As you well know, reference to the presence or absence of members is contravening standing orders. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: It is difficult not to state the obvious in this House. Unfortunately, when an obvious statement contravenes the standing orders of this House, I become frustrated, as Territorians are frustrated with a government engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians. Yesterday, we heard the Minister for Central Australia do it by trying to fudge the number of speakers on the ministerial statement. They are constantly doing it, bringing in little lies, little deceits, and constantly feeding them out in the hope they can convince people that the Country Liberals are divided.
The Country Liberals are focused on issues that matter to the people of the Northern Territory. People who are worried about the things that matter to them can be found in all manner of places - their letters to us, the responses to what they see in the newspaper, their letters to the editor, their comments amongst each other, the comments they make to the Labor government - and what are they talking about? Cost of living. They are talking about the cost of living.
We hear from the minister for Lands today that this government releases land. If you check your own newspaper advertisements of a couple of years ago, they are not even close to the benchmarks set, and have not come close to the Treasury recommendations in relation to land release. Does this government care about that? Does it refer to that issue in this House? No, what it talks about is simply guttersniping politics. People in the Northern Territory are fed up with that type of thing. They are fed up in the capital city, they are fed up in our regional cities, they are fed up in the bush, and so am I.
The list we compiled to discuss in this House is too long for a simple censure motion. I am saddened I will not have sufficient time to deal with all issues; however, it is only a partial list of the things we could have talked about. The abuse the government heaps upon anyone who should dare to criticise it in any fashion reveals them to be the bullies they are. That is all they are, because they have nothing left in the tank. The last opportunity available to them is to try to rubbish anyone who dares to raise a critical word against them.
The government made promise after promise and has not kept them. There are many promises it has not kept, particularly in the area of child protection. I am dismayed to this day that we still find ourselves dealing with issues in child protection, which make me feel unwell at the thought of them. Government cannot fix all these things, but it has introduced an environment in the child protection area which leaves child protection workers feeling vulnerable, isolated, and unsupported by the government of the day. The introduction of investigators into people like Ms Mansfield, demonstrates this government is interested in nothing but message control. Whilst the Minister for Child Protection, as well as the CEO of child protection, encourage people to speak up - I have had those assurances from both the CEO and the minister - in fact, any person found speaking up will find themselves under investigation. What are they being pressured to do internally in the departments?
There is a good reference in the last Ombudsman’s report into this area - before the axe fell on the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate these things - that documents are being filled out post factum and essentially fabricated to support this government and its messages. That is not a healthy working environment for the people who work in that area. I wonder how many other places will see fabricated documents into the future. If we ever get a look at the books, it is something I will turn my attention to. A government which fabricates material is a government which has lost its way; the point where it has become only about the message and nothing about child protection.
I live in a state of dismay and astonishment when I deal with, frankly, the incompetence of this government. Without returning to yesterday’s debate at any length, the fact is the investigation surrounding the Mataranka cattle deaths was a farcical disaster, which could have been avoided at any number of junctures. Yet, ministers – plural - presided over a department which was heading towards the rocks. Not only were they heading towards the rocks, they were warned. They were warned, and there were life preservers thrown in their direction from the Ombudsman and other sources, and from inside their own departments. Did they respond? No, they did not! They did not care, they did not want to care; they just wanted to bury, cover up, conceal, and deceive, because that is what this government does.
Recently, the opposition had the temerity to challenge the government’s handling from day one of the container deposit legislation. Why? Because we support container deposit legislation and we wanted to see it work, but we could see the threats to that particular container deposit legislation. What did the government do? Ignored warning, ignored counsel, and chose to push their way through. All of a sudden, they are offended that someone has the audacity to ask a critical question. Now, they are surprised that, as a result of their incomplete preparation for the advancement of CDL in the Northern Territory, they are coming under public criticism, particularly from some Channel 9 reports. What is their solution? Blame the opposition! Blame everyone else except themselves! They do not put up their hands, they do not attempt to take responsibility. A person who denies responsibility cannot, and will not, become the source of the solution for the problems they are faced with, or the problems they have created for themselves.
What is their solution when it comes to the crime statistics in the Northern Territory? Lie! Lie and hide! We have a serious problem with crime in the Northern Territory, so what are we going to do? We are going to get the carrier pigeon and wring its little neck, so the carrier pigeon no longer provides any form of information to the public. What an obscene, arrogant government it has become. The answer and the solution to its problem is kill off the messenger.
Territorians are sick of having to deal with the issues in their community. This government knows it is sick; this is why it has gone down the road of alcohol policy reform. It has chosen its road - so be it - but at least be honest with Territorians and continue to report in the way you promised.
I remember when they were in opposition, their greatest complaint was there was no quarterly reporting. Indeed, Peter Toyne took great pains to announce that quarterly reporting would be done without fear or favour, without any interference from government, and those quarterly reports would be a report card on government. Indeed, Dr Peter Toyne was right when he came to that conclusion. This government would rather lie to Territorians than make good on Dr Peter Toyne’s promise to the people of the Northern Territory of an open, honest, and accountable government.
The lies continue to pour out of this government. All it is interested in is managing the message. I have no greater example of that at my fingertips than its management of the Montara oil spill. Once again, it was all someone else’s fault. It was federal government’s fault, despite the fact the legislation said the responsibility stopped with the Northern Territory jurisdiction ...
Mr Vatskalis: No, it did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We hear the lies continuing to be perpetuated ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It was a tick and flick operation, as far as this government was concerned - a tick and flick operation, no responsibility. It was happy to take the cash, happy to take the money so it could spend it …
Mr Vatskalis: No, we did not!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yet, the lies continue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is all about message management. I wonder how many annual reports will hit the table this afternoon after Question Time? Why is TAFR being set down for the last day of parliament? Why are we seeing the Ombudsman’s annual report being delivered to this House after Question Time on the last day of parliament? Why? Because it is a deceptive government and does not want to deal for one second with the consequences of what is in those reports, because I can tell you, if there was good news in TAFR, it would have hit the table Tuesday morning.
What is the attitude of the members opposite? I will tell you the attitude of the members opposite - I know no one is perfect in this House - but to see members of this House sitting there making masturbatory motions with their hands at members on the other …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the sort of thing I am seeing. That is the sort of thing I see in this House and I am deeply concerned when I see those types of things; not because it happens, but it displays the attitude which pervades this government. It is arrogant, it is tired, obnoxious, abusive, and it has no answers other than to attack the Leader of the Opposition who I know to be a decent, upright man, a man for whom I have enormous regard and respect, and a fellow who would lead this Northern Territory with integrity, courage, and responsibility.
That is why I continue to support this leader; because he is a good man, and this Territory needs a good man at the helm, not someone who is going to bury the Northern Territory under a pile of bunkum in the hope they can convince the electorate to vote for them next time round. There is no depth too deep, no low point too low, and no nadir too far south for this government to go when it comes to deceiving Territorians. The government’s response to this was a pure hate attack against members on this side of the House. Keep going, keep it up, keep it running out there, and how much longer will Territorians believe you.
Clearly, the NT News did not believe the Treasurer yesterday and I would urge any journalist dealing with any assertion made by this government to double-check the facts. If this government says it is midday, I would argue the journalist should go outside and make sure the sun is up. Just make sure, just double-check, because honestly, that is what it has become.
I could go on for hours about the shortcomings of this government, but I will not, because I am going to run out of time. What I do know is this government has finally run out of steam. They started well. I remember a young Dr Burns in 2001 excitedly coming up to me at the declaration of the polls saying he looked forward to working with me. I looked at the performance I just saw and thought to myself: ‘What a stark contrast. What a stark contrast that is’.
The enthusiasm of that young Dr Burns who came over to me and said: ‘In spite of what has happened, I look forward to working with the CLP to make the Territory a better place’, and then you listen to the nasty, spite-filled hateful diatribe and that is all that is left. I know why he is retiring. He has had enough. He is spent. The passion is gone and all that is left is the bitumen, which is the remnant parts of good intentions and it does not just exist in Dr Burns, it has infected every corner of this government and I hope many other members on that side of the House take his lead.
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, the result of the division is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, as there is not a majority of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, in closing debate I will try to answer many of the questions both members put to me, so we might not have to go to committee if they are satisfied with my answers. Thank you very much for the comments.
I am a great supporter of the mining industry, and that is well-known, both in the industry and the other side. There are people who believe that somehow there is a conspiracy to cover everything up with the mining industry, and one of the reasons we did not want to make the mining management plans public was because we wanted to cover up what the mining industry was doing wrong. The reality is there was no cover-up; there is no conspiracy of silence. Anyone who wants to access a mine management plan could apply to do so under Freedom of Information. It has happened before, people actually have applied, and a number of mine management plans have been released.
Instead of being reactive and reacting every time a particular group asks questions about mining, I believe we should be proactive. The industry has nothing to be afraid of. The industry has many things to be proud of. Yes, mining is an industry which impacts on the environment because of its activities. When you build a new house, you alter the environment; when you put in a swimming pool, you alter the environment; when the industry opens a new mine, of course it has an impact on the environment. We are trying to minimise this impact on the environment and, when the industry finishes operation, we return the disturbed area as close to the condition it was before it was disturbed.
We are committed to developing and maintaining a strong mining industry. We have seen record exploration expenditure in the Territory which indicates in the next few years there will be a significant number of new mines opening in the Territory, as highlighted by my colleague, the member for Barkly.
I would like to answer the questions put by the member for Goyder. With regard to co-regulation, this government remains committed to a strong culture of operator responsibility. The environmental obligations of this act, in Part 3, makes it clear mine operators and employees have an obligation to protect the environment. This obligation remains in force. While these amendments will improve the transparency of mining operations and reporting of environmental incidents, the operator continues to have responsibility for effective management of the site.
There is no such thing as self-regulation as was promoted recently by many people in the environment centre and small lobby groups. The government, the department, works closely with the operators. The operators have the responsibility to comply with the legislative framework. The department has the responsibility to inspect, survey, and ensure the operator fulfils the legal obligations. I welcome the member for Goyder’s support for co-regulation in the mining industry; however, at the same time, some of her colleagues, especially the shadow minister for Environment, want stronger and prescriptive regulation of the mining industry. He is not going to get it. Everywhere in the world, everywhere in Australia, has moved, not to self-regulation, but co-regulation, and we are happy with the way it operates.
With regard to mining management plans and environmental mining reports, as the member for Goyder pointed out, the mining management plan is an important tool for operational aspects of the mine. For that reason, we are focusing on reporting of environmental performance, and acknowledge the commercial-in-confidence information contained within other parts of the MMP. The proposal under these amendments is to make public the environmental component of the mine management plan, which could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act; however, we are not going to disclose the commercial-in-confidence information contained in an MMP.
I also point out that the independent monitor for the McArthur River Mine in no way takes away responsibility for regulating the mine from my department. That was a condition of approval; the company agreed to it; however, my department is still responsible for regulating the mine.
I am aware that a key concern of industry is it does not lead to more onerous reporting requirements. I do not want more paperwork; I want all the information now contained in different reports to be included in a single report that can be considered by the department. Trying to avoid red tape and paperwork is my ultimate goal. My department has undertaken to hold a workshop with industry representatives later this year to discuss how the new provision would be implemented. It is a commitment, and I am more than happy to place this on the public record.
The provision for an environmental mining report will apply to operational mines. This will not apply to extractive minerals or exploration. The reason for this is mines have the biggest and longest-lasting impact on the environment and, as a result, are of most concern to the public. The term generally used to describe these sites is ‘high risk’. It does not mean there is an imminent risk of environmental damage; it simply means there are large areas of impact, plant and equipment, and chemicals may be used during the mining process, during the mining operations and, when we undertake risk assessments, it highlights that operational mines, by their nature, have the greatest potential to impact on the environment and hence are the highest risk of all mining activities.
Risk-based management is fundamental to operating mines. We do not say every single mine has to have this. We say, depending on the operation of the mine, the process of the mine, or the chemicals that may be used, the risk will be different, and there will be a different level of requirement within the mine management plan.
The community benefits: the intention is to provide the mechanism through which a major operation can demonstrate its commitment to the communities in which it operates. That happens not only in the Territory, it also happens in Western Australia. Argyle Mine has community benefits accounts and trusts to provide benefits to the community. The community benefit plan can be delivered through a trust like the one we have at McArthur River, or it could be through a collection of other initiatives. We are not being prescriptive and are prepared to accept different options: existing commitments such as ALRA agreements or Indigenous land use agreements could be cited as evidence of providing those benefits, or a training school training people to work in the mines.
In public reporting, I expect companies to publish information about the community benefit plans at a general level. Who in their right minds, when they are mining and grant help to communities, would not go out and blow their trumpets about what a wonderful job they are doing? We are not going to demand they do that every year; it is up to the companies to do it. Every company that does something good for the community should be out there telling people what a good job they do.
The decision was taken to focus on mines because they have the highest impact on the surrounding communities. Exploration and extractive mining is usually transitory - today it happens, tomorrow it is gone. You cannot say it is going to be there for 20 years or 30 years, like the Newmont operations in the Tanami, McArthur River, and GEMCO on Groote Eylandt.
With regard to petroleum and geothermal, the legislation is about the Mine Management Act. I am amending only the Mine Management Act. The petroleum and geothermal camps are different acts. These amendments do not affect them yet. Those acts will be reviewed later and, if we see we have to make amendments, we will proceed to make amendments through the usual process.
With regards to INPEX, the gas production is from wells located within Western Australian waters. What happens here is only the manufacturing, the LNG. However, I point out that INPEX intends to deliver a range of community benefits and has commenced doing so already.
With regard to an ‘environmental incident’ and ‘serious environmental incident’, the act defines several levels of environmental harm which includes environmental nuisance, material environmental harm, and serious environmental harm. If you look at the definition in the very front of the amendments, there is ‘environmental incident’ and ‘serious environmental incident’. If you look within the amendments in the very beginning in Division 3, there are different levels: ‘serious environmental harm’ and ‘serious environmental harm’ with different levels – Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 user is a person who commits an offence when he engages in conduct on a mining site, and the conduct results in a contravention of environmental objectives and serious environmental harm. However, in Level 2, there has to be negligence on behalf of the person. The same thing applies to material environmental harm. While the first one happens when the person engages in conduct, Level 2 has to involve negligence. The same thing happens in environmental nuisance Level 3 and Level 4. It is clearly defined, so people can understand the differences in environmental incidents, environmental harm, and serious environmental harm.
A serious environmental incident also is an incident that causes material or serious environmental harm, and includes remediation costs of up to $50 000. Serious environmental harm includes remediation costs of more than $50 000.
I note the member for Goyder questioned what is reported, what is a serious environmental incident? Is it 20 000 litres of oil? Is it a significant volume of diesel that was lost on Groote Eylandt many years ago and they still recover it? Is 20 litres of oil knocked to the ground by accident? It is described clearly in the act whether it is a serious environmental incident or not. The department will discuss that with industry and develop guidelines in order to avoid unnecessary reporting of minor incidents.
One of the major concerns on all sites is hydrocarbon management. If there were a series of small spills on one site, it would indicate close examination is required. One-off, yes, it can happen, but if you have a series of small incidents, then it has to be examined - practices, storage areas, storage practice, etcetera.
In response to the honourable member’s question about the container of molasses, the container falling off a truck would require an immediate report to WorkSafe for health and safety reasons, because it fell off a truck. However, environmental harm – why? Has it actually fallen on the ground, and was collected and removed very quickly, or fallen into a waterway and caused some environmental problems in the waterway, or sensitive water areas? There are different levels depending on the conditions. You cannot simply have one measure that fits all.
Regarding public reporting, the government’s view is that serious environmental incidents should be publicly reported when they occur. This will be on the department’s website. Environmental incidents would be aggregated and reported in the annual report. This can be achieved within existing resources.
I note the member said different areas require different reporting. In Western Australia, they do not; Tasmania has a different reporting mechanism; and South Australia and New South Wales are different. Every state in Australia has a different reporting mechanism, but I will not say that Western Australia is the best. I have had much criticism from the industry about the Western Australian processes and, without criticising another state; we choose a particular way, other states choose another way.
The amendment to section 90 in relation to the release of public information would generally be exercised by the CEO or the delegate. The inclusion of the minister is a standard legislative provision. However, if there was significant public interest in an issue, the minister might direct the information to be released. The CEO releases all information; however, if it is a big incident, the minister can direct the information be released.
Legacy mining issues: I am aware of various legacy sites where tenements are now held by other companies. Mt Todd is a continuing concern for this government. It is now held by another company and there are a number of other sites in Pine Creek and Tennant Creek. The legislation is not intending to place a higher level of reporting on the current operator. We know it is a legacy mine, we know what happened. What we are trying to do is remediate in cooperation with the current operators. We cannot ask the current operators to report or remediate things that happened under previous operators. However, we will require them to remediate things that happen under them, rather than by the previous operator. It should be noted those agreements are not triggered until mining commences and nor is the reporting provision.
Environmental assessment: I note the honourable member’s comments about the environmental assessment process. Assessment of the environmental impact of a major development is undertaken independently from my department. My department does not do the environmental assessment, so I am unable to comment about this process, and I would strongly recommend having a discussion with my colleague, the minister for NRETAS. There is close cooperation between my department and NRETAS in order to address some of these issues; delays - sometimes what we believe is too much information required and sometimes we understand different people who have worked in the industry have a different understanding of the industry, and we try to explain that.
With regard to environmental grants, I have to say I was very surprised to hear the member for Goyder ask: ‘Why do you fund the Environment Centre, they are greenies, they want to stop mining in the Territory’. We live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even if that opinion is not a perfect one, the right one, or my opinion. Even the Country Liberals, in their 2008 platform, promised they would fund the Environment Centre and I notice the member for Brennan is studying up the notice on that because they promised to fund the Environment Centre to a total of $1.94m. It is not only us; the Country Liberals support the Environment Centre and the environmental movement.
I know the member for Fong Lim is highly critical about it. I suggest that before you come out and ask questions of us, you sit in your Caucus and ask questions of each other, and find out if you have common ground, and if you actually agree on something because currently I think you have two or three different positions on that issue. It seems you are somewhat divided.
With regard to the Criminal Code Act provisions, this is simply modernising the act so it is consistent with the Criminal Code Act in relation to liability. There are likely to be other instances in future, as acts are amended, for other acts. We have to bring all the acts into unison, so we do not have one act making one provision for offences and another, a different one. Everything now comes under the Criminal Code Act in relation to liability, so all the acts agree with each other.
Thank you, member for Nelson, for your questions.
In response to the member for Goyder, I said before the environmental mining report would include details of how conditions of approval arising from an EIS or PER are being met. There is already an EIS in place, and a PER, and it is a legal obligation, part of the mine management plan to comply with these provisions and these requirements, so it has to be included.
We understand the companies need to negotiate commercial matters in confidence and where a mining company reached a commercial agreement with a landlord; this information will not be released. That is commercial-in-confidence; however, everything else that is in the public arena and anything that can be taken out through the freedom of information will be included. We are not trying to hide things. We are trying to prove that the mining industry has nothing to fear. The mining industry operates in a framework, both legislative under the mining legislation, and the environmental legislation. Should the mining industry comply with these requirements, they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.
I previously said and advocated in a forum: ‘Do not stay back and hide, come out and tell what good things you do, talk about the employment you do, talk about the remediation you do’. If you go to GEMCO today and look at some of the areas that have been mined and rehabilitated, you cannot tell them from the area next to it that has never been mined or rehabilitated. If you go to Groote Eylandt, you can look at the rehabilitated areas and not see the difference. I will never forget the WWF diary that went international which had this pristine water area in Kakadu that was actually ERA’s holding ponds. They had to recall hundreds of thousands of those calendars and pulp them, because it was highly embarrassing for the World Wildlife Fund; one day against ERA, and the next day having one of their retention ponds as a pristine water area.
I said to the mining industry many times, yes, you have an impact on the environment, and we expect that. You build a house; you have an impact on the environment. You build a road; you have an impact on the environment. You put a pipeline in; you have an impact on the environment. Yes, we do, but now, when we finish, we remediate so the impact is minimal or even non-existent. In some areas, we now see things the way it was before. It is done so well, you cannot even recognise there was a mine there. Yes, there are some very bad examples, and Mt Todd is one I will bring up all the time. It was a disaster and, hopefully, it will be remediated, and we can remediate it.
I thank you for your support and comments. Your comments are always helpful because sometimes you bring something that we have missed or overlooked, and we can go back and rectify it. I will be continuing to support the industry because of the wealth it brings to the Territory, the job opportunities it brings to the Territory, particularly job opportunities in remote areas where there are not many jobs available. I remember going to Groote Eylandt many years ago when I first became minister for mines; if you looked behind the steering wheels of the big trucks, they were all white faces. Now you go to Groote Eylandt and you see Indigenous people driving the big trucks. I went to Port Hedland and found one of the biggest transport companies working for a mining company was an Indigenous-owned and Indigenous-operated company. I went to Xstrata, where I was very pleased to hear that 50 young people were now behind the simulators to learn to drive the big trucks.
Mining does much good. Yes, the mining industry can do something bad, if we lose the plot, if we do not work with them to ensure they comply with the environmental and the mining regulations.
Madam Speaker, if there are any other questions, I am very happy to answer them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I seek clarification of some issues and would like to place some things on the record. I accept the environmental component of the mine management plan is what government is wanting to get into the public domain, and that is probably fine, because it comes off the EIS, but you are not seeking to have the whole mine management plan go as a public document?
Mr VATSKALIS: You are right; only the environmental component.
Ms PURICK: Thank you. You also say the environmental reporting of information is only for mining companies on mineral leases, not extractives and not exploration companies. What about the situation where a company has a mineral lease, but does not have authorisation to operate – and I am thinking of a company in Tennant Creek – so they are technically under the Mining Management Act, and they do have a mining lease. Are they required to report the environmental component of the mine management plan - because they are explorers still - even though it is a mineral lease?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, they will not be required to do so; only when they start operations and start mining.
Ms PURICK: Okay. Thank you, minister. Just a point of clarification; you say it will not apply to the extractive industries, and I accept that and that is good. What about companies that extract material; for example, sand on coastlines and river estuaries, and possibly around our areas here, are they going to be excluded as well?
Mr VATSKALIS: As long as the extractive industry has an extractive industry licence, they will not be required to have the mine management plan and environmental component made public.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: However, I should point out anyone has the right to put in a freedom of information application for any MMP.
Ms PURICK: Yes, that is true. I want to clarify also; you said possibly later in the year or sometime in the near future, you will be looking to review the petroleum and geothermal acts to see if there should be a requirement for community benefits trust as well, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is correct, but only onshore. Offshore, it is the Commonwealth.
Ms PURICK: Of course. Minister, it comes under the Petroleum Act when a pipeline comes from the Ichthys field onshore. Would that project attract a requirement for a community benefits trust if the Petroleum Act were amended, similar to the Mining Management Act?
Mr VATSKALIS: My belief is, it is not; however, I will seek clarification because a pipeline is not a mining operation or a petroleum operation currently.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I meant the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Is that going to be pulled into those possible amendments?
Mr VATSKALIS: No.
Ms PURICK: Minister, can I get clarification; it is the environmental component of the mine management plan now, but is there any plan to have the audit and inspection reports made public?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is not my intention. My promise previously, and what we are doing now, is making public the environmental component of the mine management plan.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Minister, perhaps I should ask this question first. What is the time frame for the development of regulations and guidelines that are going to make this legislation work?
Mr VATSKALIS: The commencement will be 1 July 2012. Up until then, we will work very closely with industry to develop the regulations, and the industry has already been notified that we will be working with them.
Ms PURICK: I accept the government wants every environmental incident to be reported, investigated, and that report made public, if the Chief Executive believes it is in the public interest. What will be the criteria? What risk assessment is going to be done to tell whomever that there has been some kind of environmental harm?
Mr VATSKALIS: We intend to develop guidelines with the industry, so it will be very clear to the industry what they have to report. As you said before, if you knock over a can of brake fluid, do you have to report it? However, if people are knocking over cans of brake fluid twice a day for 30 days, we might have to report it or might have to look. Again, it would be the impact on the environment, the management of the incident, and the cost to remediate.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. How much does the government currently hold in securities for rehabilitation - environmental bonds?
Mr VATSKALIS: In total?
Ms PURICK: In total.
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot give you this answer now; however, we hold a significant amount of money in securities for different mines. For example, ALCAN is in excess of $400m and McArthur River is about $70m. The figure changes every year because every time the mine does a remediation, there will be a recalculation of the security bond.
Ms PURICK: Is any of that money being allocated? I know it is attached to particular mine sites; however, it must be earning interest somewhere. Is the government utilising any of that money to assist legacy sites or sites that have been abandoned or orphaned?
Mr VATSKALIS: Most of these bonds are not real money; they are bank guarantees, rather than money.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Minister, does the department currently have any projects or a database of the level of legacy mines or legacy projects? People call them orphaned or abandoned mines in the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have about 2000 legacy mines in the Territory. The department has undertaken a review which has not yet been finalised. Some are very small, some are very big, but the department is looking at them.
Ms PURICK: Minister, under the Mining Management Act, has there been any relinquishment of the higher order of leases; for example, mineral leases, in the last five or 10 years? I am only aware of one partial relinquishment, but have there been any relinquishment of leases?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, not that I am aware of.
Ms PURICK: Minister, in regards to components in your speech and some parts in the bill - and I understand there was a change to the Mineral Titles Act. When a company has its project on a mineral lease and has an adjacent area where they store their trucks or whatever, and there is a road to and from; the requirement is that there be environmental security over the access road, or roads, which the company will not have exclusive control over – and I did raise this in the briefing. Why can the company not apply for and get a special purpose lease over that road, or roads, to give them greater control and protection?
Mr VATSKALIS: That will apply only to private roads, not to public roads.
Ms PURICK: Okay. Minister, the documentation talked about it being an offence to impersonate a mining officer. Has anyone impersonated a mining officer to your knowledge, in the Territory? Why would they?
Mr VATSKALIS: We live in interesting times, so we have to make provisions for that; you never know what might happen. You have to remember currently, with the mining boom, people might impersonate all types of people to have access to some areas, so let us be prepared now, rather than sorry later.
Ms PURICK: Minister, regarding projects on pastoral land - because that is probably easier - they construct roads and dams and the project finishes; is there going to be a requirement for the company to rehabilitate those infrastructure items, even though they might bring benefit to the underlying title owner of the property?
Mr VATSKALIS: If the pastoralist says they want it rehabilitated, yes, that would be a requirement, but if the pastoralist is quite happy with extra dams he gets for nothing, and the extra roads he gets for nothing, it will not be required to be rehabilitated.
Ms PURICK: The lease could be relinquished and there will be no requirement; securities will be returned, for example?
Mr VATSKALIS: Subject to the agreement with the person who holds the original lease, the pastoral lease.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. That will be all for now.
Mr WOOD: I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I received an e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to their report on the alumina incident at Rio Tinto Alcan Gove in April 2010, and they said under a heading: ‘Legislative and system barriers to public interest governed mining practice’:
Could you say, in response to that, if this new legislation has overcome that legislative failing the EPA is talking about?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, it has. There is a provision for general offences in this new, amended legislation.
Mr WOOD: When they were putting this together, did they look at the EPA’s response in relation to the alumina incident?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, they have.
Mr WOOD: They went through that report?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Minister, in relation to extractives, you are saying they do not need an environmental plan, or they do have a mine management ...
Ms PURICK: They do not have to report on it.
Mr WOOD: They do not have to report their environmental plan?
Mr VATSKALIS: They need a plan, but they do not have to report it.
Mr WOOD: Because the effect of extractive mining is more cumulative than individual. It is my understanding that the extractive industry is looking at this particular issue. Have you heard of them reviewing the extractive industry in relation to environmental matters?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, I am not aware of it.
Mr WOOD: I thought they were doing a review. Cumulatively, they could probably cause as much damage as a small mine, so does the department have some sort of overall watch on what is happening in relation to extractive mining?
Mr VATSKALIS: The department has dedicated officers overlooking the extractive industry but again, cumulatively, you mean over all the industry, while every mine management plan applies to a particular operation operated by one particular operator on a particular site. I understand what you are saying; when you take it cumulatively, you might have an impact like the gravel pits at Channel Island, but mine management plans apply in one particular site operated by a particular operator.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. I had discussions with the extractive people and I know they were concerned. They did not want too much paperwork for the jobs they are doing, but there are times when I go out to Howard Peninsula and wonder whether there needs to be some overall environmental plan for the whole area. It is a concern that some of the legacy mines were never rehabilitated properly.
The other question is in relation to community benefits and, if a company does a deal with a group of people, is that deal or that plan to provide benefits to a community required to be public?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it does not. That would be commercial-in-confidence. The company may decide to keep it commercial-in-confidence and it does not have to be reported.
Mr WOOD: How does the government know what benefits have been given to the community in line with the legislation we are looking at today?
Mr VATSKALIS: Because the plans have to be submitted to the government as a condition of authorisation, so the government has to approve that particular plan.
Mr WOOD: One of the issues that came up when I was having discussions with the company that is looking at coal seam gas in Central Australia - I cannot think of its name now..
Mr VATSKALIS: Let us put it right. They do not look for coal seam gas; they were looking to gasify deep coal. That is a big difference.
Mr WOOD: I must have being listening to Lateline on the ABC last night for too long. They were looking for gas in the Central Australian region and, to some extent, felt they were limited by how they could consult with people in the region because they had to go through the land council. Has the government looked at ways where companies can talk directly to people, at least at the early stages, without having to go through a bureaucracy? I know the land council would have to be involved at some stage, but are they permitted to talk directly to small communities about what they are doing?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Nelson, this comes under Commonwealth legislation, so I do not have much power on that one. We have discussed with the particular company their concerns and we offered to speak to the land council; however, because it comes under the federal legislation, my ability to influence the land council is very limited or non-existent.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I thought you were a very influential person. Okay, I understand that, minister.
The other question is in relation to reports and, in the legislation; it says you have the power to release reports. I understand you would probably tell a company you were going to release a report but, if the company did not want that report to be released, have they any form of appeal before you release it?
Mr VATSKALIS: It can go through a process similar to the Information Act.
Mr WOOD: I might have misunderstood your answer. Under the act, you have the power to release reports. If the company does not want you to release that report, have they the right to appeal against your decision?
Mr VATSKALIS: We show the company what we propose to release, we give it to them, and they have the right to appeal.
Mr WOOD: I will go back a step. I had a note under extractive I did not ask. How do bonds for extractive mining work? Are they similar to big mines, where you have a bank security?
Mr VATSKALIS: One hundred per cent rehabilitation bond.
Mr WOOD: All right. That is all the questions I have, thank you, minister.
Ms PURICK: Regarding the community benefits account, trust, or program the company sets up, what happens in the situation where the company and the departmental people trying to get the authorisation to operate cannot agree? For example, if the government says: ‘No, that is not good enough; we want you to do X, Y, and Z, and we want you to give over to this community 200 miles away’. How do you mediate? Who mediates, and how is it sorted out?
Mr VATSKALIS: The department cannot direct the company where to give the compensation, or who to incorporate. If it is Indigenous communities involved, certainly it would be the local land council. Ultimately, if we cannot agree on what will happen, we can go to the court, but we always endeavour not to go to the court; we try to find a good solution.
Usually, as it happened in McArthur River, we had no problem at all. Some people did not like it because they thought they were cut off from free money but, ultimately, the target is to benefit the community, not individuals. At McArthur River, the model we put in place, and we would put that to other companies - company representatives, local citizens, and government together forming a committee that will assess the application and make decisions.
Ms PURICK: Is the department going to develop guidelines specifically to help new players in understanding what a community benefits program is about?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, certainly we are.
Mr WOOD: On that issue, for clarification; if another uranium mine was to start up - and they pay royalties - is there a requirement then to pay community benefits?
Mr VATSKALIS: The minister has the power to ask, as part of the authorisation, to establish a community benefit plan, depending on the impact on the community, and depending on other facts as well.
Mr WOOD: The difference would be royalties go to individuals to some extent, whereas you are saying the mine would be helping the community more in general.
Mr VATSKALIS: There is a combination. For example, in the case of ERA, the royalties are paid to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth provides the Territory a rate equivalent, because we actually monitor the operations of the mine, and then some royalties are paid directly to the land council to be distributed to traditional owners, depending if too many legislations are involved, some of them Commonwealth, some of them Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: This might be a hypothetical. What happens if there is a mine a long way from a community - I am not saying that the land is not owned by someone - but say it is somewhere between Elliott and the Tanami, the Western Australian border. I know Tanami gold mine is there, but how does one work out who is the community in those cases?
Mr VATSKALIS: Depending on the tenure of the land. If the land is owned by a particular group of people, bearing in mind 50% of the Territory land mass is Indigenous land, it does not matter if the community is 5 km or 500 km, then that is something to be considered. My understanding is the Argyle mine provides community benefits to a community over 200 km away from the mine.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister.
Ms PURICK: When we were talking about the community benefits and the company could not get an agreement with the government, you said it might move upwards and go to the court. Did you mean the Lands and Mining Tribunal; is that the court where the inability to reach an agreement would end up?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it would be the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Ms PURICK: Okay, thank you.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 August 2011.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on 16 August I tabled this report and sought leave to continue my remarks at a later date, and that we note the report.
I commend the Ombudsman for her report. She has done a great deal of work over the last year or so. She mentions in her foreword that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I want to ensure - there are currently two Ombudsman’s Annual Report …
Madam SPEAKER: This is the 2009-10 report.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and I am guessing, but are you talking about the one she has just delivered for 2010-11?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it has not been tabled yet. This is the one …
Mr ELFERINK: Are you making a tabling statement. It sounds like …
Madam SPEAKER: The 2009-10.
Dr Burns: No, I was referring to the fact I sought leave in August to continue my remarks at a later date.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I misunderstood, that is fine. I just wanted to ensure …
Dr Burns: The other report will be tabled later.
Mr ELFERINK: It is all right, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence, Leader of Government Business.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I was alluding to the foreword by the Ombudsman:
I know all members of the Assembly will accept in good grace what the Ombudsman said. There was certainly discussion amongst members concerned that the report had not been tabled within the statutory period; however, we accept the report and acknowledge what the Ombudsman has said regarding the lateness of the report.
As the Ombudsman says in her foreword:
All members and all ministers will have read the report by the Ombudsman to this House. As always, the Ombudsman provides stories, or little instructive tales, illustrating some of the work done by the Ombudsman over a range of areas; not only in government, but also in local authorities.
As minister, I was interested to read her comments which she titles on page 41: ‘Addressing antisocial behaviour - Territory Housing’. This is a positive story and that is why I am going to focus on it. Obviously, those negative or constructive criticisms put forward by the Ombudsman, all ministers and agencies need to take those seriously and move to implement recommendations by the Ombudsman about their operations.
This is a positive story. The Ombudsman says:
The Ombudsman goes on to list some of those actions and the first dot point is:
conducted a neighbourhood survey to determine the impact of the reported behaviour on surrounding residents;
…
That is often an action taken by Territory Housing, particularly with this type of complaint, and I commend them for going house-to-house, talking to neighbours, finding out about the validity of complaints. There are times when there is a complaint from one person, but it is not backed up, or there are no complaints made by other neighbours. In some cases, it comes down to personal conflicts between people or a mutual dislike between people and sometimes it is on that personal basis. In many cases, of course, there are valid complaints and Territory Housing endeavours to get to the bottom of those.
The other thing the Ombudsman noted as a reasonable course of action was the request by Territory Housing to request police attendance and records about reported incidents. Housing works very closely with the police and I mentioned in my second reading speech about public housing safety officers and how there is going to be a memorandum of understanding between police and Housing. That is a very constructive way forward and the CEO of Housing, Mr Ken Davies, has had a number of discussions with senior police on this very issue.
I commend those senior police officers for wanting to become involved, for wanting to support this initiative, because there is no doubt much crime and antisocial behaviour unfortunately emanates from public housing properties, as the member for Fong Lim and I discovered when we visited Shiers Street together and there was very swift action taken there. Non-tenants were making the trouble and indulging in, not only antisocial, disruptive, and threatening behaviour, but also criminal behaviour, I am told, in the surrounding areas and possibly even on the premises. They were given the rush. I will not say the first word that usually goes with the rush, but they were given the rush out of there; they were sent out. They were not tenants, had no right to be there, and they were - well, you cannot say evicted - but they left the premises in a hurry.
The Ombudsman said it was reasonable that Territory Housing required the tenants to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, which is an agreement not to engage in any type of antisocial behaviour. In addition, they closely manage the tenancy and this is achieved by the tenancy manager regularly contacting the tenants and undertaking property inspections.
Lastly, that Territory Housing referred tenants to external support agencies for advice and assistance. If I could just comment on that, Madam Speaker - in public housing, there is no doubt - there are people who have a range of needs, who need support in a range of areas. One of the functions of Territory Housing is to try to support those tenants by assisting them to access those services and putting them in contact with those services. As the type of landlord we are, we do have an obligation to try to help people sustain tenancies.
However, as I have said within this parliament before, and as I am saying with the bill that will be up for debate - I am not trying to pre-empt debate - but I am prepared to take stringent action against those tenants who do not do the right thing, despite all the support they have received.
In the closing paragraph, the Ombudsman comments:
There are a number of stories in there. As always, very interesting about police, Police Administration Act, and protective custody about police; the Ombudsman has a large interaction with police. Various departments; the education department and parent contributions - that was certainly a controversial one. This shire council is mentioned here, so these are important issues people raise with the Ombudsman, and I do commend the work of the Ombudsman and her office. We welcome the report by the Ombudsman and, later today, we will have another report tabled within this parliament from the Ombudsman.
I conclude my remarks there.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms - Report on the First Three Months
Continued from 26 October 2011.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s statement. It seems appropriate during ‘Octsober’ that we, as a parliament, come together to debate alcohol reforms; the implementation and initial results.
This is a comprehensive alcohol reform package, but it is not the silver bullet, it is not a miracle prescription for the challenges we face as a Territory - that does not exist. This is a decades-long problem, if not longer.
One of the stories I love; a family legend. We had arguments in Question Time about what you can and cannot do in this Chamber, and while we might argue about imputation and inferences, we can talk about family legends.
My great-grandfather arrived in Tennant Creek back in the 1930s, and it is a great tall tale in the family that he was driving the beer wagon and it broke down. That is why Tennant Creek is not next to the creek, because everyone relocated to the wagon. It is one of my family favourite stories but, unfortunately, not true. Maggie Hickey dashed me on that one. The genesis of the story was that Con Perry, my great-grandfather, found the first water supply in Tennant Creek, but over the years it became the story about the beer wagon, which I quite like.
Our reforms are one more critical step in tackling the challenges we face in making a difference to what is a huge problem in the Territory. Many people in the Territory love a drink, and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe drinking will always remain a part of the Territory lifestyle - a beer with your colleagues after work, a glass of wine with your partner over dinner, heading out on the town with some of your mates, a couple of cold beers in the esky when you go fishing - alcohol is part of the Territory lifestyle, and part of the lifestyle of people around the world. The issue we need to deal with is when is enough, enough.
We have very responsible publicans and restaurateurs in the Territory who make a great contribution to the economy and provide services for tourists and for locals alike; we also have an active and mature Australian Hotels Association. But, one of the big problems we have to deal with is, when is enough, enough; and in my electorate you probably see the best and the worst of it.
I love to head to the clubs in my electorate, and when you visit a club, they serve alcohol responsibly: the Ski Club; the Darwin Sailing Club; the Trailer Boat Club; the Railway Club; the Turf Club; and the Buff Club. There are probably a few more clubs; we have many clubs in my electorate and they take that responsibility seriously and are fantastic community clubs. We also have great spots along our foreshore which are popular places to have a sunset beer, where you are allowed to - there are certain areas where you can and certain areas where you cannot – and they are great to take visiting friends and relatives where you can sit back, enjoy the sunsets, and you say how good is this?
Alcohol is always going to be part of the Territory lifestyle; however, we need to know when enough is enough. There is a clear public awareness of the link between alcohol, particularly takeaway alcohol, and problems in the Territory - as the minister said, 60% of all assaults, and 67% of all domestic violence incidents.
Much of the credit for the public awareness between alcohol and crime needs to go to the very effective and mature campaign from the NT News that encouraged people to just think. This is a problem that cannot be out of sight, out of mind; it is why we brought in mandatory reporting of domestic violence, and it is why we brought in the Banned Drinker Register. The reform draws a line in the sand. We have said enough is enough and we have turned off the tap to problem drinkers. That is the crux of these reforms. We are banning problem drinkers from buying takeaway alcohol, we are ensuring there is intervention, and there will be mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers.
Mandatory rehabilitation might not work, but we have a responsibility, as a community, to try to make that intervention. It might not stop them drinking forever, but we have to try. It is our responsibility to do our best to reduce the harm alcohol causes.
The policy intentions of our alcohol reforms are to make a difference; to make a dent in the problem that has plagued the Territory for decades, because we know at the heart of many problems police deal with is alcohol - 60% of all assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents - 72% of Territory prisoners committed their offence under the influence. Those are extraordinary statistics, and the devil is in the detail; it is clear we have to turn off the tap to problem drunks. That is why we have put in place a Banned Drinker Register which the police say is the best tool they have been given to deal with the problem.
Working with police is one of the most important parts of our job as local members. I take talking to the police in my local area seriously, and I do it regularly as part of our plan to tackle local issues with the Police Beat based at the Parap shops with services to Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops, and sees police getting out on the beat on bikes, on foot - we even have a trail bike where they get out to tricky parts of East Point and other areas. They get out along the foreshore, they get out through the shops, and they talk to residents and local traders.
Those conversations by local police with local people on local issues have seen an improvement in police intelligence on local problems. They have been making better-informed decisions about general duty patrols; they tackle problems earlier and better, and they have better cooperation with other agencies.
A good example is the work the police have done in tackling illegal camping issues at the breezeway at East Point near Colivas Road. They have an active Landcare group there and many local residents enjoy the area; however, it can be a regular hot spot for illegal camping and the problems which stem from that. We know, in general, when takeaway alcohol is drunk out of sight there can be serious problems, and police statistics back that up. Also, at that illegal camping spot we have seen spot fires and littering; there are no toilet facilities, and local residents who back on to the breezeway have the obvious problem of people entering their property, using their facilities, such as taps, or taking things.
I have met on site with residents, I have walked through the area, and I have talked with local police from the Police Beat. The police are aware the area is a problem from past experience and they have worked with council, and it is great to see council get involved and move those people on, and work with those people about why they are there and how they can get them to return to country.
The people who were illegally camping in that breezeway had actually taken it up a level - there were tents and cars. We need to make a clear distinction between homelessness, which is a serious issue that needs certain responses, and people who visit and choose to camp there, and require a completely different response. If you are visiting from out of town and you have a car and a tent, you have means of transport and a tent, then you can afford a room for the night.
The police got into the problem with council and cleaned the area up and, with their local contacts and regular patrolling, they can now stay on top of that problem; they become aware of it before it ever gets out of hand, before it gets to a critical mass, and I believe local police on the beat make a big difference. They got in touch with Corrections, had a team of low security prisoners out there to clean up the litter in the area, and the work they have done is a real credit to them. It is also a real credit to the value of having local police on the beat doing work with me, local people, general duties police, council, and justice. It is an example of how having local police on the beat, local intelligence, working with locals, talking to other agencies - in this instance council and justice - can make a big difference. One of the benefits of having a local Police Beat is if you have a local issue that worries you; you can sit down with someone and talk about it.
Officers in my area are on the beat from early afternoon through to the morning, and the shopfront is open during business hours. Police from the Parap Police Beat make an active effort to stay in touch with traders in Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park, and this initiative has been warmly welcomed by traders to have the capacity to regularly share any information they have, any stories, any changes they see occurring in the local area with police, and this further informs what police do. It is important to note though, if you see something happening, a crime in progress, that you call the police immediately on 131 444 or, if it is an emergency, 000. If you just want to talk with police officers about local community problems, the local Police Beat can do that.
The solution to problems in the area, such as camping out of control at the breezeway, is hard work and requires rolling up the sleeves and using the tools we have, like the new alcohol reforms which police say is the best tool they have ever had. There are no silver bullets - there is hard work - and hard work is the best way to tackle most problems which is made easier with the alcohol reforms and alcohol management plans.
Alcohol reforms add to a significant body of reform work we have already done, much of which has been done around specific places, and we have - I might have this number wrong - about 48 area management plans. What has become very clear over recent years, particularly post-federal intervention, is the mobility of people. While area management plans are important, we have to have Territory-wide laws, which is what we have seen come out of the Enough is Enough reform package. People need to know, if they abandon one spot, they cannot hop in the car and drive somewhere else, and that is one reason a Banned Drinker Register is so critical to enforcing the ban on takeaway alcohol and reducing the motivation of a problem drunk to move.
We know the effects of chronic alcohol abuse on families, its devastation, dysfunction, and damage to children. It is the community - you, me, the family out to dinner, the person going for a jog along a bike path - we all suffer when alcohol is abused, and that is why these reforms to turn off the tap to problem drinkers are so critical.
I welcome the minister’s statement and the early reports that it is making a difference. These are early days there is still much work to be done, and I know we have a minister who is prepared to do that work. So much of what we do in this area comes back to hard work. My prime responsibility as local member is to be in constant contact with local residents, traders, and the police, to ensure there is a constant flow of information and we are responding to problems immediately. Early action is often best to deal with these things, and you have to do the work to make that happen; it does not happen overnight, and it does not happen by a miracle. You have to do some hard work to get that result. I really enjoy working with my local residents, traders, and police, and by doing that you get some very good results.
I wish the minister all the best, and I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister for Alcohol Policy, for bringing this very important statement before the House. It is important we review and take stock of where we are at after the first three months of the Enough is Enough package of alcohol reforms implemented by the Henderson Labor government.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions of members of this House and, as the minister says, it is early days, but the signs are certainly promising.
We all know these tough reforms have been borne out of a need and a community expectation, as well as of government, that we had to tackle head-on the issue of alcohol abuse and the toll it takes on the Territory and Territorians. The statistics are staggering - 60% of all assaults occurring across the Territory are alcohol-related, and 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related.
In 2010, there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or into sobering-up shelters; and 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol, according to a survey of our prison population. You cannot ignore those statistics, you cannot ignore the cost associated with those statistics, and that is why this package of reforms was introduced.
Whilst the cost is staggering, the recent study the minister referred to undertaken by Menzies School of Health and Research puts the cost associated with alcohol misuse at $642m per year, a figure which is more than four times the national average. What else might we do with those taxpayer dollars? That $642m could be used to build schools, new hospitals, housing - it is very close to the total figure of delivering SIHIP across the Northern Territory.
I go back to the study conducted by Menzies School of Health and Research in which they attempted to calculate the cost, as a dollar value, to our health system, our law enforcement, justice and correction systems, as well as the impact upon our workforce. Less tangible, in terms of measurement, is the cost to children and families, the cost of human misery, and the cost of children unable to get to school the next day because of difficulties with alcohol dependency in the household.
It came as no surprise when the report into the care and protection of children, tabled more than a year ago, identified alcohol as being a critical factor and contributor to the abuse and neglect of children. The costs are both tangible and intangible; they have to be reined in and dealt with, and this can only happen by going to the very source of the problem, which is alcohol itself, and the scourge it is for those who are unable to consume it responsibly.
This is why the government had introduced the Enough is Enough reforms, because strong and decisive action, supported and enforced by a legislative framework, is the only way to deal with alcohol misuse by targeting the problem drinker. It has been a highly consultative process to bring these reforms about. We debated the proposed reforms in this House almost a year ago to the day, followed a few days later with the minister tabling the exposure draft of the two bills and, with community and stakeholders able to provide feedback to government, the bills were introduced to the House in March of this year. They were passed in May, and came into effect on 1 July 2011.
It was quite a challenging time frame, but was driven by an absolute sense of responsibility that this issue needed to be tackled head-on, and we needed to drive these reforms through. Members on this side, obviously, supported the reforms. Key stakeholders, such as AMSANT, NTCOSS, Amity and FORWAARD all came out publicly to support and welcome the reforms. There was broad stakeholder support for the reforms from the outset, with the exception, quite notably, of the members opposite, which is very disappointing.
I should qualify that because, before joining the members opposite, the member for Macdonnell, who is never afraid to speak her mind and go with the courage of her convictions - and good on her - supported the bill when it was debated in this House on 5 May. She said, and I quote from Hansard:
We know that the Leader of the Opposition listens very carefully to the member for Macdonnell. He has recently promoted her to a new role as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs, so I believe the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, needs to sit down and talk with the member for Macdonnell and think very carefully about what he has said on the public record, in particular, about scrapping the Banned Drinker Register.
It is only three months into the reforms, but it is important to take stock of where we are at and what the evidence-based feedback by way of statistics tells us, as well as the anecdotal feedback. It is only right, given the magnitude of these reforms, the toughest in the nation, possibly in the world, that we should provide that feedback to the community and continue the dialogue in this House.
I spoke at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in July about tough reforms in a global context. I was invited to deliver a paper about the challenges for women in small societies and, whilst other speakers talked about the need for getting women into positions of decision-making and the need to get women into parliament, I did talk about that but I talked within the Northern Territory context about some of the challenges women face in being able to move ahead and take on those key roles, and I talked about the scourge of alcohol and domestic violence and all those awful issues associated with alcohol misuse.
At the conclusion of my paper, I had a number of people approach me to say how interesting they found my contribution. They were particularly interested in the alcohol reforms of this government within a legislative framework. Members from provinces of Canada asked me about it, and also members from some of the island nations. Interestingly, I spoke with a member who represents the very small legislature of the Falkland Islands, and he advised they have what they call a black list in the Falkland Islands where the names of people who are supposedly banned from drinking alcohol are placed but, because it is not in a framework that has any teeth, it is largely ineffective. He and others were most interested to hear how the Northern Territory is tackling alcohol, especially in the context of protecting women, children, and families.
If I go back to the minister’s statement, she highlights these reforms as having very measurable indicators of success. Of course, we acknowledge it is early days; three months. Nevertheless, let us have a look at some of those very important statistical indicators – 1576 people are on the Banned Drinker Register. That is a phenomenal figure; 1576 fewer people who have access to takeaway alcohol and, we would expect, a reduction in the related issues. There have been a total of 3221 banning notices issued; 760 people have received their first BAT notice, Banning Alcohol and Treatment notices. One-hundred and fifty people have received their second BAT notice, and 165 have received their third BAT notice under the reforms. As we know, a further breach for those on their third will result in automatic referral to the newly established Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal.
I understand the tribunal has been formed, and members appointed to it, and I am pleased to note it does have good representation from around the Territory, including one of my constituents. I will not state his name because I am unsure of the parameters regarding any announcements the minister might be making, but this person from my electorate of Nhulunbuy is very familiar with the alcohol reforms, certainly in East Arnhem Land, and very supportive of the stand government has taken to bring in reforms that are Territory-wide, not just for Northeast Arnhem Land.
This particular gentleman has also been a member of the Harmony Group for a number of years in the Northern Territory, so has a good understanding of the need to consult and work with stakeholders. Outside of his busy full-time job and much of the voluntary work he does, which includes being an officer with St John Ambulance, I know he has seen firsthand, over the years, the terrible damage which alcohol can and does do to people and families. I know he is really keen to get started with the important work of the tribunal, and I wish him and the tribunal every success with the important work they will be doing as part of the Enough is Enough reforms, and dealing with problem drinkers when they begin hearing and assessing referrals from 1 January 2012.
I know this gentleman, this constituent of mine, is on the tribunal because he made a visit to my office to say: ‘Lynne, I just wanted to let you know that I applied for it, I am on it, and I am really excited about being a part of it’. So, that is fantastic, and I have no doubt the enthusiasm at that level is across the tribunal, as it is across other parts of the Northern Territory from various groups, individuals, families, and stakeholder groups who welcome these reforms.
Tackling alcohol misuse in the Territory, and the genesis of these reforms goes back to the successful implementation of alcohol management plans in Northeast Arnhem Land, first on Groote Eylandt. Having watched the robust model for takeaway alcohol implemented and the reduction of problems and social dysfunction because access to alcohol was managed, a similar alcohol management plan was developed for the Gove Peninsula. I need to be very clear that those reforms are in place and those alcohol management plans in Northeast Arnhem Land will remain. They are actually much tougher than the reforms around the rest of the Territory, but they will in no way be changed or diluted; and they stand alone.
As the minister has said on the record, the Banned Drinker Register itself is not in Nhulunbuy as yet, but it will be very soon. We look forward to that because it will mean people who are living on the Gove Peninsula or on Groote Eylandt who may be within the liquor permit system and not have a liquor permit to purchase alcohol in Northeast Arnhem Land, or perhaps have a permit which puts limitations on what they can purchase as takeaway, like half-a-dozen cans of light beer a day or similar. It is important to recognise, because people I spoke with were a little concerned about that, and would say to me: ‘We have really good plans working out here in Nhulunbuy. I hope this does not mean that we are going to lose what we have, and just become part of the wider Territory program’. So, it is important to acknowledge we will have the Banned Drinker Register in Northeast Arnhem region, and in addition to that, we will have the very strong program which has been in place for a while.
I want to do a bit of a history lesson here; go back to the start and recognise the very grassroots level at which the liquor reforms in Nhulunbuy, and the wider Gove Peninsula, came into being. It is well documented t when bauxite was discovered on the Gove Peninsula and the partners of the Gove joint venture commenced mining, the traditional landowners did launch a legal challenge to stop mining; that is a well-known fact. It is also a well-known fact they lost that legal challenge. Perhaps what is lesser known is the traditional owners also launched a legal challenge not to see liquor sold through takeaway outlets. Sadly, they lost that challenge as well, and today there are five licensed takeaway liquor outlets in the town of Nhulunbuy.
This background provides some context to a very important letter dated 14 November 2004, written and sent to the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and copied to key leaders within the community. The letter was authored by three very strong Yirrkala women; three strong Marika women, including the late Dr Marika. Basically, that letter was a plea for the community, for community leaders, to work together to see the issue of liquor dealt with in Nhulunbuy. In fact, their original suggestion was to see those liquor outlets closed. Liquor outlets did not close; however, over a couple of years of working collaboratively a permit was agreed to which would reduce access to alcohol; remove people from the source of the problem, if it was a problem for them.
I have read that letter and it is on the record, so I am not going to read it again. However, this letter generated much community debate about how alcohol might be managed to reduce the very negative impacts outlined in this letter. Whilst those very negative impacts were in relation to the Indigenous community, we all know it is a problem not limited to the Indigenous community; those impacts reach right across the community.
It is important to acknowledge that Nhulunbuy is a mining town which employs a high number of males and, the time that letter was written was about the time the Alcan Gove G3 expansion had been announced and we knew the company was preparing to ramp up the construction workforce and to mobilise a sizeable workforce to the site; so, in relation to timing, it was good.
What ensued from that important letter was a formal application which was lodged by my constituent, Mr Banambi Wunungmurra, who was then Chair of the local Harmony Group, and is currently the strong and excellent President of the East Arnhem Shire Council. Basically, that letter was written to request Gove Peninsula be a restricted area. From there, the Liquor Commission conducted public hearings and received numerous submissions, the majority in support of the introduction of the proposed restrictions.
If we fast-forward from there to 1 March 2008 when the takeaway liquor permit system came into being in Nhulunbuy after an enormous amount of work to set up the systems to support it, including software to be developed and installed at the point-of-sale at takeaway liquor outlets.
Looking back over those years, we have come a long way. At that time there was a huge amount of communication work to educate people about what they needed to do in order to obtain a permit and what the circumstances were that might see a person lose their permit. It was a very new system and there were glitches; but, quite clearly there was strong support for it. There continues to be strong support for it, not unlike the Banned Drinker Register rolled out around the Territory …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and member for Arafura,
At the time, one of the things people grumbled about was at the point-of-sale they had to produce their ID. It has never bothered me, but it bothered a few people who have moved on and got over it.
I am a member of the Arnhem Club, as are most of Nhulunbuy’s residents, and to get into the Arnhem Club you have to produce your membership card and swipe it as you enter the door, and on occasions you may be asked to show your ID at the reception desk. I do not see that as an issue and, to be honest, if we were to conduct a survey in Nhulunbuy to say: ‘Hands up who would like to see this permit system scrapped?’ People would say: ‘No, it’s okay. We are fine with it’. They will say that because they recognise it is really delivering some great benefits. It continues to work extremely well in Nhulunbuy and has provided evidence to support alcohol management plans work and are effective in dealing with alcohol misuse.
We know it works because in the years it has been in place, in fact, the first few days it was in place we witnessed a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related crime. We witnessed a dramatic reduction in public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. We witnessed, and there are statistics to back it up and continue to back it up, a dramatic reduction in the number of police lock-ups, a dramatic reduction in the number of people who present to Gove Hospital with alcohol-related issues, and a dramatic reduction in the amount of litter around town because we do not have people parking themselves in certain spots to consume alcohol.
It is important what has happened in Northeast Arnhem Land has provided good evidence that this can work, and this government does work with evidence-based policy, and I am very proud evidence of the success of alcohol management plans in my region have contributed to the current five-point plan and the Enough is Enough strategy.
I want to make a comment on a side issue to do with the government bending over backwards to accommodate people to get their recognised identification to enable them to make purchases, recognising some people may not have a Territory driver’s licence or an Ochre Card. For a period of time they were offered free, so people could get a renewed driver’s licence, a marriage certificate, assuming those certificates and licences were here in the Territory. Anyone could get them for free. The minister did quote the number of people who accessed these for free; I do not have it on hand, but it is phenomenal and, what is more, the period of time was extended to allow more people access.
The people of Marparu in my electorate are eternally grateful for that opportunity. The people of Marparu are absolute teetotallers so they were not seeking identification for the purpose of purchasing liquor from a takeaway liquor store, but because they genuinely seized the opportunity to access a driver’s licence, or a new birth certificate, or a marriage certificate. One of the issues in the Indigenous communities, and I know the member for Arafura will recognise this, is the spelling of their names on birth certificates, drivers’ licences, or passports, depending on which family member had registered; for example, a new child in the family may be at odds with the records at the health clinic, and it can be quite a nightmare for these people. If they are applying for a passport or a driver’s licence they do not have identification that matches up with the name. So this presented a fantastic opportunity, and I know there were many applications for free birth certificates and replacement drivers’ licences from the community, and I know they are eternally grateful for that.
Three months into these reforms, we are talking about them, and I hope we are talking about them again in another three months, and in a year, so we are constantly measuring the success which will allow us to see what we can do better. It is not just about standing here saying: ‘Isn’t this fantastic?’ It is also about looking at the data to see what we are learning from it.
I will close there, but I commend the minister for her very hard work, supported by the very hard work of her office and the agencies that have supported these reforms, and thank her for bringing this statement before the House. I look forward to her bringing this subject back before the House in a few month’s time for another review, and I commend her statement to the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the alcohol statement brought forward by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. The alcohol policy is about our government’s changes which we have implemented through the Enough is Enough policy, which is a position I have repeatedly made since 2001. Actually, well before that, as someone who came out of the health sector and into politics.
Upon the Labor government coming in, I was appointed as Chair of the first Substance Abuse committee in 2001. I fully and wholeheartedly support the changes and note that, while opposition members constantly want to argue the toss and be totally negative about the policy and breach sanctions, the concept of taking this action to address problem drinkers is not new in the Territory. The CLP enacted similar legislation in the 1990s, but did not have the courage or commitment to apply it.
What the contemporary Country Liberals want to argue, especially in the context of antisocial behaviour in the Territory’s main urban centres, particularly in Alice Springs. For about nine years I lived and worked in Katherine and saw firsthand some of the problems in the Katherine community, and also saw what can happen in a community if everyone works together to address and look at solutions on the ground to deal with that.
The tough action on grog, and this has been the mantra used constantly by a number of people whose alcohol-dominated lifestyles do not directly break laws or impact on the public consciousness, that we should target problem drinkers - and that is true - should not be in any way inconvenienced. If you are okay and you are flying under the radar, you should not be disturbed.
There are a number of illogical, fantasy elements to this argument which particularly favours the sellers of alcohol.
Members of the opposition have often talked about the intervention in the Northern Territory and into our communities I remember that day when the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and his federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, made the announcement to intervene into the Northern Territory, one of the first things Mal Brough or John Howard, as the Prime Minister, talked about was the alcohol restrictions that would apply in the Northern Territory. Being a non-drinker myself, I applauded the former Prime Minister and his Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough.
I will touch on the Arafura electorate and particularly the Tiwi Islands, which are my people. I have often stood in this House and talked about the issues of chronic alcoholism, the chronic violence and the violent epidemics that happen in communities where they have what are classified as social clubs which image conjures up in one’s mind a social club which has rules, people have to be members, you would have a civilised environment, and people would have a few drinks; you would probably have one or two beers with your mates and the camaraderie, everyone is happy, enjoying themselves, having a beer after a hard day’s work. I wish that was the case in the Tiwi Islands.
On the Tiwi Islands we have a club in each one of the communities. In each one of those communities the consumption of alcohol by Tiwi people, particularly at Nguiu, was four times the national average - an absolute disgrace. I lived there in the 1990s and every night we had four to five medical evacuations out of that community. Every single one of those evacuations were women being medically evacuated after being on the receiving end of their drunken husbands, and the violence inflicted on these women was absolutely horrific.
At that time, at Nguiu, which is now renamed Wurrumiyanga, a community of 1700 people in those days, and I am only talking about the 1990s, about 15 years ago, there were no police on the ground in those communities. So, if a woman was assaulted, or a child was abused, much of it was through alcohol aided and abetted by unfettered drugs that were going into these communities because we did not have police on the ground in those days. I remember seven days a week you would be lucky if you got to sleep at three or four o’clock in the morning, and then you would have to get up the next morning to make sure the council office and everything else was open.
Alcohol reforms often fell on deaf ears with the then CLP government. I listened to members this afternoon, they kept saying: ‘Members on the other side constantly preach and hammer on, particularly the new member for Araluen; at least with the former member for Araluen there was intellect in the debate. If she argued or debated an issue, at least she put a position across and debated it quite ferociously.’ That is the difference between the former member for Araluen and this member for Araluen who does no service whatsoever to her electorate; it is just constant carping. I call the member for Araluen and the member for Greatorex the members for gripe and hype. On any given day, there is the hype and then there is the gripe; there is never any solution or working with government about going forward.
When I can do trips to Central Australia, like all members of this parliament, I enjoy going to Alice Springs. It is a community that does have issues; you would have to be Blind Freddy if you thought Alice Springs was the perfect Utopia and there was nothing wrong. Of course, there are issues, but we needed to work through them.
The other thing the CLP constantly bang on about is they think the drinking population of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal - and that is not true - we all know chronic alcoholism, and the issues and problems with alcohol, goes across all races. It does not matter whether you are black or white, Chinese, or whatever race you are, alcoholism is an issue that affects everyone.
I believe the Enough is Enough policy, the implementation of that policy, the rehabilitation programs and the way forward this government has put in place is the right way to go. It puts in place the steps so people can get the reform and rehabilitation that they need. It is not just about saying: ‘We are going to ban you, but we are not going to take the next step’, which is about placing someone on the banned register and providing the rehabilitation process for them.
One of the areas the intervention did bring in on the Tiwi Islands was changes to drinking hours and club hours in those communities. Particularly for communities like Nguiu, it has not placed a total ban on alcohol, but what it has provided is certain days in which there is no alcohol whatsoever in the community, and what you see when you go to those communities on the days the clubs are closed is mums and dads with their children down at the beaches playing and enjoying life as a family. That is something that has been missing in these communities for a long time.
In my electorate on the Tiwi Islands every community has a wet canteen. Things are better; issues regarding violence have reduced, but we still have some way to go in removing violence. It would be good to reduce the violence even more, and with the substantial numbers of police in those communities now that is going some way to address those issues.
At Gunbalanya there is wet canteen, and we see the same issues happening there. I remembered being on the select committee and I went out there with the former member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim, who was pro-alcohol and thought every community should have a wet canteen. We met with the people at the club at Gunbalanya, and I said to him: ‘Dr Lim, it is important to talk to the people who run the club and workers, and everyone else. We have talked to members of the community, but I want to take you, Dr Lim, and I want you to sit down with a group of women who often do not get heard in these debates’. I take my hat off to Dr Lim, he came with me, he sat down, and he heard those women. The women were crying and begged him to support fundamental changes in their community.
Any of us who were here in 2001 and knew Dr Lim - Richard Lim was not a warm and fluffy person, it was hard for him to get emotional about anything, but he got quite emotional about that, and when we left that meeting with the women he thanked me for taking him and allowing him to be part of and listen to what those women were saying.
That helped get the first report where we suggested changes, for which I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and Syd Stirling, who was in charge of Racing, Gaming and Licensing before that. Since 2001, we have been on this journey of constantly reforming, and that is what I heard the Chief Minister saying: the Labor government is all about constant reform. You can travel around, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, and you see things in your electorate; or you can travel around with members of the opposition and you can share and have an insight and be part of the steps going forward. That time with those women at Gunbalanya with Richard Lim – Dr Lim and I rarely agreed on things - but it was an interesting time on the select committee looking at alcohol abuse in those communities with Dr Lim.
It is always interesting, historically, to go back over what has been said previously, how it was said, what we had talked about. I always find Hansard a really interesting tool to go back to, not just my own speeches, but to look at different debates we have had, and issues we have talked about, and also what members of the opposition had talked about, particularly on this issue.
It was interesting; I pulled some stuff from 1991 for my colleague, the Minister for Central Australia, when the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen were going on about the doom and gloom in Alice Springs. It was interesting reading excerpts from Hansard about a Matter of Public Importance regarding Alice Springs, only this time the matter of public importance was brought on by Neil Bell, the former Labor member for Macdonnell, and you see that theme, which is not making light or in any way denigrating that there are issues in these towns.
I touched on briefly the nearly nine years I spent in Katherine, and the issues of antisocial behaviour. The grog culture was awash in places like Katherine being at the crossroads to Western Australia to the south and to the east. The grog culture was awash in Katherine at that time. As a service provider working with the police, with the hospital, with the health department, with women’s crisis centres, with child protection authorities, and with the Katherine Town Council, we were all working together to try and deal with this issue.
The problem is, as a community, you can deal with this issue, but you have to have the armoury in place to enable organisations and governments to have a framework to deal with this. I believe that is what the Attorney-General and the Minister for Alcohol Policy and this government have done with the Enough is Enough policy and programs. It has given each of those regions, particularly our urban centres, the strategies to deal with it.
When we talk about the Little Children are Sacred report, when we talk about the intervention into the Northern Territory, and the rivers of grog that was talked about in the Little Children are Sacred report, yes, many of our remote areas did have clubs, but many of our remote communities were actually restricted areas under the Liquor Act provisions. The rivers of grog were, in a sense, in some of our urban centres, particularly Katherine, which was, as I said, awash with grog and there were major issues.
In Tennant Creek, I know people have often criticised the ‘thirsty Thursday’, or the day where they had no alcohol. Similarly, with the restrictions in Alice Springs, you often hear people say: ‘I do not have a problem, so why should I be penalised?’ I believe alcohol affects all of us, and I do not drink alcohol, but I do not begrudge people drinking alcohol, I believe everyone has a right to drink alcohol. Often I say to my own people and members of my own family, who have chronic alcohol problems, that …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have nearly finished, but thank you.
There are members of my own family who are chronic alcoholics, and I say: ‘Yes, it is your right to have a drink, but it is also your responsibility, and if you are going to drink, you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you do not want to be responsible for your actions in terms of your drinking, then that right should be taken away from you.’ I have always been a supporter of mandatory rehabilitation which was mentioned in our first report in 2001. There are members on this side, and I know the minister herself knows I have very liberal views, quite conservative views, in relation to alcohol. As I said, I do not begrudge people having a drink, as long as they take that responsibility; and if they fail to take that responsibility, then that right should be removed.
I will not go on anymore. I thank the minister and the government; I believe the Enough is Enough policy is a step in the right direction, and I fully support the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government did commit to reporting back on the first three months of the reforms, and we have done that with this ministerial statement during the sittings. We noted that we are only three months in and, with some aspects yet to become fully operational, we see the early indications are very positive.
It is a shame the members opposite do not want to accept the Banned Drinker Register is actually making inroads into cutting alcohol-fuelled violence in our community. They have managed, throughout the debate, to ignore the advice of the experts at the coalface. They have ignored the advice of the police who say the Banned Drinker Register is working, of the health sector who support the initiative because it does not criminalise alcoholism - a stark difference in policy between the opposition and government.
This reform directly targets the problem with minimal impact on the broader community. We focus on takeaway alcohol sales that make up an estimated 70% of alcohol consumption in the Territory. In the first three months of these reforms, PROMIS police data reports a 22% reduction in total alcohol-related incidents, from July to September this year, compared with the same period in 2010. Over that same three month period, a 15% drop in alcohol-related assaults across the Territory which equates to 164 less alcohol-fuelled assaults in the three months since 1 July. This includes, in a breakdown, regionally, a 20% drop in Darwin; 23% reduction in Palmerston; 17% drop in Alice Springs; 15.8% drop in Katherine, and a 19.5% drop in Tennant Creek.
The Banned Drinker Register is critical to enforcing bans. In total, there have been more than 1100 refusals of sale to problem drinkers to buy alcohol Territory-wide. Under the CLP, these drinkers would still have access to alcohol.
The Banned Drinker Register is a quick scan; less than seven seconds, to identify banned drinkers at the point-of-sale to enforce the bans. It is working. On more than 1000 occasions, banned drinkers have been refused sale. The Banned Drinker Register is a small inconvenience to help cut crime.
If you listen to Pete Davies on Mix, he said, and I quote
Well, it is interesting, I know from my perspective it was a bit of a bugger when it first came in. They say, oh, can I have your licence as well, but now when I go through the bottle shop, I’ve got my licence, I’ve got my key card, and I’ve got my hotel’s loyalty card. I have the three cards ready now. It is has almost become second nature, and I think that has probably happened with most people’.
Despite the police stating this is the best tool they have had to tackle alcohol-related crime, the opposition say they would scrap the Banned Drinker Register. When commenting on the Banned Drinker Register, Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne stated, and I quote:
The Assistant Police Commissioner also stated he would like to see the initiative continue, and I quote:
The opposition has committed to scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. The Alcohol Policy shadow minister has said in his response to this statement the CLP would not scrap anything without evaluating it first. It begs the question: exactly what is their policy? Inconsistency is already showing through in this debate. The CLP are on the record as stating the links between community violence and alcohol consumption are negligible. They ignore that being turned off tap is a very real consequence for problem drinkers. They ignore that alcohol-related crime is being reduced with the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register. They ignore the advice of the police at the coalface, the police that have supported this initiative from day one; who contributed to the policy formation with wise advice; and the police who continue to support it because they say it works.
They should be ashamed of questioning police independence in this issue when they question the data that has been provided directly from the police PROMIS system. The opposition have claimed people would have to show ID at a barbecue. Not one single person has had to show ID at a barbecue. They stated bottle shop attendants would stalk young women who showed their ID at the bottle shop. Wrong. The shadow minister said people buying alcohol online should not have to give their details or address. Well, we are not sure how he expects deliveries to be made if they do not give their address. He went on to say that the alcohol reforms would mean we would lose taxes from alcohol sales going online, despite the fact we do not collect taxes from alcohol sales, the Commonwealth does. A High Court decision in the 1990s ruled the Territory constitutionally unable to tax or levy alcohol sales.
Their ideas to tackle alcohol-related crime - well, we have had some interesting suggestions. I remember hearing in this Chamber, and being shocked, when the member for Drysdale suggested we copy New Zealand and ban drive-through at the bottle shop. The member for Braitling suggested we should open bottle shops earlier in Alice Springs and close them four hours earlier, at 5 pm. They have no credibility.
The opposition has committed to overturning the alcohol laws, the laws which have turned more than 1500 problem drinkers off tap. This is the same opposition who voted against repeat drinker drivers losing their licence, and against alcohol ignition locks. They are ignoring the stark facts: 60% of violent crime is linked to alcohol misuse. They are ignoring in just three months we have seen a 15% drop across the Territory in alcohol-fuelled assaults under these reforms.
At the end of the first three months of these reforms, there were 1576 people on the Banned Drinker Register; 760 people - 71% - had received one BAT notice; 150 - 14% - had received a second BAT notice; and 165 people - 15% - had received a third BAT notice, and they are off tap for an entire year. At the end of September 2011, of the 165 in receipt of their third BAT notice, 104 have gone on to breach that BAT notice, and they will be the clients of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. These people will be taken into a treatment regime.
Mandatory treatment through the tribunal commences from 1 January when the tribunal becomes fully operational. We have brought forward the tribunal operations for self-referrals to 1 November. Of the 1576 people on the Banned Drinker Register in September, 455 were for court ordered banning notices, including SMART orders and bail orders; and 1075 for Banning and Treatment Notices issued by police. In total, 3221 bans have been issued under the reform. This highlights the effectiveness of the tool and its application by Territory police.
This government is proud these reforms continue our record of investing in treatment and rehabilitation services; $34.3m over five years is invested through these alcohol reforms; $5.2m has been invested this year to expand treatment options for problem drinkers, which includes: extra beds; community based outreach services in major centres and growth towns; expanded alcohol withdrawal support options; home based residential low risk, plus, high risk hostel beds for withdrawal; and brief interventions by GPs and primary health providers.
We have worked collaboratively with the health and rehabilitation sector, and I sincerely thank them for their contributions and support. Without them, we could not have achieved the reforms to date.
We have established the SMART Court and 29 people have already commenced treatment under this initiative. We have established the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal and, as I said, they will start reviews of banning notices and start to hear applications for people volunteering to be banned from 1 November, and be fully operational by 1 January.
Support for the reforms has been widespread; it has come from the Northern Territory Police; the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, commonly known as AMSANT; the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, commonly referred to as NTCOSS; Amity and FORWAARD - both very reputable alcohol and other drug treatment providers - the Responsible Drinkers Lobby in Alice Springs; the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs; and the industry itself, the Australian Hotels Association and the Liquor Stores Association.
These have been the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in our nation and, as you have heard in this debate through various speakers, the reforms are off the back of knowledge our government has achieved through a series of reforms since we came to government in 2001. We have learnt what works and what does not work. We have taken what works and put them into these reforms and have significantly expanded on them.
These reforms target the problem drinker to turn them off tap and put them into treatment. They are evidence-based on the evaluations of alcohol management plans and supply measures of the past, and they are promising early results - about a 15% drop in alcohol-related crime across the Territory, and a 22% drop in alcohol-related incidents across the Territory.
The opposition seriously has no credibility in this debate; they have contradicted themselves with the shadow minister contradicting the opposition leader. We have had some bizarre suggestions coming from members opposite, and it is time for them to understand, through their prism of ideological opposition, not everything Labor does is a bad thing. The test of time will show one of the greatest things we can do is turn people’s lives around; change what is occurring in their lives by getting them into mandated treatment.
I recall in the many consultations and conversations I had with many people in the formation of this policy, the wisdom of Dr John Boffa - and we do not always agree - he looked at me and said: ‘You cannot start to change the decisions people are making if they are in the fog of alcohol. You have to get them off alcohol to deal with other issues’. It is that fundamental issue of turning them off tap. If you do not have a tool, such as the Banned Drinking Register to turn them off tap, how do you start with those issues of withdrawal support and early interventions either through GPs, AMSANT or institutions such as FORWAARD? How do you have those conversations about what they should or could be doing regarding their family responsibilities if you are not turning them off tap first?
The fundamental difference, what this boils down to between the opposition and the government, is we are not criminalising alcoholics.
People who commit criminal offences are dealt with through the criminal regime, they go to court; but people who do not commit an offence, who are drunken, need to be dealt with under the health system and through the treatment regimes we put in place here through the tribunal. There is a fundamental difference and I would point the opposition to the World Health Authority and what they say on criminalising alcoholism - research it, opposition. You should hang your heads in shame if you read those research papers and those studies, and maintain this ‘lock them up’ mentality.
I commend the statement to members.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Arafura
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Arafura to make a personal explanation. I ask members to remember it is not a debate.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, during Question Time today the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin felt I had made certain inferences towards them. If that is the case, I apologise if any hurt has been caused to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Continued from 26 October 2011.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Indigenous Development’s statement.
My Department of Business and Employment offers services which have improved Indigenous employment results in both the public and private sector. One program is a jointly funded Northern Territory/Australian government Indigenous training for employment program which supports some 20 projects with a commitment of $2.2m in 2010-11.
Strategies and programs to increase Indigenous employment in government include the jobs guarantee program which offers students living in remote Territory growth towns, and who achieve a Year 10 Certificate of Education and Training, a pathway to employment in their community through an apprenticeship, traineeship or a similar structured training program. Last year, in its pilot phase, three students embarked on their journey to a job in the Northern Territory Public Service. The program also identified 10 other employment opportunities for students in retail, local councils, and customer services. This guarantee concept is planned to roll-out with other employees in these townships.
The government’s Indigenous Employment Program provides Indigenous people with skills development and training for entry-level recruitment into the NTPS. The program has provided opportunities for 103 Indigenous people since its pilot back in 2009.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program has a focus on engaging Indigenous apprentices and trainees in diverse areas across government. Currently, there are approximately 44 Indigenous full-time apprentices, and six Indigenous school-based apprentices participating in this program, developing skills and experience in the areas such as conservation and management, education support, IT, and business.
The department also supports regional and remote shires to undertake workforce planning to encourage sustainable employment for local Indigenous Territorians. We are working with remote businesses and employers by creating opportunities through our Northern Territory government procurement system, and also assisting to build local government capacity by undertaking government contracts. Procurement changes have been introduced which allow government agencies to directly contract those shires which have a more than 30% Indigenous workforce to undertake work that occurs within their shire boundaries; and the department is now working with the four major Australian banks on finance provisions on Aboriginal …
Mr GILES: 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.
We have a quorum.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will just back up a little. The department is working with four major Australian banks on finance provisions on Aboriginal land so people can raise capital to start businesses, invest and grow their wealth.
In addition, remote Indigenous corporations are being supported to become property developers of government business centres. We are working directly with Indigenous corporations to tender for the development and long-term leasing of government office accommodation in our Territory growth towns. These buildings, with government as the anchor tenant, will also present opportunities for local developers to consider retail space as well. Underpinning the work with businesses developed from our remote entrepreneurs builds commercial and business literacy within our growth towns. Business literacy is essential in sustainable business, and we are working on this key component as it is those businesses which will provide jobs for the future within the growth towns.
I turn to the government-owned corporation under my responsibility, the Power and Water Corporation. Through its board in March, it endorsed the 10-year Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy 2010-20. The aim of this strategy is to increase Indigenous participation within the mainstream corporate workforce by 2020. In keeping with the Territory 2030 strategy, investing in and valuing our people, community, and culture, Power and Water will enhance the level of participation by Indigenous Australians through specific recruitment and workforce development initiatives. Mr Peter Mayo was recruited to the position of HR consultant in the Indigenous employment area, and is expected to commence by the end of this month. Peter’s position falls under the workforce capacity building team.
The key priority areas of the strategy are workforce, environment, attraction, retention, and communication. The role of the strategy will initially focus on the following areas:
cross-cultural training for Power and Water employees,
There is much work going on within government, and we have seen the rise of the participation rate with the NTPS, and the goal over the next few years is to get to 10%, and that is well within our grasp, and then moving to a relative comparator with the population demographic of the Northern Territory. So, things are moving extremely well. Through our buying power, with our procurement, in every aspect we are trying to encourage Indigenous employment and grow the towns in the area.
I commend the statement to the House. It is a big area that continually needs focus and we have a number of policies in this area. It is a focus of whole-of-government getting a demographic into work because we know if we can get Indigenous Territorians into work from a range of areas they are able to be more self-sufficient and live a much more productive life.
Within my electorate increasing jobs in the shires with government contracts has brought some real wins. The civil crew at Nauiyu has 90%, if not more, Indigenous employees, and that organisation, that work unit, is looking at up-skilling those guys, and in other areas of the community as well.
I commend the Thamarrurr Development Corporation for its effort with their factory and providing trainees to SIHIP, which is quite a success story. I knew many of the guys working there. There was Sammy Derby, an old friend of mine who worked extremely hard with SIHIP getting some certificates, and now he is looking to move on with other works; he will move into other areas and encourage that to happen.
It is a focus of the government in all areas, whether it is Aboriginal health workers, or in the sport and recreation area, to get Indigenous people in and move them into the private sector. The public service provides a great opportunity to be a staging point for Indigenous employment by using the wraparound services, providing the mentors, and working through some of the most basic situations of life skills. Getting people into the private sector is the ultimate goal where they can stand on their own two feet and move on through this career development.
On a number of occasions I have met with industry groups, and also individual businesses, and they are very keen to engage with this group. I mentioned in the House this week the work that goes on with the Minerals Council. They have done a fantastic job, and I must give credit to Chris Natt who has done a fantastic job in getting the Indigenous pre-employment program going with the mining industry. Those graduates have quite a significant retention rate and they are doing a fantastic job in preparing them and, as I said today, having the women come through. The next program will be women coming through to move into the mining industry, not just on the mine site, but into the corporate area, and working there will certainly enhance those people. They have had approximately 25 graduates go through.
It is gratifying to see the private sector is shouldering some of the corporate responsibility to our community to get long-term unemployed, especially Indigenous long-term unemployed, not only from the urban areas, but from remote areas and towns, into work, understanding there are complex barriers they face with respect to attaining and staying in employment. Over the last couple of years since the program has been running, they have learnt many lessons and built them into future programs; it really is a great program.
It is great to be part of a government and a party that values Indigenous people, and the remote communities, and has policies to make it happen within government. Without policy, without direction, you cannot direct and guide the government in its expenditure.
I commend the statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Report of the Ombudsman 2010-11.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11.
In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act I am pleased to table the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
After a sustained period of economic growth and strong financial outcomes, as evidenced by eight consecutive cash surpluses to 2009-10, the financial outcome for the Territory in 2010-11 has been affected by three years of substantially reduced revenues, most notably the GST, and the need for higher government infrastructure spending as a result of the GFC.
GST revenue for the Territory in 2010-11 was more than $300m lower than predicted prior to the GFC, and $144m lower in absolute terms than that received in 2009-10. Overall, the Territory has lost more than $450m in GST over the last two years. Infrastructure investment in 2010-11 was $1.7bn, $200m higher than in 2009-10 and double the level achieved in 2008-09. Economic data indicates that without this significant contribution by the Territory government to counteract the decline in private sector investment, economic growth in the Territory would have been negatively affected.
The combination of lower economic activity nationally and increased infrastructure spending has resulted in a cash deficit of $387m in 2010-11. The final deficit outcome is higher than the revised estimate in May due to the timing of expected Commonwealth revenues, accelerated expenditure from 2011-12, and higher infrastructure spending including national disaster spending. The effects of timing differences will be included in the 2011-12 mid-year report and will contribute to a nett improvement in the 2011-12 outcome.
In anticipation of the worsening fiscal position, a series of budget improvement measures were introduced in May 2010 in order to constrain operating expenditure growth, including: the introduction of a staffing cap; a reprioritisation of agency appropriation to meet increased demand pressures and new initiatives; and an increased efficiency dividend. These measures resulted in nett savings of $52m in 2010-11, and will result in nett savings in excess of $150m by the end of 2011-12.
A summary of the key 2010-11 outcomes included in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are: for the general government sector, an operating surplus of $238m and cash deficit of $387m; significantly higher capital spending for the general government sector of over $1.2bn with $1.7bn in total infrastructure spending including repairs and maintenance and the Power and Water Corporation; taxation collections per capita well below the average of the states, and nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue ratios for the general government sector increased, largely due to the 2010-11 cash deficit.
Despite the significant drop in revenues to the Territory, the restraint measures introduced by the Henderson government to curb the growth in operating expenses have, in part, contributed to maintaining an accrual-operating surplus of $238m. This also highlights the target of limiting operating expenditure growth to below that of revenue growth, excluding Commonwealth tied funding, has been achieved for 2010-11.
As mentioned previously, infrastructure investment is a key component of the government’s fiscal strategy and is essential for the delivery of the Territory’s social and economic services. The Henderson government has achieved record infrastructure investment in 2010-11 and protected jobs, and supported the local economy in the current subdued economic conditions.
Total infrastructure spending for 2010-11 was $17bn and six times depreciation levels, significantly exceeding the fiscal strategy target of spending twice depreciation. This significant infrastructure spending has been successful in offsetting lower private sector investment. Economic growth and employment have remained positive in the Territory as a result of this strategy, as evidenced by a 77.8% increase in public sector investment since 2008-2009, offsetting a decline of 43.1% in private sector investment.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2010-2011 is $1172m, which is $454m higher than the 2009-10 outcome. The increase is the result of the 2010-11 cash deficit and the debt to equity swap with the Power and Water Corporation announced in the 2010-11 Budget. While the nett debt to revenue ratio has increased to 25% in 2010, it still remains significantly below the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities have also increased from the 2009-10 outcome due to the increase in nett debt together with an increase in accrued expenses associated with higher SIHIP building activity, higher employee leave entitlements, and higher superannuation liability as a result of revised actuarial assumptions.
When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett financial liabilities as at 30 June 2011, have increased to 96%, which is up from 85% in 2009-10 but, again, is well below the 131% recorded in 2001-01.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has once again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion.
The 2010-11 outcome reflects the two speed national economy and uncertain economic conditions which have affected Territory revenues. The Territory is not alone in doing it tough with all other jurisdictions predicting a cash deficit position for 2010-2011 in their 2011-2012 Budgets. All jurisdictions that have to date published their 2010-2011 outcome reports have confirmed their deficit positions.
The Henderson government remains committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly amidst these uncertain economic times while maintaining our commitment to investing in Territory infrastructure and supporting Territory jobs and economic growth.
The challenge in the short term remains, the continued adherence to fiscal restraint measures in order to contain operational spending below revenue growth. Once revenue streams improve and there is a reduced requirement to invest heavily in infrastructure, this will provide the capacity to return the Budget to surplus and reduce debt levels.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the 2010-2011 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and I commend it to the House.
I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many great schools in the Fannie Bay electorate and Darwin High School is definitely one of them. On 10 October this year, students participating in the VET in Schools Certificate II in Hospitality (Kitchen Operations) catered for a function at the Community Day for Pearl Supported Living. This was under the supervision of chef and hotel manager from Southern Cross, Lynn Stanley.
The students cooked a traditional menu chosen by the residents of the Pearl Retirement Village. Pearl Aged Care is providing a much needed home for senior Territorians who need a hospital bed. It provides quality of life and reduces the pressure on our hospital, and we need to provide better services and more opportunities for our senior Territorians. The integrated aged care retirement village does just that - it is a great place with fabulous residents and fantastic staff, and they were all looking forward to the Darwin High School students’ catering efforts.
The favoured dishes on the night were prawn cocktail, beef Wellington and crme brle. They were just some of the dishes on offer. They were the ones I ate; and they were delicious.
The dinner was attended by the residents of the aged care facility, and others, including activities coordinator, Monia Juste-Constant, and event organiser and hospitality trainer from Darwin High School, Lorraine Kerrigan. Lorraine is a qualified chef of 22 years’ trade experience. She did her training in the United Kingdom, was granted a skilled visa six years ago, and only a few weeks ago became an Australian citizen, which is fantastic. There is no doubt that Australia has gained a very good person in Lorraine.
The shortage in the hospitality industry inspired Lorraine to become a qualified trainer. This is her first position outside a large organisation. She had previously trained in a full-time working environment, but not a classroom. In her words, it is the most rewarding job she has ever done. I was impressed with the standard of catering and the community spirit of the event, which included the coming together of senior Territorians and local high school students.
The starters of prawn cocktail, or cream of tomato soup and croutons, were prepared by Beatrice Poni and Beatrice Jackson. The mains of beef Wellington, roasted pumpkin, and ricotta tortellini with sage butter, were constructed by Robyn Matthews and Sarah Meldrum. The students not only cooked the food, but assisted in the set up of the dining room, and the service of the food at the function. Jill Schier, Jay Owen, Gwen Wilkinson, Ellen Favennec, Adam Smith, Mala Lemon, and Samantha Hammond all helped with the preparation of the food and dining area; and Eric Lawrence Kute helped make the desserts. They did an excellent job of preparing a high quality meal and service. They were professional and courteous, the food was delicious, and you could not have asked for anything more. These were Certificate II students catering at the Pearl Seniors’ Village.
The residents loved having the students there, and a common sentiment on the night was how nice it was to have so many young people around. They were impressed with the students’ manner and demeanour. They were not the only ones impressed - I am never surprised by the achievements of Darwin High School students - a tremendous school that continuously produces quality students, and I was very impressed by the students on the night; so friendly and helpful. It is a fantastic example of what people do in schools now.
Getting out like that is an event inspired by community spirit, that obviously also saw education outcomes, and saw them engaging with senior Territorians in that retirement village. It is a fantastic story and I certainly hope, in the future, that Pearl attracts more people who are inspired by community spirit. If anyone wants to volunteer, you can contact Pearl any time, and they will talk to you about how you can volunteer and the many ways you can do that.
This was a community day that saw the students there from 9 am until past 9 pm. They were there for over 12 hours, doing the prep, the cooking, the set up, the cleaning, the lot. It was an impressive effort. Congratulations to everyone involved; it was a wonderful event which gave the students a rare opportunity to work as a team in a commercial environment and contribute to the community while also gaining real life industry experience for their Certificate II in Hospitality, Kitchen Operations.
The kitchen at Pearl is fantastic; obviously, a brand new building. The care and thought that has gone into that from Southern Cross Care has been quite extraordinary, and if you ever get a chance to do a tour of that retirement village, you will be impressed with the thought that has gone into it, and the quality of what they have done. But, a building is a building, and it is there for the service it provides.
The staff have a wonderful attitude, and that is reflected in the glint in the eyes of the residents; they really do appreciate the time they get to spend at Pearl and the quality of care and attention they get; it really is a wonderful operation.
Going back to the top, the supervision of Chef and Hotel Manager, Lynn Stanley, from Southern Cross, was an excellent opportunity and experience for the students to be able to work under her tutelage, in her kitchen, with all her years of experience. She ran a tight ship, and it was a fabulous night, and I wish everyone all the best. I hope to see more things like that at Pearl in the future, and I commend all the students.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish this evening to talk briefly on the good exploits of the Humpty Doo Primary School, which is one of the schools in my electorate, and a fine school it is, complete with a rich history in teaching, enriching, and entertaining countless numbers of students over the 30-plus years of its life.
The school was opened over 30 years ago when Humpty Doo was just a tiny dot on the map. Now the school is surrounded by other schools, churches, shops, sporting and community facilities, and many more people on rural blocks and properties. There are around 394 students, which makes it a very large primary school, and that in itself brings challenges in teaching and accommodating the students, teachers, and support staff.
Recently, I attended their school concert with the theme of space, and what a lovely evening it was. The classes performed to space music, which was as funny as it was entertaining. From looking at the costumes it was clear that many hours of work had been expended to create such memorable costumes and a memorable event, and I am sure much hard work was done by class teachers and the parents.
The concert program included: Nightflight to Venus; Spacial Awareness; Star Trekkin’; Space Cadets; We Are One; Best Kept Secret; Written in the Stars; Moonstruck; Dr Who theme; The Truth is Out There; Why does the Sun Shine?; The History of Space Travel; What Planet Are You From; and Space Shuffle - all done by the classes, and it was a very lovely time.
The school is a credit to the hardworking teaching staff, ably led by Principal, Eric Smith, and Deputy Principal, Geoff Gillman, and the many staff across the classes and Special Education. A school would not be a school unless it has good administration and support staff, and Sheryl Stevens and Trish Stuart at the front office are there always to help and provide sound advice. Not to overlook the school council under the chairmanship of Michele Shugg and all her fellow councillors; they too did a good job and put in a great deal of time.
While many students achieve good and special awards at the school and in all manner of extracurricular activities, recently Karl Fox won the BMX Northern Territory championships which were held in Nhulunbuy; congratulations to him.
I would also like to briefly mention the awards from the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club, which I attended recently, and I am the patron of that club. It is a funny, terrific club, with many good families and parents putting in countless hours to see their children, both boys and girls, enjoy horse riding and equestrian.
The awards for the year were: Lead Line, the Champion was Jordyn Pethick, with Reserve Champion, Summer Malone; Junior Rider Champion was Emily Hubble; and the Reserve went to Amy Fisher; 10 to 13-year-olds, the Champion was Jayme Frost, and Reserve was Shannah Mudge; 13 to 15-year-olds, the Champion was Caleb White; and the Reserve went to Paige Barcroft; 15 to 17-year-olds, the Champion was Stella Smith; no reserve because there probably was not enough at the club to make choices from; 17 to 26-year-olds, the Champion was Nadine Ikin; and 26-years old and over, the Champion was Jane Spinks. Well done to all of them and well done to the club. It is a good club and a very popular club; it has huge and good attendance at all the events they hold during the year. They are in recess next year, but I look forward to them starting up again at the beginning of the year.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a serious comment; it is nothing to do with my electorate, but more to do with my shadow portfolios. I have gone through the Pastoral Land Board’s Annual Report for 2009-10, and I express concern with the contents in the foreword, which I quote:
The question has to be asked, why are they unable to do their job? I would say it is because they are not being resourced properly and government is not taking this part of the industry seriously. Further down in the report, and this is particularly concerning in regard to the review of the Pastoral Land Act and the pending amendments to that act, which are on hold at the moment, and rightly so:
You have amendments to the Pastoral Land Act, and yet the Pastoral Land Board was not even consulted. That is just appalling. I further quote from the foreword:
They will not be monitoring the massive pastoral estate - half the Northern Territory’s land mass.
Other issues raised in the submission by the board include the bureaucratic decision-making model adopted, and the need for objective criteria in land clearing decisions at the enterprise property level. Under the proposed amendments the government wants to put through in regard to the Pastoral Land Act, the Pastoral Land Board will have no formal functions, and they will no longer be an independent body with any statutory responsibilities for the pastoral estate. If the legislative changes are enacted in 2012, this will be the last report of the Pastoral Land Board as required by its current statutory obligations. What is going to happen is, the government wants this Pastoral Land Board to consult with the minister, and yet they are not giving it any statutory powers.
They are taking away a very important role this board has played to monitor and manage half the Northern Territory’s land mass. I have looked at the proposed bill and amendments and they say the minister will take advice from the new Pastoral Land Board. I find that quite bizarre because, from talking with industry and this board, they have never had a meeting with the current minister; and have not and did not have a meeting with the previous minister. Why would the board report to the minister under the new amendments when the minister was never interested in talking with them prior to these amendments coming into existence? It is a very serious issue.
Clearly, I have issues with this and I will be taking them up with the minister’s office and the appropriate authorities; however, we need to seriously look at this impending legislation because 50% of the Northern Territory’s land mass will not be monitored correctly. Also, there are obviously no resources being allocated to undertake the very important job of the pastoral land monitoring programs.
Related to this, and in the report tabled yesterday regarding the Animal Welfare Sub-committee - one of the recommendations was for government to look at how Mataranka Station could possibly come under the management or monitoring role of the Pastoral Land Board. That is a good recommendation and I hope the government seriously looks at that; however, it should be looking seriously at what it is trying to do and how it is trying to disembowel the Pastoral Land Board, because it is just not on.
Our pastoral industry needs help and support. It does not need things being taken away from it at this point in time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fantastic to have an opportunity to speak tonight. It is very difficult talking in adjournments because I am heavily involved in so many different activities in Alice Springs, but I will reflect on one activity I was involved in last Saturday, before moving on to other issues.
I am the patron of the Alice Springs Karting Club, and it is a great honour to be part of one of the motor sports in Alice Springs. On Saturday night, I attended the annual awards night, a great function held at the go-kart club in the open air in the car park under some shade; a fantastic setting and great food. I congratulate Craig Sheer who ran the night, organised all the trophies and pulled everything together.
I recognise the hard work of the committee, and in particular, Vice President, Jamie de Brenni; and President, Gary Burns; along with Peter Oakey, the Treasurer; Natalie Mohamed, the Secretary; and other committee members: Mike Thompson, Paul Gower, Nicky Betteridge, Daniel Ling and Paul Little. Congratulations to Paul’s son, Jordi, for the success he experienced this year.
I congratulate James Ling for becoming the Junior Club Champion, and Craig Shear for the Club Man of the Year.
There has been a reinvigorated approach to the go-kart club over the last couple of years; there is a high number of carts now running around the circuit and a higher level of participation by local community members who are now actively racing or have their kids or friends and family racing - that is fantastic.
It is a great sport for middle-aged or older men to get themselves involved in. Too often in society we do not see enough people of my age and older actively participating in sport. It is a great event and I would encourage anyone who reads this Hansard, or who is eagerly listening on the radio; when they find themselves in Alice Springs, come down to the go-kart club. I am sure we could arrange a trip round the track on Daisy’s No 47. Congratulations to those guys, and I look forward to a fantastic year.
I can say, with my seven minutes remaining at 7.16 pm, I am heavily disappointed we are already in adjournment. There are a number of important things we need to be talking about on a more regular basis. The government likes to complain that it brings statements into this House and the opposition does not speak enough. Well, an issue that is important to all of us is Indigenous affairs. There was an Indigenous statement introduced into this parliament yesterday that only had a couple of speakers, and today only one person was able to speak before the government adjourned it. That is a sign of a lazy government.
I was sitting here with a speech prepared, the way I normally prepare my speeches with a few dot points, but I was sitting here with a speech prepared ready to talk about issues that need to be debated in this Chamber, whether it is outstations and talking about the rumours that are floating around at the moment about Malinja, just north of Elliott, that has had no water. Everyone has been moved out of their outstation into Elliott for overcrowding. We were talking about the rumours about Minyerri community who are apparently getting their SIHIP works done at the moment, and the allegations people have to sleep in the creek while their houses are being refurbished. Those rumours are rife at the moment.
These are the things we should be debating in this Chamber; not going home early because we have a tired and lazy government. We should be debating why, under SIHIP, the Northern Territory Labor government are putting power poles in the middle of the road.
There was a fantastic story written by Alyssa Betts in today’s Northern Territory News highlighting ‘only in the Territory’, the complete incompetence and non-commonsense of why someone would put a power pole in the middle of the road; and not just once, they did it seven times. Because: ‘That’s all right, because it is just those Aboriginal people in that town camp; that is just the way it’s done. We will put the power pole there, and we might fix the road later’. So, everyone has to drive around and they damage their cars, and then they get in trouble for driving damaged and derelict cars on the road, because we do not want damaged and derelict cars on the road. This nonsensical approach to administration in the Northern Territory, particularly on this important issue of SIHIP, under the umbrella of Aboriginal affairs, should have been debated today rather than the government going home early. It is a very important point.
We should have been standing here debating the shires and how the minister, the member for Arnhem, the Minister for Local Government, now known as the one who speaks with the forked tongue, says on the one hand that she fully supports the shires, but she is out in the Daly having meetings at Peppimenarti, and tomorrow at Daly River, talking about how she is going to break up the Victoria Daly Shire, with the member for Daly. He sees the political problem he has, because he has not listened to the people. Right across the Northern Territory there is only one word people are talking about and that is ‘shires’. The second word is ‘outstations’.
People have had enough of shires and we should be debating shires. Bring in a statement on local government next time you are in here, minister with the forked tongue. Come in here and tell us what you are going to do for every other shire. You have now put the offer out for a breakup of a council in Victoria Daly through the Daly Region, which is something I fully support. I support a regional council model and if the community says to me they want a regional council for Wadeye, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Daly River, Emu Point, the two Woodies, and Woolianna, they will get it under the Country Liberals because that is our role in consulting with people after the election about what type of regional council structure they want, as we get rid of these shires that everyone I talk to in the bush says are toxic. That is what we should be talking about.
I encourage every community that wants to get rid of these shires and have a regional council to approach Adam Giles, the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, about what type of model they can have, because under the Country Liberals we will listen. We will give you a regional council. We will rid you of these toxic shires.
We will bring reform of local government in the Northern Territory that the people need and the people want, and we will stop the shires and Labor having no outstation policy and driving everyone into Darwin, into Palmerston, to live on our streets; into Alice Springs, into Tennant Creek, into Katherine, living on the streets, living rough; children not getting a good education and we all see the social factors that come out of that.
I challenge the minister with the forked tongue to come here with a statement on local government. Tell us which other shires she is going to break up. Stop hiding behind that veil of secrecy, the veil of the forked tongue where she says one thing out bush to the people on the ground, plays trickery and treachery to the Aboriginal people, and says something else in the media up here. She is trying to placate the workers in the shires.
I said last week that we will improve the services in the regional councils. We will be delivering more jobs in the bush - not fewer, more jobs – more jobs, more services under the Country Liberals with the regional council model …
Ms Walker: Next you will be saying you will be fighting them on the beaches!
Mr GILES: … more and more …
Ms Walker: More and more hot air!
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy goes on and tries to interrupt proceedings in this debate because she knows she is at risk; because she knows, politically, she is in trouble because the shires are poison in her region. She knows.
Moving onto another matter, I am told the prison officer numbers at Alice Springs correctional centre are about 120 people looking after more than 600 inmates, and that includes having to look after and resource the Tennant Creek or Barkly work camp. If rumours are true that as few as five prison officers are looking after 600, and more, inmates at night and on the weekends, that is a disgrace. How do you expect five prison officers to be able to look after more than 600 prisoners at night; 120 prisoners an officer? It is no wonder there are problems going on with the negotiation of the EBA. I encourage all prison officers to speak up about the poor staffing levels at the Alice Springs prison because it is putting officers’ lives in jeopardy in terms of OH&S. That is not a good place to be working in.
Lastly, today I have written to the Construction minister, the Lands and Planning minister, and copied to the Chief Minister, calling on them to bring forward their Kilgariff subdivision plans.
Alice Springs’ economy is in a difficult position. Tourism is down, people are leaving, the property and business services are feeling the effects of a downturn in the housing industry, and it is having flow-on effects to retail and hospitality. If we are going to start driving forward with our economy, the key area to start rectification is the residential housing construction industry. I encourage the minister, I would implore him to talk to me about bringing forward the Kilgariff redevelopment so we can see an increase in residential housing; a stimulation of the construction sector, particularly on residential development, and that is something that can start to spur on our local community.
While we wait for industries such as tourism to regroup itself with the Australian dollar; while we wait for the tourist numbers to come back; while we wait for some of those tourism campaigns to get greater attraction to bring people back to Alice Springs. And, at the same time as we are stimulating our economy through the residential housing construction sector, we might get the government to listen on law and order; to get the criminals off the street; to make parents, and mums and dads, and kids feel safe to be able to walk around the streets; not just at night, but in the daytime, and we can start ridding ourselves of six-foot fences with razor wire where we all retreat to in the evening after work. We need to build that community back up again, and that starts with the government addressing law and order and, importantly, we have to stimulate the local economy; that is about private sector …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! It would appear that the clock has timed out. Therefore the member’s …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Did it start?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it did.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have an education theme to my adjournment tonight, and here are a few things I would like to talk about. The first one is the highly successful excursion to Canberra in September for Year 6 Nhulunbuy Primary School students, from 2 to 12 September. I have a child in Year 6 at Nhulunbuy Primary School, and I had accompanied my other child to Canberra on a school trip a few years ago so I was really pleased to be able to attend this year’s trip as well.
I should add that I went as a parent/helper, so I was not there for a holiday; it was actually hard work, but it was also really enjoyable. I will not go through the list of names of the children who attended, but seek leave to table that list of names to have it incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is that permissible? I attempted to do that recently and was told that you either have to put the whole speech in or only …
Ms WALKER: It is just the list of names, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a list of 50 names.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I remember that issue you raise. There is a difference between a list of names of people and the rest of the speech. I think it was a eulogy you wanted to incorporate. There are some differences, and it was ruled that you could not do it, but a list of names you can incorporate.
Ms WALKER: It is a list of 50 names of students; first names, surnames, not from a spreadsheet. So I will incorporate those names, thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker:
Mitchell Alexander, Emma Alexander, Georgette Birch, Mattias Cedervall Norton, Shyanne Dhurrkay, Marika Dobell, Ryleigh Dowd, Hayley Dunn, Braedon Dwyer, Kiara Foggin, Holly Goncalves, Jack Haddock, Will Heath, Shania Jongedyk, Tyler Lomarrd, Mali Martin, Joel McCarthy, Tom McGrath, Lachlan Millard, Jacinta Misob, Joel Morris, Braedon Moyle, Kaya Munungurr, Maggie Nash, Samuel Nyamazana, Mitchell Obrien, Ned Odell, Rhianna Parker, Lucille Patullo, Madison Pearce, Mathew Peart, Lara Phelps, Jack Pitkin, Dakota Priestley, Trent Richter, Bree Roath, Finn Russell, Winston Singh, Maddi Slatter, Koby Snowden, Cameron Stiff, Emily Tankard, Lincoln Teagle, Patrick Walker, Ruby Walker, Billy Wanambi, Callum Williamson, Charlie Willis, Emily Wrathall, and Maryann Yunupingu.
I also acknowledge the two Year 6 teachers who were on this trip, Ms Ahna Hawkett and Ms Kate Phillips. These two women are absolutely incredible, and I take my hat off to them, as did the other parents who were on this particular trip. They were on call 24/7; it was a 12-day trip, and that 12-day trip included two weekends. They gave up two weekends - I know the Principal, Matt Watson, organised those two teachers would have that time restored to them in lieu - but they were absolutely incredible. They were good in that they are always very firm, but very fair, and always very consistent in dealing with the children.
Everywhere we went, and we had a huge agenda in and around Canberra, to the War Memorial, the Australian Institute of Sport, fun things like ice skating, but it did not matter, wherever we went, people always commented on how well-behaved our students were, and how smart they looked.
We were all decked out in uniform tracksuits and, to be honest, I hate wearing a tracksuit, but I did not care, it was so cold down there, I just needed to be warm. But these tracksuits were really smart; they are the colours of the Territory and had the school name embroidered on the back, so everyone knew where we were from. Everywhere we went, people commented and complimented the kids on their behaviour and how everyone looked. That is a credit to the kids, it is a credit to their families, and a credit to their school as well.
I need to mention the parents who accompanied: Ali Snowden, Glenda Birch - who was my room-mate throughout the trip, and what a great room-mate she was - Melissa Phelps, Rowdy McGrath, and Mal Pitkin. I thank all those parents who took leave from their jobs and paid their own way to be there, and worked really hard. Each parent was allocated a group of children to look after. I was regarded as a floater, because I actually had to leave the school trip two days early, and I did not travel with them to Canberra but met them there that night following some business I was on in Melbourne.
I also want to acknowledge the hard-working parent committee, chaired by Anna Cedervall Norton, and acknowledge the huge amount of work that parent committee did in fundraising. These kids, with their families, raised thousands and thousands of dollars to help make the trip more affordable to everyone. They baked cakes, did a dog wash every Saturday morning, picked up rubbish and, basically, any job that was going around town. If people are looking for a fundraising opportunity and contact my office, we always say: ‘Oh, phone the primary school, see if the Year 6 Canberra trip students are interested in doing that’.
I also acknowledge Mr Mike Sandford, Assistant Principal, who certainly worked very hard in overseeing that everything was sorted and kosher for the trip, and also liaised with the tour company, Macquarie Tours in New South Wales, about the itinerary, the accommodation, and a million things that needed to be organised.
I know parents are organising and fundraising for next year’s trip. I wish them well and I hope this excursion continues to happen at Nhulunbuy Primary School for many years to come, because it is incredibly worthwhile to get kids to our national capital to learn more about our country, our history, and our involvement in wars. National Archives was another place we visited that was fascinating, and the National Sound and Film Archives as well. I will leave it there for that particular one.
I mentioned that I had to leave Canberra on Saturday, 10 September, two days before the kids were due back in Nhulunbuy, and the reason I had to leave was because I was attending the Northern Territory Training Awards that evening in Darwin at the Convention Centre. I want to say what an outstanding event it was to bring together, across a number of different categories celebrating excellence in training, from training providers to those receiving the training, to employers who support training, and businesses that support training. It was a fantastic night. This sounds a bit selfish, but I am going to highlight the six finalists from my electorate. For a bush electorate, I reckon we punch above our weight in the education and training sector.
For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Student of the Year Award, Ludwig Schebeck, from Nhulunbuy was a finalist. This young man is currently studying a Certificate II in Engineering at Rio Tinto Alcan. He is a graduate of the Rio Tinto Alcan Alert Program, and a very worthy finalist. Steven Dhurrkay, who is doing a Certificate II in Metaliforous Mining Operations, again with Rio Tinto, is also a finalist. I went to the Alert Program graduation when Steven and Ludwig graduated some months ago, and I cannot tell you how good that RTA Alert Program is. The sense of pride, not only amongst those graduates - not all young men, but mainly young men and their families - is incredible.
In the category VET in Schools Student of the Year sponsored by the East Arnhem Shire Council, congratulations to Keegan Kelly, who was runner-up. Keegan Kelly is doing Certificate I Engineering at Nhulunbuy High School through the Nhulunbuy High School RTO. Keegan is a fantastic young man, and he would be very busy right now because they are about to start their Year 12 exams next week. I wish Keegan every success.
Also in that category VET in Schools Student of the Year was Taylor Neimz, who has undertaken various certificates. She is also a Nhulunbuy High School student participating in VET through the RTO at Nhulunbuy High School.
School Based Apprentice or Trainee of the Year, sponsored by Group Training Northern Territory, one of the finalists was young Michael Mayer, from Nhulunbuy High School who has been studying with Certificate II in Business, again through the RTO at the high school, and through the host employer where he goes, I suspect for one day a week, with Rio Tinto Alcan. Michael Mayer is a fantastic young man; he is also an excellent tennis player and a great coach as well - he coaches my boys. I daresay this Saturday night he might be up for an award or two.
The VET Teacher/Trainer of the Year Award winner, sponsored by Mr Richard Ryan of AO and Territory Technology Solutions, was Marlene Organ from Nhulunbuy High School. She is the coordinator and trainer for the RTO at Nhulunbuy High School and also established the RTO - she is incredible. She went to the Australian finals in Sydney last year, which I attended representing the minister; Marlene did not win, but I have my fingers and toes crossed this year that Marlene will be the winner because she is such an outstanding individual, and incredibly committed to what she does.
The Employer of the Year Award, sponsored by Southern Cross Television, one of the finalists was the East Arnhem Shire Council. I have heard the member for Braitling bag the shires and call them toxic; I cannot tell him how offensive that is to shires, including the East Arnhem Shire Council, which is doing an amazing job. To see it nominated for this award - I am disappointed it did not win - however, the fact that it was a finalist is something to be very proud of. I want to congratulate Traditional Credit Union, who won that particular award.
It looks like I am running out of time. I was going to talk about the Smart Schools Award and winners because again my electorate was punching above its weight, and our remote Indigenous schools, but I will save that for another time.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Mount Liebig School on their sports weekend on 19 October. Congratulations to teachers, Carolyn Keegan and Larry Kenny, and to the Indigenous teachers because it was a cross-border sports weekend, and kids came over from Western Australia, from Kiwirrkurra. I thank Roderick Kantamara and Rita, his wife; Maureen Napangardi, Lorna Wheeler, Sarah Stockman, Patricia Phillipus, Violet Nelson, Josephine Minor, Alison Multa, and teachers who came from Kiwirrkurra.
The last time the sports weekend was held was in 1981 at Papunya. It is so fantastic to see the Pintupi/Luritja sports carnival back in that area and kids enjoying sports activities along with their teachers. Sonja Bamford from Softball NT gave them a hand, and also Mark Wakeling from Soccer Northern Territory, and Reggie Smith from Football Northern Territory so it was a real collaboration between the schools and the government departments giving support to these kids coming together to celebrate sports. They have changed the name from tug-of-war to tug-a-rope; better name to use when we are dealing with children.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will read out the statement they sent to me:
On 19 October, Mount Liebig School held the second inter-school Pintubi/Luritja sports carnival, the first being held in Papunya in 1981. The schools attending included Haasts Bluff, Kintore, Papunya, and students travelled from Kiwirrkurra in Western Australia, and the host school, Mount Liebig. Seventy-five primary school children from Transition to Year 7 participated in the carnival and 24 teaching staff supported it. Also supporting the carnival were Sonja Bamford from Softball NT, Mark Wakeling from Soccer Northern Territory, and Reggie Smith from Football NT. I also thank Glenys and Faye for preparing the food for the children while they were there.
The children participated in softball, football, soccer, sprints, and tug-of-rope. Unfortunately, due to bad weather on Thursday evening, the athletic events: shot put, javelin, and discus were cancelled.
The finals for the sporting events were held on Thursday afternoon commencing with soccer. The finalists were Kiwirrkurra and Haasts Bluff. It was a very close game with scores levelled at one-all at final time. At the end of the time, the scores were locked leading to a penalty shoot-out to decide the overall winner. The final result was Haasts Bluff, 2 and Kiwirrkurra 3. A special mention of the goalie, Ronica, from Kiwirrkurra; a very brave little girl.
The softball finals were contested by Kiwirrkurra and Mount Liebig schools. It was a very well-played final from all competitors. The final score was Mount Liebig, 12 and Kiwirrkurra, 5. A special mention to Watiyawanu School, Mount Liebig’s captain, Megan, for great pitching.
The last final on agenda for the day was football. In the final were Kintore and Mount Liebig. Kintore got off to a flying start with great skills shown by Patrick and Moses. Mount Liebig regrouped and managed an exciting comeback with great contributions by Jacob, Davin, Harold and Megan, Sacquel, and Selina. The final score was Kintore 5 goals and 4 behinds, and Mount Liebig with 7 goals and 5 behinds. Go the Saints!
Age sprints were held on the Friday morning with children sprinting 50 metres. The final results were Transition and Year 1, Tanisha from Kintore School; Year 2, Sheraldine from Haasts Bluff School; Year 3, Billy from Haasts Bluff School; Year 4, Patrick from Kintore School; Year 5, Harold from Mount Liebig School; Year 6, Davin from Mount Liebig School; and Middle years, Presley and Isaiah from Papunya School.
There was a very exciting round robin competition of tug-of-rope which saw Haasts Bluff School and Mount Liebig make it to the final. Despite having only a 15-minute rest, Haasts Bluff was able to regroup and win the competition 2 to 1. The overall runner-up of the carnival was Kiwirrkurra, and the overall winner was Mount Liebig School. Trophies were presented to all the children by the community people. Once again, I say thank you to Glenys, Faye, and Neil and, of course, his late father. His father passed away only a couple of days ago.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, my motivation to move to the Territory was to experience frontier country in Australia and, to a large degree, the last frontier. I certainly found that country just over 30 years ago and now, having spent more than half of my life in the Territory, can reflect on the incredible learning that goes with it.
The natural environment is one aspect of the frontier, and the Territory is certainly world-class in that respect; however, the people who occupy the land are the dynamic elements on country with their culture, language, law, and sense of community.
When I landed in Tennant Creek, I arrived at a busy regional airport serviced by two major Australian airlines that supported the thriving mining and pastoral economy, boasting a population of over 5000. One aspect of this frontier town I remember was it seemed to have every nationality on Earth, and the delicatessen at the famous Peter’s Place Supermarket had more continental smallgoods than the metropolitan market places of western Sydney I had left behind.
I distinctly remember the Aboriginal people moving amongst the exciting multicultural melting pot, particularly those older people whose presence expressed the stories of a timeless land and a component of our Australian community with which I was not fully cognisant. One early image that sticks in my mind is of an old, red Dodge truck full of Aboriginal people from a nearby outstation on a Saturday morning parked up the road from Peter’s Place as the people did their shopping and moved about the bustling main street businesses. As I came to learn more about the community, I discovered Nelson Jappangkka and the other Nouradidgee law men who travelled in the old truck bringing their outstation community to town each week to access services and shopping.
On reflection, I had the privilege of living among, working with, and learning from some of the most honoured frontiersmen like Walter Nelson, Peter Dixon, Mr D D Frank, Peter Weston, Archie Allan, Hector Anderson, Jack Cotton, Old Tommy Beasley, King Billy, Stepper Epenarra, Big Nelson, Gerry Ladd, Old Davy, Dingo Tommy, Don Rory, Don Dixon, Johnson Timothy, Musso Harvey, Barney Pluto, Dinny McDinney, Eric King, Tommy George, Julloo and the incredible women who stood beside them looking after their families and communities.
I was privileged to learn my lessons from celebrated ceremonial leaders, and I reflect on the old people as my mentors who not only taught me about physical survival on new lands, but about the important spiritual connectivity to country, about true identity, and about family.
It is with great sadness I witnessed the passing of these Elders and leaders in our community over many years and, most recently, of Mr Nugget Smith, aged 81 years, of Alpurrurulam, who also played an important part in my cross-cultural education, now as a member of parliament. Mr Smith was truly the old school gentleman who walked in two worlds and welcomed me to a community he had pioneered in a highly-politicised move off Lake Nash Station to establish Alpurrurulam in the early 1980s.
Most recently, as the Minister for Lands and Planning, I worked with this Elder as he represented his community through the NT Place Names Committee to provide the Alpurrurulam street names in first language that will add to the list of powerful legacies he has left behind representing a wonderful lifetime of struggle and achievement. For the ancestors, the Elders, our community leaders, and those recently deceased, may they rest in peace as we who are left behind go on to honour their lives and their valuable contributions to the society we all share and celebrate.
It is with great sadness that I acknowledge the passing of one of the true McCarthy family matriarchs, Aileen Carey, date of birth, 9 April 1930.
Aunt Aileen passed away in Brisbane on 25 October 2011 in the company of her family after a brief illness, leaving behind her daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughters, as well as the many family members and friends who loved this great lady.
Aileen was a beautiful child with an older brother, Bob, and a younger brother, John, and grew into an attractive woman who commanded the attention of those in whichever room she entered. My mother’s mother, Cecilia Geelan was protective of young Aileen, often providing strict counsel in relation to the many suitors that would call, and was very clear to Aileen’s parents on the character assessment of such gentleman, judging very few as being worthy. Aileen eventually married and had two children, Jeffrey and Robyn, and as life’s circumstances would dictate chose to raise her family as a single mother in tough times in western Sydney. The absolute bonus for my family was that my brothers and sisters stayed close to our cousins and aunt, growing up together in a close extended family network. It is ironic that out of the siblings two wild colonial boys emerged; that being Wongali cousin, Jeff Carey, Aileen’s son, and me.
Our relationship challenged the rest of the family, but grew into a close bond sharing some wild times on the east coast, and concluding in just over 20 years spent together in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Aunt Aileen was the coolest aunt you could get; she was truly hip and, on reflection, she achieved this celebrated status by staying close to the young people in her family.
Aileen nurtured her own children, as well as our family and the friends we brought into her family home, which kept her in touch with what was happening in the teenage culture and on the street. We were not always considerate to Aunt Aileen and, in our own ways, threw up many challenges along the way. However, Aunt Aileen never once gave up and supported all the kids who entered her life, often with that realistic tough love.
One of the highlights along the way was Aunt Aileen packing up her family home and moving to Tennant Creek with her daughter, Robyn, and granddaughter, Kristie. There were already two McCarthys in the region and when both Aileen and Robyn gained employment, add Wongali to the mix; they all worked for the Department of Education and we were looking at a very real opportunity of taking over.
Aunt Aileen chose to leave the Territory after Robyn and Kristie were settled. Cousin Jeffrey was well and truly galvanised to Tennant Creek, and two other McCarthys had joined the family in the Territory. Aunt Aileen returned to Sydney and eventually moved to Brisbane to be with Robyn and Val, their children, and Kristie and Cameron, and their young children, and celebrated with her fantastic family legacy; however, at 81 years, was called to be with her God.
Aileen Carey was a great Australian, a true woman of faith, a battler, a character, and much loved by all her friends and family.
Goodbye Aunt Aileen and rest in peace.
I look forward to the gathering of the McCarthy clan next week where we will celebrate your life and farewell you in the solemn traditions of the Catholic Church and, as you would expect, Aileen, share the family history with the young ones that will, of course, involve both tears and laughter.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, this will be short because due to a computer glitch, I have not been able to print all the information I wanted, unfortunately. I want to raise the concerns I have in regard to the Palmerston Animal Welfare Shelter.
Lisa and her team of employees, around nine, plus a band of very dedicated volunteers have, unfortunately, had to vacate their premises in the Palmerston City Council compound and, essentially, nearly shut up shop. Nearly probably does not explain how intense a process this has been, something we have been working with and something I know the member for Daly is fully aware of as well. I know he knows quite a bit and was able to do a small, if not much, bit. Unfortunately, the member for Stuart is fully aware of it as well or, if he is not, his departmental staff has failed to properly inform the minister of potential failings within his department.
Without doubt, PAWS, a very much-loved animal welfare organisation based on volunteers, predominantly, is a not-for-profit charitable organisation and has its challenges, without a doubt. Management has not always come easy and these people are predominantly volunteers; however, they have been doing a massive range of services to the public.
One issue in particular I raise concern about is, in 2008 when they won a tender, subsequently becoming a contract for NRETAS for snake catching in the Darwin region. There were also contracts awarded for the Katherine region, and then for the Alice Springs region. They are separate contracts; however, they all, I believe, fall under the same contract number, which is D07-0596. The documents I have on my computer - the trusty little thing that will not let me print – has a contract acceptance which is signed by a Mr Mike Butler, Acting Director, Contracts and Procurement Services, on 14 April 2008. The contract rate listed in that same contract is for a service fee of $122 per active capturing or attempting to catch a snake or reptile.
My concern is that three months after this contract was entered into with the Northern Territory government, and after, whether there be an abundant season for snakes or not, the estimated 400-odd snakes that were put down in the tender guidelines, which was listed as a guide only, was reached within three months, and the Northern Territory government stopped paying; they refused to pay on invoice. The Northern Territory stopped paying and refused to pay the invoices issued.
For the month of April, it was $10 200; for the month of May, it was $16 300. They refused to pay these bills. This small organisation had wages. This small organisation was put into a position of great weakness.
What then happened is staff from within the department dragged them into the office and said: ‘Oh, no, it is all wrong. You need to sign this amendment to contract and only put in an invoice for $4333.33 per month. You must sign this’. Being in a position of weakness, being perhaps business nave, being a very small charitable organisation, they were left in a position with debts and having no option but to sign a small contract. That changed the dynamics. This original contract was a 60-month contract. Rough figures on the base of only 10 000 a month, so 92 callouts for capturing reptiles would have meant by the end of 2013 - the end of this intended contract - this small organisation would have made $600 000.
Subsequently, because of the blueing which occurred within the departments, this company had to succumb to its financial burden because of the sheer volume of snakes they were capturing, the service they were doing for the public, and the bullying that was forced upon them to change their contract - they were going bankrupt at the hands of the Northern Territory government. Along with other issues, these have predominantly led to this business, this little organisation, being in great jeopardy and having to retract from Palmerston, retract from many of the services they have been providing, which will probably affect whether or not a dog seized off the road becomes euthanised or re-homed. PAWS do the re-homing and, if they cannot operate, that dog will be euthanised.
I do not have all the details here because, again, this computer has stopped me from printing it. However, the minister is fully aware, and if he is not, he should grab his advisors and ask what happened. Because if this government had been dealing with one of the big corporations - Halkitis, Thiess, Macmahon - they would not have dragged them into a little room and said: ‘You guys have to sign this new contract and put yourself in financial jeopardy’. You would not have taken them into a room and bullied them over a barrel, and cost them. That would not have happened. In fact, it is obvious when we see prison blowouts of $200m, this government does not care about spending the money, but when it comes to dealing with someone who is weak and vulnerable, a small community group, you do not mind grabbing them and proverbially shafting them because you can. Grab a lady who is vulnerable, drag her into a room, she is financially strained at the time of seeking the amendment to a contract, and do her over.
This is a great government - a disgusting, disgraceful, trashcan that should be ousted at the first opportunity. This lady deserves due compensation and, as I said, if it was any other company, if it was Telstra or Optus, you would be pinned against the wall as a government for your behaviour.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make this adjournment speech my reply to the motion we put forward yesterday because, after speaking with the Table Office and the Deputy Clerks, this has now gone down to the Orders of the Day and it is now No 6. It will probably never come up and, if this government is re-elected in 2012, we will be talking of the motion as it says: ‘Treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known emerging crime hot spot.’ But if this government is re-elected, by the time it gets debated again it will probably be the 2013-14 summer of crime.
I want to respond, while I could and while it is fresh in my mind, to some of the minister’s comments from yesterday. He said the government does not have all the solutions; there is no magic wand; these issues have been around for a long time; the issues I raised with regard to this motion. I will, just quickly read that again:
It is not good enough to say, just because it has been around for a long time, we can wash our hands of it; they have been, but you guys have not done enough. It is not good enough to say, just because these issues have been around for a long time, that is some sort of excuse. The minister mentioned that Alice Springs is a conservative stronghold; strong conservative seats in Central Australia, and the minister even admitted that he does not think that Labor will ever win a seat in Alice Springs.
Well, that is ridiculous. You have had 10 years to win the confidence, hearts, and minds of the people of Central Australia. All you had to do was front up and show some respect to the place. You came very close in 2005 to actually winning a seat in Alice Springs. You had a big name in the former mayor, Fran Kilgariff, up against the long time incumbent, Richard Lim. There was the Denis Burke factor, which was facing the CLP at the time. The tide was going out for the Country Liberals, and it was flowing in for the Australian Labor Party. In fact, you annihilated the CLP, picked up 19 seats, and left us with just four. So, if ever there was an opportunity to marshal the confidence and win the hearts and minds of the people of Central Australia, it was then and you missed that opportunity.
You may not get an opportunity like that again for a long time, but it is not our fault and you cannot blame the people of Central Australia and say: ‘They are all conservatives. They will never vote for us’. Rubbish! There are people down there that vote Labor, and there are people down there that are long-term, hard, rusted-on Labor supporters; they have been for their whole lives and they want to vote for you. The problem is they just cannot bring themselves to vote for you at the moment, the large majority of them, if the poll of 2008 is any indication with two party preferred vote in Central Australia of 75% to 25%.
That is not our fault and that is not the people of Central Australia’s fault. They are not just a bunch of old Liberal conservatives who could not care less about Labor. It is your fault. You have missed the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those people in Alice Springs and Central Australia. It is your fault, and this whole situation is your fault.
The minister said there is a 60-day operation about to commence. That is very interesting. I have not heard much about this 60-day operation. I would like to hear more about what it is. He did not embellish or expand on this last night in his comments, but I am guessing it is a 60-day blitz. A blitz might be a strong word - whatever you want to call it - to tackle and focus on law and order is good, and we say hallelujah, thank goodness, and well done.
Sixty days though, what happens after 60 days? Do things just slip back to the way they were? And when does that begin? Has that begun already? If so, that takes us up to December, maybe the end of December. There is still a lot of summer left in Alice Springs; there is still a lot of summer left through the official summer months of January and February and then there are still the warmer months of March leading well into April. That is a great deal of time for a great deal of damage to be done. I expect and hope that when that 60-day operation expires, there will be another operation of sorts and the government will not just say, okay, we have done that, and they will still treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spot, and they will continue to put in comprehensive law and order strategies to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots in Central Australia.
He says there are no immediate results, we have to put these plans in, and we have to get these things done, and we have to sit back and wait for the results; in many cases, you do. Things do not happen overnight and maybe eventually they will happen, but you have had 10 years - you have had 10 years to address this situation.
If, as the minister said, things were really bad in 1991 - and I believe him - if things were so bad, you were obviously aware, minister, of the situation and the potential for such lawlessness on the streets in Central Australia. If we had a massive peak in 1991, why did you not put in place comprehensive law and order strategies when you first came to power in 2001 to ensure that 10 years later we were not going to see a repeat of it? If you had done that, you could say we had a massive peak, this huge spike in lawlessness in 1991, but when we came to power - we had 10 years of trouble and unrest on the streets in Alice Springs - in 2001, we put in our comprehensive law and order strategies, and 10 years later, the place is wonderful; confidence is booming on the streets, people feel safe to walk from restaurants to bars at night, they feel safe to take their kids to parks, kids riding their bikes down the streets after dark, and the like. But, no, we have quite the opposite. To suggest there are no immediate results when you have had 10 years to get these things right - another missed opportunity.
The Youth Action Plan – he talks about Anzac Hill High School – as the member for Araluen said: ‘We shut down a high school, now we have to figure out what to do with it’. I have said before, it is just like that classic Yes Minister episode of the most efficient hospital in Great Britain; it is most efficient because it has no patients. This one is a bit like that; it is a youth hub with no kids in it. I have been there before and not a child in sight, but plenty of people in offices typing away and writing reports and doing something.
On and on he went with his excuses as to why things are the way they are in Alice Springs. He did pretty well not to mention the CLP; we put that challenge out to him. He mentioned the member for Braitling three times, the member for Greatorex three times, the opposition four times, the member for Araluen twice, and the Country Liberal brand once. He mentioned the opposition, all in all, about 13 times. If he was playing footy, that would be clangers or turnovers and he would be sent off, he would be benched; 13 turnovers in 30 minutes is pretty ordinary and he would be on the bench. I believe it is pretty ordinary, although he did do much better than his own Chief Minister today in one three-minute response to a question; he mentioned the CLP eight times, overall 17 times in Question Time. Everyone else mentioned us 44 times - a total of 61 times – so, again, we are front and centre in the hearts and minds of the Territory government.
The Chief Minister still has not got it. He does not quite get it yet that he cannot construct an argument without mentioning the Country Liberals, the Leader of the Opposition, or what have you. It is our job to focus on you, to keep you and hold you to account; it is your job to concentrate and focus on the people of the Northern Territory, and you are unable to do it as we have demonstrated today by the amount of focus, obsession, and unhealthy appetite you have for us. Maybe that is a lesson for the Northern Territory government
All in all, that is my response to the Alice Springs law and order motion brought to the House yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in spite of the Treasurer’s reassurances that all is sweetness and light in the world of Treasury, when the hard facts and the hard light of day strikes the budget papers coming out of government, we see that things are not well.
As the Treasurer reported to this House earlier today, the budget deficit has come in for the last financial year at $387m. The Treasurer said we would have a budget deficit, but a little more than 12 months ago when that budget was handed down, if memory serves me, it was about $309m. By the time the last budget came down for the current financial year, that number had expanded to $374m, and now the final figure for the year is $387m. To put that into context: in the six weeks between the current financial year budget coming down, the 2011-12 Budget, and the end of the 2010-11 financial year, the government was able to spend $2m or so a week more than they predicted six weeks out.
I note, with some amusement, for lack of better words, an expression in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which helps to explain this extra $2m a week they did not mean to accidentally spend in the last six weeks of the year. The expression, and I love these Treasury euphemisms, they were suffering from ‘an accelerated expenditure’. That means they spent money faster than they expected to - they spent money faster. They have this enormous capacity to spend money, and it is coming home to them.
I am dismayed that this Treasurer continues to say how everything is sweetness and light in budget land and that everything will be wonderful in the future, and all we have to do is wait for the surpluses to come out. But, those surpluses do not exist within the Treasury’s predictions into the future.
They cannot predict when that surplus will come back; they can tell us how much deficit there will be in the future. They predict deficit after deficit into the future, and then we have a guarantee of a surplus. Where? By what date? Certainly not by any projections of this government. Moreover, they have spent money on items off-budget which are quite surprising. I will give you an example. There was an off-budget spend of $18m for the Wirrina redevelopment. Okay, that is fine; I understand you want to redevelop the Wirrina area, that is good. But surely the purposes of Budget Cabinet is to plan bulk expenditure like $18m; so you go into Cabinet and make that part of your budget cycle. How can you, off the budget cycle, spend $18m? What, we forgot about it and we thought we would just add it on later? Or is it a case that this is government that makes policy on the run?
Another example is $17.8m for the construction of the gas-fired power station at Wadeye. Really, that was off-budget expenditure? You did not know you had to spend $17.8m on a new power station at Wadeye? You just sort of stumbled upon it, you went down there one day and said: ‘Oh, my goodness, there is a power station needed here’?
Surely we need integrity in our budget process so we can project and predict that sort of expenditure. A $4m grant for the construction of a new squash facility at the Marrara sports complex. Again, fine, if you want to do it, build the Marrara squash complex, but there is a budget cycle for it. This is about budgetary management, and the management is not there. It is just: ‘Oh, we have to go into Cabinet, we have to go reach into the public purse, and we have to spend money on this and that and this’, off the budget cycle.
The $7m for the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms; this was also off the budget cycle. Surely government knew at the last Budget Cabinet that they were going down this path of the Enough is Enough alcohol plan. Or did they? Because it does not appear that they did. They have just simply said: ‘Oh, sugar, we need $6m or $7m extra for the Enough is Enough campaign’. Surely that was part of the budget considerations at the last Budget Cabinet. I mean, what were you guys doing in there, because the total off-budget expenditure reaches $79.7m? That is $79.7m that you did not know you were going to spend on surprise expenditure like power stations, Wirrina redevelopments, and centrepiece policies. It shows and betrays a government that makes policy on the run, which is why they cannot stick to their budgets.
If you start tracking through other parts of the document you see how the government’s planning processes, and make-it-up-as-you-go-along processes, resonate through the document. I quote from page 15 of the document:
Okay, we are going to earn more than we spend. The fact is, there is no projected date attached to that. Moreover, the truth is perhaps that the new world we occupy, where Australians are saving more and spending less and being more cautious, hence GST revenues are falling, perhaps that is the new norm. This is a nervous environment we occupy, and I am not going to go into an economic dissertation on what is happening in Europe and all those things at the moment, but this is probably going to be the new reality for the next five or six years. Contain your decision-making process, get your budget systems right, and then prepare for the expenditure for major budget items in the budget process. You do not accidentally decide one day you need to buy a new power station. You do not accidentally decide you need a new set of squash courts. You can apply that to the budget process; that is why we have a budget process. Other than that, why bother?
It is with interest I note some of their revenue exercises are so embarrassing they have been removed, it would appear, from the budget paper. I draw the honourable Treasurer to page 13 where it says:
Blank. It just hangs there in space. Then, suddenly, you find:
That sentence does not make sense until you hold the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report up to the light and look very closely, and disappeared out of the annual report are the words:
Some of the more cynical amongst us would perhaps suggest the disappearance of the line that they are not making enough cash out of their real estate arm - namely, the public housing stock - is so embarrassing that someone wanted to delete it almost completely from the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. However, I am not such a cynical person. No, clearly that is a printing error but a very unfortunate place to put one, because it means all of a sudden discussion of the sales of public housing stock have been expunged from the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report; however, enough of that.
I also note there are some serious or substantial variations in some of the departments, and I am curious about why the police did not know they had to buy a new aeroplane at the beginning of the year. Once again, I expect it would have been a normal part of the budget cycle that you would have put a capital item like that before the Cabinet; but there it is:
Wow, I am surprised at that.
If there was ever a testimony to the higher crime rates in the Northern Territory, part of the extra $10m spent on employee expenses includes overtime. That means our police are busier than ever and have not been able to successfully budget for the poor outcomes on police overtime expenses.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to speak about an issue that has been raised by a number of my constituents, and many of their friends, who are currently enrolled with a registered training organisation to complete a Diploma of Enrolled Nursing.
We have a major shortage of nursing staff in this country, and later I would like to quote a number of those statistics. However, it is great to see there are Territorians studying this important and worthwhile vocation. The shortage is the reason why our Health minister has spent time overseas trying to attract and recruit staff for our hospitals: enrolled and registered nurses, doctors, surgeons, and a range of other people required to run a successful system. We now have the Flinders School of Medicine where we can have homegrown doctors and homegrown nurses. We also need homegrown enrolled nurses.
There are a group of people enrolled in a diploma course with an RTO called the Carer Training Centre but, unfortunately, there are some issues in relation to placements. These placements are for acute clinical placements; it is part of their training and they are required to do a six-week stint. I might add these stints are not paid; they do it with no salary and they run for six weeks. The people are required to take six weeks off work to do these placements and, I say again, they are not paid for them, and my information is they have all made arrangements to take this leave.
They now found there are some issues with the memorandum of understanding between the RTO - in fact, supposedly, all the RTOs - and the Health department, and their placements are in jeopardy. Given they have already been allocated the time off; if they are not able to complete these placements as part of their diploma, then these people are going to suffer financially.
Anxiety levels are running quite high in these groups, which is why they came to see me. As a result, I phoned the Chief Executive Officer of the RTO, the Carer Training Centre, and spoke to him in relation to a number of issues and asked many questions put to me by my constituents and their friends. He informed me there was an issue with the memorandum of understanding in relation to acute clinical placements at Royal Darwin Hospital and Katherine Hospital.
He also informed me, as a result of the number of questions I put to him, he only became aware of this issue when his organisation applied for placements. That was approximately five months ago, and the CEO has been trying to find a resolution to this issue for five months. He gave me some information in relation to contact he has had on a regular basis with people at Royal Darwin Hospital who are responsible for this and it seems they have delayed and delayed, with no good reason why it should take five months.
The CEO of CTC informed me all MOUs are being rewritten, when I put to him that my constituents had told me other students enrolled with other RTOs had received placements. Yet, the CEO of CTC was informed he had to wait until all the MOUs were written. There seems to be an inequity here that some RTOs are getting their placements approved and their students placed, yet this organisation is not. The reason given is that the MOU is with the legal people and it is going to take some more time.
We are now facing placements in less than three weeks and you can understand these people who have families - it is approaching Christmas - and they do not want to be unemployed or, should I say, not in receipt of an income for six weeks prior to Christmas.
These people are trying to improve themselves, they are doing what the community and we, as governments, ask people to do; that is, educate themselves, get out there, get a job, and enjoy the Territory lifestyle. However, these people are going to be seriously disadvantaged if the Health department, or whoever is responsible, continues to drag their feet.
There are a number of questions that need to be asked, and I hope those listening will take these into consideration and get a move on so there are not a lot of people out there, Territorians, who are going to be suffering from extremely high anxiety levels.
The first question that probably needs to be asked is: what is the current status of the rewrite of these memoranda of understanding for training organisations to access acute care clinical placements in the Northern Territory? Another question that needs to be asked is: when will they be available? We have only just over two-and-a-half weeks before these placements are due to commence. What memoranda of understanding are organisations currently using while a new MOU is being rewritten?
I am aware that there is a training organisation that does have a MOU dated 2009, but was advised in May/June 2011 that they cannot have acute care placements until the new MOU is available, but there are other training organisations currently accessing acute clinical placements at RDH without the new memorandum of understanding. What is preventing this organisation - the CTC, which my constituents are enrolled with - from having equal access?
Another question that needs to be asked is: why has the rewrite taken so long? Could it suggest there are significant amendments required and, if that is the case, perhaps the existing MOU from 2009 which is currently allowing other training organisations to access acute clinical placements is placing NT Health at risk, maybe? Not to mention the patients and staff who come into contact with these students.
I would again point out that we have a nursing shortage in this country, yet NT Health appear to be dragging their feet with these people and, perhaps, delaying their graduation which would then allow these people to go into the workforce as fully-qualified enrolled nurses.
I further questioned the CEO and he informs me that at no stage was he, or has he, been advised that the current MOU which was signed in 2009 was, or is, invalid. The only way he found out there was an issue was when his organisation applied for acute clinical placements.
The Carer Training Centre students are scheduled for placement in less than two-and-a-half weeks, and they have applied for and been granted leave without pay for six weeks from their current employers. If this MOU is not in place, these students will be significantly financially disadvantaged and this will create hardship for them.
Families, and especially my constituents and their friends, are already facing hardships with increased cost of living, high rents, and a raft of other things that are costing these families. They cannot afford to lose six weeks pay.
As a matter of urgency, I ask those opposite to take note of the comments I have made tonight; deal with this matter immediately, and give equity to all those dedicated students who are fulfilling such a needed role when we are so desperately short of these types of people, not only as numbers in the workforce, but the type of dedicated people who choose to do this as a vocation; not so much for the money, but because they are dedicated to helping others in their community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to deal with this matter immediately and lower these people's anxiety levels.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENTS BY SPEAKER
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for wearing red today in support of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. At the beginning of the CPA meeting at 12 noon, if you are willing to have your photograph taken, we can send it to the foundation, and media may attend as well. I understand parliamentarians across Australia are going to be supporting the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and child protection today by wearing red. I thank you for your support today.
Swearing-in of Administrator Designate
Madam SPEAKER: On a housekeeping matter, as you would be aware, we have flowers in the Chamber for the swearing-in of the new Administrator next Monday. I have been asked to remind members to remove everything from your desks tonight because if you are not coming, there will be other people sitting in your seats, and obviously …
Dr Burns: What?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am afraid so, Leader of Government Business. We need to have everything removed. I know some members have a lot of material in the Chamber - if you can please take it away. If you need a box, let the Legislative Assembly staff know and we will organise that.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 8 Palmerston Christian School students accompanied by Mrs Ana Abbott and Ms Amy Taylor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Three Bills Together
Take Three Bills Together
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184); Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 (Serial 185); and Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 (Serial 186):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): We note for the record that we have no objection to dealing with these legislative instruments in that fashion.
Motion agreed to.
WORK HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BILL
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Work Health Administration Bill 2011; the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011; and Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011. These bills deliver on the Northern Territory’s commitment to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation Australia-wide. On 3 July 2008, the Northern Territory, along with the Commonwealth and the other states and territories, signed the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety (IGA). The IGA provides for the harmonisation of workplace health and safety laws by way of model legislation and for the establishment of Safe Work Australia.
Safe Work Australia is a Commonwealth statutory agency constituted by representatives from each state and territory, as well as employer and employee representatives. The NT representative on Safe Work Australia is the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe. The reforms agreed in the IGA form part of the overarching Council of Australian Governments, COAG, Regulatory Reform Agenda under the national partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy. Since Safe Work Australia was established in September 2009, it has led to the development of a National Model Work Health and Safety Bill, the National Model Bill, under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council.
The development of the National Model Bill followed a comprehensive review of Australia’s occupational health and safety laws by a panel of independent experts. During the 2008 review, the panel consulted widely with business, and employer and union groups, took submissions from the public, and made a number of recommendations.
While the National Model Bill was being developed through Safe Work Australia, extensive consultation and negotiations were undertaken across the country. In the Northern Territory, the consultation process involved ongoing input from key Northern Territory stakeholders who have been involved in every step of the process. There have been regular meetings and one-on-one meetings conducted by NT WorkSafe with all stakeholders, including employer and union groups, advice provided through the Workplace Health and Safety Advisory Council, and other regular consultative and education forums.
Overall, NT responses have been supportive of the reforms. It is noted that submissions by NT stakeholders have influenced a number of changes to the regulations underpinning the bill.
The National Model Bill is supported by comprehensive National Model Regulations and Codes of Practice, which are also to be implemented by all Australian jurisdictions. These have been the subject of separate intense consultation processes which have necessitated a large amount of ongoing revisions. This comprehensive and inclusive consultation process has resulted in a much better and more robust set of regulations and codes which will stand the test of time.
All jurisdictions have progressed the drafting of the legislation, and in New South Wales, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory, the bills have passed. The bill is currently before the respective parliaments in South Australia, Tasmania, and the Commonwealth and is yet to be introduced in Western Australia and Victoria and, of course, here in the NT.
There are many reasons why it has been considered necessary to harmonise the occupational health and safety laws nationwide. Although all Australian governments have generally taken a broadly similar approach to regulating workplaces, there continue to be substantial differences. Most notably, these have been in relation to duty holders and their duties and compliance regimes, including penalty levels.
The harmonisation of laws through the adoption of the National Model Bill will provide a number of benefits. Business will benefit from a national system through reduced complexity and red tape. In developing the national Regulatory Impact Statement, Access Economics identified that one of the most significant costs to business from the existing system is from the duplication required to comply with regulatory differences across multiple jurisdictions. The introduction of a single, nationally-consistent, and modernised legislative regime will address this.
Employers and managers generally will also benefit from having a simpler legislative regime to understand and apply. Workers will benefit from the harmonised regime providing greater certainty and rights which are easier to understand. They will also benefit from the enhanced protections contained in the bill. There will be greater fairness, as all workers will have access to the same rigorous systems of laws wherever they are in Australia, irrespective of whether they are employee, contractors, or labour-hire workers.
The new harmonised regime will also improve the transferability of permits, licences, and training qualifications across state and territory borders. This means that workers’ safety-related qualifications and training will be recognised wherever they work in Australia. This will assist in the mobility of individual workers in the general Australian workforce and contribute to increased productivity.
I will now turn to the details of the various bills. To provide a quick overview, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill implements the substance of the reforms to harmonise the national occupational health and safety laws by repealing the current Workplace Health and Safety Act, the WPHS Act, and replacing it with the National Model Bill. The Implementation Bill supports the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill by providing for the consequential amendments to other acts as a result of the repeal of the current Workplace Health and Safety Act.
The Work Health Administration Bill 2011 creates a new act that deals with the administrative aspects of the work health and safety legislative regime, namely the establishment of the Work Health Court and the regulator, the Work Health Authority.
The national agreement is for all jurisdictions to implement the national model bill, essentially word for word, adopting consistent numbering and penalty levels. However, the National Model Bill does provide for jurisdictional notes which allow jurisdictions to depart from the National Model Bill in certain aspects to ensure it can operate smoothly within the relevant jurisdiction’s legal, judicial, and local frameworks. These include references to the relevant regulator and courts operating in each jurisdiction.
In many ways, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill is similar to the current occupational health and safety, OH&S, framework under the existing Workplace Health and Safety Act which commenced in July 2008. This has positioned the Northern Territory well for the national harmonisation process. The 2008 bill reflects contemporary legislation, and is substantially compliant with the endorsed National Model Bill and National Model Regulations. For example, duties under the Workplace Health and Safety Act are similarly defined. The process for health and safety representatives, HSRs, and workgroups are similarly provided under the Workplace Health and Safety Act, and the Workplace Health and Safety Act has a similar enforcement regime including enforceable undertakings.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill includes the following key elements:
a primary duty of care requiring persons conducting a business or an undertaking to ensure, as far as is reasonably practical, the health and safety of workers and others who may be affected by the carrying out of work;
an entry permit scheme that allows authorised permit holders, for example, union representatives, to inquire into suspected contraventions of work health and safety laws affecting workers who are members, or eligible to be members, of the relevant union and those whose interests the union is entitled to represent; and consult and advise such workers about work health and safety matters;
civil penalty regime for breaches of the act relating to work entry permits;
provision for enforcement and compliance, including a compliance role for work health and safety inspectors. The reforms are underpinned by a national compliance and enforcement policy agreed by the Ministerial Council on Workplace Relations on 10 August 2011; and
As I mentioned, many of these main aspects are similar to the current Northern Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act; however, I would like to specifically highlight the main points of difference between the current Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
First, a number of key terms have been redefined with the effect of extending the scope of the legislation to take into account contemporary work practice and to ensure that duties apply appropriately. For example, the primary duty of care for the health and safety of workers will lie with a person conducting a business or undertaking, known as a PCBU, alone, or with others, whether or not for profit or gain, including as a partnership, self-employed person, and as an unincorporated association. It is a broader notion than employer which currently relates only to businesses. It is not necessary for the existence of a formal employment relationship to attract the duties of a PCBU under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
Under clause 8 of the bill, the term ‘workplace’ will now be clearly defined to mean a place where work is carried out for a PCBU from time to time. This term is currently not defined and can contribute to confusion and increased legal costs. Additionally, a place is a workplace for the purposes of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill even if no work is being carried out at a particular time; for example, a shearing shed where work is seasonal.
As mentioned earlier, ‘health’ is defined to clarify that it is to be used in the broader sense and covers both physical and psychological health. Currently, psychological risks to health are not expressly covered by the Workplace Health and Safety Act, although it can arguably come within the scope of the act. The wider definition of ‘health’ puts it beyond doubt that the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill covers psychological risks to health such as stress, fatigue, and bullying, and raises awareness of these types of injuries.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill will also require all PCBUs to develop an issue resolution process in consultation with workers. This is currently not a legislative requirement under the Workplace Health and Safety Act; however, it is common practice for employers to adopt resolution processes. For example, the Northern Territory government’s process is adopted through employment instructions issued under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, and other employers regularly adopt processes through industrial instruments. The reforms reflect these practices and by creating an obligation for all PCBUs to develop and adopt a process specifically for work health and safety. If no process is developed, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill sets out a default process. The parties must make reasonable efforts to achieve resolution of the issues in accordance with the agreed or default process. Where the issue cannot be resolved, the matter is referred to the Work Health Authority for resolution.
While the current Workplace Health and Safety Act contains provisions relating to HSRs and workgroups, which is similar to those contained in the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, these are being expanded to allow for the appointment of Deputy HSRs and the establishment of work groups where there are fewer than 10 employees.
As already mentioned, clause 27 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill introduces a new personal duty of due diligence for all ‘officers’. While there are no real changes to the nature of the duties, there is a change to the scope of people who might potentially have a personal duty. Under the bill, an officer includes: officers within the meaning of the Corporation’s Act 2001 of the Commonwealth; officers of a public authority, but not elected members; officers of the Crown; and a committee member of an association, whether incorporated or unincorporated. These new officer duties of due diligence will now apply to all officers to the extent of their influence. The bill will bring in personal liability to exercise due diligence in relation to OH&S matters on a range of officers not currently covered. Currently, not all officers have personal liability, as it is the employer who has the liability. This new liability will apply down the line to all employees with a decision-making role, to the extent that the individual has control. This, then, will include CEOs, management involved in decision-making, and even, potentially, project officers. An officer can be found guilty of an offence regardless of whether the PCBU would be liable.
The types of things that officers will need to do in order to exercise due diligence could include things like taking reasonable steps to:
acquire and keep up-to-date knowledge of work health and safety matters;
Another important aspect of the reforms is the increase in penalties for offences under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. Under the bill, Category 1 offences carry a maximum penalty of $3m for an offence committed by a body corporate and up to five years imprisonment for an individual. These penalties apply to the high-risk breach of work health and safety duties. Breaking down the breach of duty offences to different categories under clauses 31, 32, and 33 of the bill recognises that there can be a range of offending. It also recognises that at the lower end of the scale, there should be emphasis on compliance.
The increase in penalty level, particularly at the higher end of the scale of offending, was agreed nationally in recognition of the seriousness of offences of this nature and the need to send a clear and consistent national message to employers. Deterrence was considered a key factor in the decision to adopt high penalty levels.
Penalties are also expressed in monetary terms rather than penalty units. As the value of penalty units varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, adopting express monetary amounts was considered the best way to ensure consistency.
Another new aspect of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill relates to the introduction of a civil penalty regime for breaches relating to the work health and safety entry permit holders. These are issued to union officials and are similar to authorised union OH&S representatives under the current Workplace Health and Safety Act. This regime provides for the bringing of proceedings by the regulator against a permit holder for a breach of a requirement relating to the work health and safety entry permits under Part 7 of the bill. A different standard of proof applies; that is, the balance of probabilities, and a finding that a breach has been proved does not amount to a criminal finding of guilt resulting in a criminal record. Non-payment of a civil penalty can be enforced similarly to a judgment debt through civil means such as warrants of seizure and sale.
Other offences in the bill, however, are criminal offences that will be dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; for example, breach of duties of an employer, officer, or worker. It was agreed nationally that most offences in the National Model Bill will be strict liability offences to reflect the complexity and seriousness of the new offences.
The bill also provides added transparency and fairness in relation to the decision to prosecute. Clause 231 of the bill provides the right for a person to request a prosecution - this could be a union, an individual worker, or other person. This request can be made in relation to a Category 1 or 2 offence, breach of employer duties, and only after six months after the occurrence of the act, but before the 12-month limitation period has expired. Additionally, the bill includes a comprehensive appeal process should the regulator fail to take prosecutorial action. The original review of the national occupational health and safety laws made it clear that there should be a clear path for appeals.
Another important facet of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill is that it brings the regulation of dangerous goods under the umbrella of the work health and safety legislative framework. Currently, these are dealt with separately under the Dangerous Goods Act.
The Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill and Regulations will create a single legislative regime for all occupational health and safety matters and add to simplicity and ease of use. Most of the detail relating to the labelling, storage, and handling of dangerous goods and substances will appear in the regulations; however, it should be noted that explosives, including fireworks, as well as ammunition and the licensing of gas fitters will not be regulated under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill and Regulations. The Dangerous Goods Act without amendment will be retained to regulate these areas.
Madam Speaker, as previously mentioned, in adopting the National Model Bill, all jurisdictions have undertaken to implement consistently and without modification. However, the National Model Bill does contain a range of jurisdictional notes which provide for a number of aspects where jurisdictions can depart from the model. One of the areas that jurisdictions have needed to have different provisions is in relation to the tribunals that can deal with the various applications and review proceedings under the bill. Under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, the Work Health Court will have jurisdiction in relation to most matters, although criminal prosecutions will obviously still be brought in the relevant criminal court.
Currently, the Work Health Court has very limited jurisdiction under the Work Health and Safety Act, which is confined to issuing injunctions and hearing appeals, and these jurisdictions have rarely been exercised in the past. Under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill, the Work Health Court will have expanded jurisdiction.
These include:
jurisdiction to hear matters to determine applications to disqualify health and safety representatives who misuse their powers;
to issue work health and safety entry permits to union officials, and suspend or revoke those permits where appropriate;
determine disputes about right of entry;
to deal with breaches of civil penalty provisions; and
conducting an external review of decisions made by the Work Health Authority and inspectors.
Clause 223 of the bill sets out a list of 13 such reviewable decisions, including decisions in relation to workplace consultation; provisional improvement notices; and notices issued by inspectors. As the Territory does not have a specialist industrial relations court, it is appropriate that this additional jurisdiction will be vested in the Work Health Court.
Part 15 of the NT model bill also sets out the transitional arrangements for the legislation. The transitional arrangements are consistent with the transitional principles agreed by all jurisdictions through Safe Work Australia and the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, and provide for the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill to apply at different stages, depending on what stage a product is at; that is, design, development, and manufacturing stages. However, for any processes commenced after the commencement date, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act will apply.
Schedule 1 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill allows for the regulations to specify certain dangerous goods and plant for the purposes of regulating them outside the workplace environment. This is aimed at issues of public safety.
Schedule 2 of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill duplicates the existing provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act which set up the Work Health and Safety Advisory Council. The council has a valuable role in providing independent advice to government on work health and safety matters from the whole range of stakeholders. It is not proposed to make any changes to their role or composition, and the provisions have been duplicated as they currently exist in the Workplace Health and Safety Act into the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for the regulation-making powers. These are important, as much of the fine detail and specific technical requirements related to the labelling, storage, packaging, and handling of dangerous substances and hazardous materials will be contained in the National Uniform Regulations.
Importantly, the regulations will now regulate all Class 4 to 8 goods under the Australian Dangerous Goods Code; that is, flammable solids; oxidising substances; toxic and infectious substances; radioactive material; and corrosive substances. These are not currently regulated in the NT.
As I have indicated, at all times industry and employer groups have been kept informed of the progress of the model bill, and education and training has been ongoing for some time and continues.
Obviously, these types of reforms will incur some additional cost for businesses and employers. However, these costs will be offset to a large degree by the advantages of harmonisation; that is, through the reduction in red tape, increased productivity, and improved safety. The very thorough and robust cost-benefit analysis undertaken during development of the bill, undertaken by Access Economics, clearly showed that the benefits outweigh the costs substantially.
To ensure the process of harmonisation and consistency is not undermined over time, there has been a robust process developed for the adoption of later amendments. Under the IGA, the fundamental objective of the harmonisation project is to produce the optimal model for a national approach to OH&S regulation and operation. To this end, Safe Work Australia is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the national model laws and will do this through a jurisdictional audit of the model laws’ implementation.
Safe Work Australia is required to report to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on the progress of the jurisdictions in implementing the reform, and the audit will go some way to informing SWA on this issue. Safe Work Australia will also be tasked with overseeing the national consultation process under the IGA for future amendments to the national model laws, and the consistent adoption of any future amendment across jurisdictions.
I now turn to the Implementation Bill. This bill provides for the implementation of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. This bill contains a range of consequential amendments to the Northern Territory statute book as a result of the commencement of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. The most notable amendments are to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Dangerous Goods Act. The Implementation Bill also repeals the existing Workplace Health and Safety Act which is being replaced by the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill.
The amendments to the Dangerous Goods Act are essential to provide guidance on how the Dangerous Goods Act and the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Act are to integrate. The amendments make it clear that the Dangerous Goods Act only applies to dangerous goods to the extent that they are not regulated under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. This is the mechanism to allow for explosives and ammunition to continue to be regulated under the Dangerous Goods Act. The Implementation Bill also makes it clear that the Dangerous Goods Act is to always be subject to the scope of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill so that if there are any inconsistencies, the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill will take precedence.
The amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are more complex. The bill repeals current Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which provides for the establishment of the Work Health Court. The court will now be established under the Work Health Administration Act, which I will discuss shortly.
The Implementation Bill inserts a range of new provisions relating to the appointment of inspectors for the purpose of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, clarifying that their role is to monitor compliance with, and enforcement of, the act. Inserting new provisions is necessary because this function is currently exercised by workplace safety officers under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. These officers are being replaced by inspectors under the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill. However, the National Model Bill and jurisdictional notes do not allow for inspectors to exercise powers or functions under any other acts. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a new regime for inspectors to exercise the separate powers and functions under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
They will perform similar functions and have similar powers as they currently have as officers under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. However, this exercise has enabled their powers and functions to be streamlined and made more consistent with their role under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The Implementation Bill also makes minor technical amendments to accommodate the new administrative arrangements for the regulator, the Work Health Authority, and the Work Health Court, under the new Work Health Administration Act.
I now turn to the Work Health Administration Bill. This bill creates a new act for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority and the Work Health Court to reflect new arrangements necessitated by the adoption in the Northern Territory of the National Model Bill.
In relation to the Work Health Authority, the establishment of that office is currently unclear and referred to in both the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, yet there are no clear and specific appointment provisions in either act. During the drafting of the Uniform Work Health and Safety Bill it became clear that it was preferable to have the Work Health Authority and the administrative provisions relating to its operation in one stand-alone separate act to reflect the fact that the authority will have powers and functions under both the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the new Uniform Work Health and Safety Act.
The Work Health Administration Bill also provides that there is no longer to be a separate statutory office of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as that position is superfluous and confusing. This is especially so given that the current Executive Director of NT WorkSafe also has a separate role as Executive Director of the Division under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The statutory office of the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe is currently only appointed for the purposes of constituting the Work Health Authority and sitting on the advisory councils under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Instead of having this additional statutory office, a person will now be directly appointed to be the person constituting the authority and that same person will be referenced under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to sit on the respective advisory councils.
The Work Health Administration Bill also will provide for the establishment of the Work Health Court. Currently, Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act provides for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Court. However, now that the Work Health Court is also to have wide jurisdiction under the Uniform Work Health and Safety Act, it is no longer appropriate for the court to be established under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, therefore Part 6 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has been taken out of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and put into the new Work Health Administration Bill. The current provisions under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act have been retained as much as possible and have only been amended to comply with current drafting practice.
National harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has been on the agenda for over 20 years. These bills represent a culmination of many years of multilateral and tripartite engagement and discussion between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, business, union, and employer groups. Compromise was made by all parties involved to ensure the overall objective of enacting workable and effective harmonised laws. It is a credit to all involved that this has been achieved. Overall, these bills will benefit the Territory as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members. I table copies of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill
(Serial 178)
(Serial 178)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the machinery for holding the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention to be held in April 2012 and meeting again in 2013, and to take the next step towards statehood for the Territory.
Statehood may be achieved by either of two ways. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth parliament to admit a new state, and it may do so on terms and conditions including as to representation in the federal parliament, as it sees fit. Alternatively, a national referendum may be held to amend the Australian Constitution to provide for a seventh state of Australia.
Importantly, the Commonwealth government has indicated that, in principle, it would support the Territory becoming a state provided the Territory government provides the Commonwealth with a clearly developed proposal for statehood based on sound financial, legal, and social foundation which demonstrates the proposal for statehood is based on broad consultation with, and support from, Territory residents.
The preparation of the proposed constitution of the new state is crucial to that process. This constitution will provide for the blueprint for the Territory, should it become a state. What that blueprint will look like is a matter to be determined by the elected delegates at the Constitutional Convention, in consultation with the wider Territory community.
One might ask why there is a need for a bill, or an election for that matter, for the Constitutional Convention. Some of the answers are found in the history of the movement towards statehood for the Territory. Members might recall in 1998, in a Territory referendum, 51.3% of voting Territorians rejected the statehood model put to them. The convention leading up to that referendum comprised 53 appointed delegates, of whom 26 were elected by nominated organisations. Evaluation of that referendum and the process leading up to it pointed towards the need for a more consultative and community-focused future statehood program.
Madam Speaker, on 23 February of this year, you presented to this Assembly the final report and recommendations of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee. That steering committee was formed in 2005 and, between 2005 and 2010, it engaged in education and consultation with the Territory’s community about statehood and, in 2010, 50 forums across the Territory involving almost 900 Territorians. The steering committee has now been succeeded by the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee.
The steering committee noted in that report that the 2011 program for statehood should not repeat the mistakes of the 1998 referendum; namely, that the future process should include democratically-elected delegates to the Constitutional Convention. To that end, the steering committee made a number of specific recommendations including that:
an election process for delegates should take place with all necessary promotion and support, so as to inform Territorians how to become involved well ahead of the convention; and
This bill provides for the machinery to support the election of candidates who will act as representatives of the Territory community in preparing the blueprint for the future state. I now turn to details of the bill.
The key components of the election are:
voting will be compulsory for all electors enrolled to vote in the Territory who are 18 years of age or older, and it will be an offence not to vote, attracting a penalty of one penalty unit or an infringement notice of $50, unless it can be shown the person has a valid and sufficient excuse for not voting, such as being precluded from doing so because of the person’s religious beliefs;
Three delegates are to be elected for each of the 25 divisions. This comprises two ordinary delegates and one reserve delegate. Ordinary delegates will be permitted to vote on a motion in the Constitutional Convention and the bill provides that reserve delegates may participate and take the place of the ordinary delegate as will be provided by the rules adopted by the convention. Reserve delegates are to be elected in case vacancies arise during the convention period due to illness. Reserve delegates are to be elected so that the person filling any vacancy has been involved in the process from the beginning. In the event that more than one vacancy arises in a division, or in the unlikely event that an election is declared void, the minister may appoint a person to fill the vacancy after consulting with the Electoral Commissioner.
Candidates must be enrolled to vote in the division in which they are seeking election. They must be an Australian citizen, must have been resident in Australia for at least six months, and in the Territory for at least three months. Nominations for candidacy must be made by at least six persons who are entitled to vote in the division. Nominations open 57 days before, and close 23 days before, polling date. Candidates are elected if they receive a quota of votes being 25% of all votes plus one, with preferences to be distributed.
The integrity of the conduct of the election is supported by offences in the bill including campaigning offences like publishing misleading campaigning material or failing to state the details of the person authorising a push poll, and including voting offences such as improperly influencing another person’s vote. The offences in the bill generally replicate those in the Electoral Act. Importantly, members of the Territory and federal parliaments may not nominate as candidates. In addition, persons who have published a statement about their intention to consent to nomination at the next Legislative Assembly general election or have been announced as an endorsed candidate of a registered political party at the next general election in a statement published by the party with the person’s consent are excluded from being elected under the bill. This is to ensure that it is the voice of the people that is heard at the convention.
It was a significant criticism of the 1998 statehood convention that it was a creature of politicians rather than of people of the Territory. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended therefore that the participation of political parties be limited through preventing members of parliament nominating as candidates and not allowing for the printing or publishing of party affiliations on ballot papers and other official electoral material produced by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
The election is to be held on 24 March 2012, which is the same day as the Territory local government election. This will keep down the cost of holding the election for the convention and avoid the need for holding a separate poll. Generally, the conduct of the election will be the same as for other Territory elections and will be conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
Clause 15 of the bill proposes to use Commonwealth electoral roll information for the election. To facilitate this use, an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Regulations will be made. This is a technical requirement because the current Commonwealth legislation only refers to the use of the electoral roll information for an Assembly election or for a referendum. The amendments will extend those uses to include elections for a convention of this type.
I have received advice that this means the bill cannot receive assent until the Commonwealth has completed amendments to its regulations, but the Assembly can debate and vote on the bill as planned in the November sittings of the Assembly. If the bill is passed in the November sittings and in the event that the Commonwealth has not amended its regulations by that time, it is intended that the Executive Council will advise the Administrator to delay assent of the bill until that process has been completed. Following commencement of the act, it is planned that nominations for candidacy on the Constitutional Convention election will open on 27 January 2012 in time for the election on 24 March 2012.
I urge all Territorians to consider becoming involved in the Constitutional Convention and to put themselves forward for election. Following the election, the Constitutional Convention will convene in Darwin from 21 to 29 April 2012 at Parliament House and at the Darwin Convention Centre. Following the first convention, there will be a community consultation period to consider a draft constitution. The convention will convene again in Alice Springs during 2013 to consider the consultation outcomes and to finalise the draft constitution. It is envisaged that a Territory referendum to vote on the question of statehood will be held in 2013.
The Constitutional Convention has very important work to do when it convenes as planned in April next year and this bill represents an important step in achieving a Constitutional Convention that represents the entire Territory community in developing a model for the future seventh state.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Pairing Arrangements – Members for Arafura and Port Darwin; and Members for Casuarina and Blain
Pairing Arrangements – Members for Arafura and Port Darwin; and Members for Casuarina and Blain
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me two documents relating to pairs. One is from 11.30 am to noon today for the member for Arafura and the member for Port Darwin.
The second one is for the member for Casuarina and the Leader of the Opposition for 6 pm until the end of the sittings.
Both documents are signed by the Whips.
I table those documents.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 162)
(Serial 162)
Continued from 18 August 2011.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is widely recognised that heavy-handed regulatory systems are not a particularly effective way to achieve best practice outcomes. This is recognised by both industry and government, and a more holistic approach to regulation was and is required. The ideal situation is to have government and industry jointly setting goals and reviewing progress towards those goals. This situation has worked in the past, and I would like to see it continuing to work into the future.
Over the years, governments, including the NT government, have shifted away from the traditional command and control prescriptive-style regulation to self- and co-regulation with government, with its increased emphasis on company responsibility. There was a strong view from government that companies must perform. Benchmarking, or benching, in the areas of environment, health, and safety were key steps in this shift.
By way of background, in 1997, the government approved a review of the Mining Management Act to address changes necessary for the move towards more self- and co-regulation. The new legislation was passed in July 2001 and focused on the issue of a licence or authorisation to operate with a provision of Mine and Environmental Management Plans, or as I will call them, MEMPs, by operators being central to individual developments and final approvals. The concept of Mine and Environmental Management Plans was initiated to incorporate planning principles into the operational phase of mining. A MEMP details the work which will be carried out in the next period, usually one year, including the initial MEMP, both in terms of environmental practice, and health and safety. The plans do contain other operational information; however, environment and safety are key components.
A MEMP plan does not mean that an operation will achieve a high level of performance, but its implementation provides a structured and systematic tool that can contribute to optimal outcomes for all parties. Ideally, a MEMP should evolve from a pre-mining assessment process, picking up environmental objectives from this process with which to compare later performance. A MEMP lends itself to the philosophy of continual improvement through goal setting and audit, and ongoing improvement. A MEMP is a working, operational document and, as such, is a document that guides, instructs, and assists a company to achieve best practice. Having said that, I know from the beginning it was intended always that if a company had no issue with their plan being a public document, then that is what it became.
I can recall when the Tanami mine was the first Tanami mine, Stan Padgett was the mine manager, and he had no issues with his project’s mining and environmental plan being a public document and going to stakeholders. Matilda Minerals, when they were exploring, had no issue with the public release of their documents. However, there are companies that do have an issue with that document being a public document, and I can understand that position. From information provided at the briefing, I gained some comfort - and so will the industry and companies who have issues with a MEMP being a public document - that it is government’s view that this not become a public document and be predominantly an operational document, and I support that position if it is true.
There is no doubt the mining industry, along with many other industries, has come a long way over the last 20 years in the areas of environmental management, with current operations expending enormous levels of resources to research, manage, comply, include, and then articulate to community, their record and performance in environmental assessment and management. There is also no doubt that the future of the Territory’s mining industry is inseparable from national, if not international, sustainable development and principles. Working, operating, and gaining from the mining industry in today’s world needs to be balanced with the needs and wants of future generations wanting to work, operate, and gain in the future world.
In working under the premise of sustainable development, industry is very aware of the need to work across many levels of community, and within the confines of business they do, which is extract, process, and produce minerals for the benefit of the company, its shareholders but, more importantly, the community at large. Industry is acutely aware that it requires what is commonly called its licence to operate; that is, the mining industry must include the community, involve the community, demonstrate benefits to the community, and then be underpinned by a strong, honest, and lasting engagement with the community.
A social licence fundamentally changes the manner in which mining companies are required to do business. In many cases, it is seen as being even more important than government approval licences and is one that is renewed every day. In talking with the industry recently and attending the recent mining conference in Darwin and, of course, from my past employment within the industry, there is no doubt industry is committed to the concept of a social licence to operate and see this form of licence as complementary to government’s legislative requirements to hold a licence. Operating with a social licence simply means companies are engaging with their communities, whoever, or wherever they are deemed to be located, and know they must work with government, as it is a shared responsibility.
Quite simply, if a company cannot work and engage with community, it will not get any licence to operate. While I understand the government wanting to encourage companies and industry to do more, be more involved, and provide lasting benefits to community, it would seem these matters would be difficult to legislate. Industry and companies currently deliver a range of social and economic benefits to regional communities by way of infrastructure, services, employment, social activities, environmental improvements, and provide a much-needed backbone to regional economic development in the Territory. As such, I do not believe there should be a requirement for these processes to be mandated, as one runs the risk of compliance being the minimum requirement. We know if a level is mandated most, if not all times, that is the only level a company or person will work towards. Mandating community commitment will not contribute to best practice or aspirations to improve.
In regard to this and the community trust, I seek clarity as to how the requirement to provide or establish community trusts and benefit plans fits with the other requirements placed on industry. For example, where does an Indigenous land use agreement under the Native Title Act sit with this requirement? Will an ILUA suffice? Moreover, where does an agreement under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act sit in relation to this requirement given that agreement is generally between traditional owners, the company, and the land council? If a company has an agreement through the ALRA with traditional people, where will this go in the future under this amending legislation?
While I am seeking clarification, I would like to know if it is the intention of the government, through this legislation, that a trust be established; that is, a legal instrument, as the words used in the minister’s speech were ‘community benefit trusts’. If this is the case, will the government be a partner in this trust?
Also, the minister stated:
- The government’s view is that community benefits should simply become part of the development planning process.
What does that mean exactly? Do you mean such a trust or similar item will need to be detailed in full as part of an approval to gain an authorisation? Again, will this requirement be placed on explorers, on extractive operators? How can an exploration company detail employment options that might be available in such a community benefits trust at a mining stage when they might not know if they have an ore body, how big it is, or for how long they will be mining? Again, I need clarification as to whether this community benefits requirement will be placed on all extractive operators in the Northern Territory.
In reviewing this community benefits trust requirement, I ask whether this will be applied to the petroleum and geothermal industries? If your government is to be consistent and fair across resources sectors, why are there not consequential amendments to the petroleum and geothermal acts? How is it you are seeking to enforce this community benefit arrangement only on hard rock miners? What is going to be the arrangement for INPEX? Are you going to place such requirements on that company during the assessment and approval processes and, if not, why not?
Do not get me wrong, minister; philosophically I have no issue with what I see as the intent of this provision. However, you must provide assurances to the whole of industry about exactly what you are trying to achieve and how it will work. It is no good saying ‘trust me’, as that does not wash.
Where in this bill is the requirement to undertake this work and commitment of establishing a community benefits trust? Can you advise me if it is in gaining the authorisation to operate process or somewhere else? If this is the case, will it be reviewed annually, and will there be a requirement to report changes to any community commitments?
I turn my attention to some definitions and seek clarification. In your speech, minister, you referred to:
- … implement the government’s policy of ensuring that large mining developments deliver lasting benefits …
My question is: what is a large-scale mining development? How is a large mining development going to be determined? By whom? Will it be based on capital expenditure? Will it be based on the size of the ore body and the quality of the ore body? Is it the number of employees, or is it the scope of works? The proposals include how this will apply to high-risk sites. What is a high-risk site? Do we currently have high-risk sites, and where are they? Or are they all just sites that have risks that need to be managed? Reporting should relate to environmental performance against the risks assigned to an operation, and reporting should be risk-based and based on sound management systems.
The term ‘serious environmental incident’ and ‘environmental incident’ appear to have been expanded to cover more events than allowed for in the current act. Can you explain to me the difference between ‘serious environmental incident’ versus ‘environmental incident’? Further, how do these two terms then relate to ‘material environmental harm’? Is it the intention of this bill to have an operator report absolutely every type, kind, or manner of incident associated with the environmental management? I understand reporting of environmental incidents such as major spills of hydrocarbons; however, will it include every minor incident, such as dropping a small bottle of brake fluid? If this is the case - and I understand from the briefing that it will be, and I thank you for the briefing about these amendments - has the department plans to ensure it has adequate resources to cope with the potential increase in notifications and subsequent investigations?
Further, will each and every reported incident be investigated and, if so, how will this be undertaken, in what time frame, and who will undertake the investigations? Will they be mining officers or some other person within the department? I understand the reporting of environmental incidents could be made public, is it the intention that all and every incident will be put into the public domain and, if so, how and where? How will this be undertaken? Reporting requirements can differ between sites but, because each site works under a specific licence, the amount of ambiguity is limited. However, it would appear that under the proposed amendments reporting would be required for all incidents, serious or otherwise. Who will determine what should be reported and, as I said before, how will it be determined what could cause a detrimental impact on the environment?
Under section 90, the minister or Chief Executive can direct the release of information. Who is it? Both or one of them? I would like to see an example of when the minister would direct the release of information, as opposed to the Chief Executive of the department directing the release of information. By way of example in relation to reporting, I seek clarification on a couple of areas. Some mines in the past have used molasses as a dust suppressant, and it is usually delivered in large containers. What would be the requirement if one of the large containers fell off a truck, broke open, and spilled 800 litres of material? Given the natural nature of this material, would there be a requirement to report?
I also require clarification about what happens to companies that have inherited environmental legacy issues, have a standstill agreement, and are voluntarily doing as much as possible to clean up the site or sites. Is it going to be retrospective for those companies? They have inherited openly and would be working to manage the sites but, by the nature of their environmental legacy, there could be issues associated with reporting. Will they be detrimentally impacted on by this legislation? What baseline do you use in circumstances such as this? I know of two companies in the Territory that are in this position. What will happen to them?
I turn my comments now to the new reporting requirements. From my discussions with industry, there is currently great frustration within industry over the current malaise in assessment and approvals involving expression of mining developments. There is, clearly, confusion between the various roles in government, between protection and assessments, specifically in the public environmental report and environment impact statements. There are serious issues with getting any proper engagement with the department of Natural Resources and Environment. Why is it taking an extraordinarily long period to get anything out of that environment department? I know of one company that waited upwards of 14 months to get guidelines for the level of environmental assessment required – 14 long months; in excess of one year. Why was it so difficult?
The proposed project was not a massive large-scale mining development worth billions of dollars – no, it was millions of dollars only. Yet, this same department can very comfortably issue guidelines for the massive billion-dollar project called INPEX, a much more complex project, within a much shorter time frame. What is going on? Is there some sort of favouritism existing within the environment department?
Then, we have this same anti-development, anti-mining environment department issuing guidelines which will see companies and projects unable to comply - ever. Why is it that the HNC project near Batchelor received their guidelines for environmental assessment - 66 pages – yet, the guidelines for the INPEX project - billions of dollars of project - was a mere 20 pages? Another applicant for an industrial-type project put in a notice of intent some three months ago, and they are still waiting. They have had meetings with government people, senior people, and have been told it is not political. So, if it is not political, what is going on? Is it that the notice of intent is still sitting somewhere in the environment department?
Minister, I know you try to do your best for the industry; however, from where I sit I cannot say the same for other government agencies; they appear to want to hinder, if not completely obstruct, proponents in their quest to provide economic benefits and wealth to the Territory and Territorians. How can an industry have any real faith in government processes when the environment department gives grants of money to groups that actively campaign against the minerals industry, if not every industry?
In the recent environmental grants, $185 000 was given to the Environment Centre that wants to shut down the Northern Territory, plus another $25 000 to the Marine Conservation Society that wants to shut down our recreational fishing industry. There is more: $15 000 to the Environment Centre, again, to develop a greenhouse gas emissions management model for the Territory. I am slightly confused and bewildered why government gives money to a group that actively wants to shut down industry in the Territory. I do not believe it is acceptable. No wonder the industry has no confidence in the environment department; it gives money to groups that want to shut down the industry and the Territory.
I suggest there needs to be some serious dialogue with your colleague, the minister for Environment, to get some honest processes in place for assessment and establishment of guidelines, and for improved engagement with industry, and for things to get out of that department in a much shorter time frame than they currently are.
I turn my comments now to reporting. Section 37 includes a new requirement for those mining for minerals, excluding extractive and exploration, which I will come back to, to submit an annual environmental report based on what was included in the Environmental Impact Statement and past yearly performance. This seems reasonable on the surface; however, I have some questions.
Industry already does an enormous level of reporting to community through many public company and community commitments, such as the Australian Stock Exchange requirements for companies to report material matters relating to their environmental performance. Will this type of report suffice under this new legislation? There is data provided for the national pollutant inventory and national greenhouse energy reporting schemes. Will this be sufficient in their reporting? What exactly will be the criteria for the actual reporting? What will be the situation for a company operating under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the Commonwealth Aboriginal land rights act approved through the land councils and traditional owners; has this been taken into consideration? How will these reports be made public – in what format and by whom?
Minister, did the department people talk to the Western Australian government department of Resources to find out exactly why they do not make environmental reporting documents public documents?
One word of caution - if a company has documents made public and has not done so previously, it would be prudent for that company, and their report which is going to the public domain, to be reviewed, not only by industry experts but also possibly legal people. Given most companies are publicly-listed companies, has this been taken into consideration in any time frames for reporting?
Contained in the background to this legislation is a consideration by government of third party environmental monitoring. Understandably, the situation surrounding the McArthur River mine expansion was an exception rather than the rule; however, I am most concerned if government is considering outsourcing its regulatory role with additional cost to industry. Is it that government itself is risk adverse and considering abrogating its regulatory responsibility, or is something else driving this consideration?
Contained in the minister’s speech is reference to change in language and inclusion of principles in Part 2AA(a) of the Criminal Code Act. What does that exactly mean? Have penalties been expanded and raised and, if so, for what offences, and by how much?
In summarising, the minerals industry seeks to improve always in the area of environmental management and engagement with community as this provides a vehicle for industry differentiation and leadership, and helps build reputation capital within the community, government, and the general business community. Sound performance in the broad area of environmental performance and management also assists the industry to operate in a manner which is attuned to the expectations of the community, which are constantly changing, and which seeks to maximise the long-term benefits to the community.
While I believe this legislation does provide the opportunity to move towards its individual and industry goals, there remain some areas of concern and ambiguity which I need assurances about, so I can take comfort knowing that the legislation will work, and work well, and not be hijacked by the tree-hugging, loony, lefty greenies …
Madam SPEAKER: You probably mean my electorate, member for Goyder.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Goyder was referring to some people in your electorate, be that as it may.
Madam SPEAKER: And very nice people they are, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I have not said they are not nice people. I would like to thank the member for Goyder for a fulsome and complete response to the Mining Management Act. Many of the issues she covered also concern me. I believe we are going to go to committee, although the member did ask so many questions, they might be answered by the minister in his response, but I would like to go to committee as well.
It should be said at the outset that mining is our biggest industry in the Northern Territory, so we have to find a balance between encouraging mining, developing our economy, as I keep saying; we need to be less reliant on Commonwealth funding and more reliant on developing our own economies, of which mining is one.
The mining industry has had issues through its life, right back to Rum Jungle and problems with pollution of the Finniss River that occurred after the mine had closed down. Mt Todd is an ongoing issue, which has substantially cost the taxpayer. In recent times, the spill at Alcoa created environmental damage issues. It is really important that we get this Mining Management Act right and find that balance between looking after the environment and, at the same time, not putting the types of restrictions in place that discourage mining in the Northern Territory. The member for Goyder raised the issue of a company having to wait 14 months for a response from NRETAS and, as she said, compared with the response for INPEX - there was a vast difference in the time period required.
The government has found a good compromise between pressures from certain groups in the community that the mine management plan should be available to the public by separating the environmental side from the mine operations. That issue came out in the dispute about the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. The balance you have here is allowing the public to see, through the environmental plan, what the company is doing in response to the environmental impact statement, which required approval before the mine was allowed to go ahead and is the area the public will generally be concerned about or interested in.
Before the mine is approved, an environmental impact statement is drawn up and approved. After consultation with the public and going through a draft stage, eventually a series of environmental objectives or requirements is produced. I see that the environmental plan can then be used as a tool to see whether, in fact, the company is sticking to what was agreed in the environmental impact statement. That is a good compromise, because environmental issues are the concern of most people. I give the examples of anywhere from Rum Jungle back in the 1950s and 1960s, to Mt Todd, to Alcoa. It is a very good approach. As with most legislation, time will tell, but let us see how it goes; it is a good approach from the government.
My response is less fulsome than the member for Goyder; she has a background in this area which is reflected in her response to the bill. It is great that we have people in this House who have background in some of these areas. In parliament, we need people with experience in industry. Agriculture is a classic example; there are not too many pastoralists in this House. We do not have enough people or a range of people with expertise across an industry which certainly helps when it comes to looking at important issues like this mining management plan. The member for Goyder is a classic example of why we should be looking for people with that type of expertise.
I will ask questions about community benefits during the committee stage, which may be answered by the member for Goyder. She raised the issues about how prescriptive can you be - who will gain benefits, who are the people, who will be called the locals? Should those agreements be secretive? The Alcoa agreement is not public; it should be public. Is it because it is on Aboriginal land that it is not public? If we are to know whether companies are making agreements with local landowners, what are those agreements? We expect agreements the government makes to be open and transparent, and we would expect the same from companies when dealing with these landowners.
Extractive mining concerns me because much of the extractive mining is in my electorate and parts of the member for Goyder’s electorate. Vast amounts of gravel, top soil, sand, and rock are removed from the Litchfield and greater Litchfield area - if you want to call it that - and is the foundation of much of the construction economy in Darwin and, without that, Darwin would not grow. It is important to find the balance. Extractive mining does have an effect. It is not classified as large-scale mining but, cumulatively, it can have an effect, so we have to ensure, from a cumulative point of view, there are no environmental downsides.
The other important issue, as the member for Goyder mentioned, is NRETAS. The mining industry is concerned that we do not duplicate legislation. The government is proposing changes to the clearing of native vegetation, which raises the issue of whether a mining company would be required to fill in the forms required under NRETAS’ proposed draft vegetation management, and do the same thing for its environmental impact statement and environmental management plan. The two departments have to get together and ensure there is no duplication. If the issue of land clearing requires a permit, they should be required to fill in one permit, not two. Government needs to look at this area to ensure processes are efficient and development is not stifled through unnecessary red tape. That is one example of where changes could occur.
I also agree with the member for Goyder about the amount of money we give to the Environment Centre and the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I am not saying they should not exist, but they move from being purely environmental to being quite openly political.
The issue about uranium mining in Alice Springs …
Ms Purick: Exploration.
Mr WOOD: … exploration, sorry, much of that protest came from groups like the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I do not mind them objecting to things on scientific grounds, saying they believe there is danger to this and danger to that; however, at times they cross the road and move into a political sphere and we fund it as taxpayers. Some of us could put up our hand and say: ‘We would not mind doing something similar to promote a particular goal’. I do not believe our environment groups are in any way pro-mining. They would probably prefer no mining in the Northern Territory, whereas I believe their role is more about accepting mining, and ensuring mines are not detrimental to the environment. There is no doubt that mines will have some effect on the environment. That should be their role, rather than what appears to be taxpayer-funded opposition to mines. It concerns me that, at times, that becomes more their role, rather than the role they should play, which is keeping a watch on the government and companies to ensure they are doing the right thing when it comes to the environment. I have no qualms about that at all. However, as I said - and I think the member for Goyder would agree - they cross that line and become political. Some of us despair that we are at times funding a group that steps outside what should be its main purpose.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy for this to go to committee, after the minister has given his response. I am sure the member for Goyder will have many questions and if her questions take over mine, I will not bother asking any questions, but we will see what happens during the committee stage.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Resources on this Mining Management Amendment Bill. The government introduced the bill into parliament in August this year with significant revisions to the current Mining Management Act. It is overdue, and I acknowledge the member for Nelson’s statements about the extractive industry. The Daly electorate has considerable extractive industries - more than the electorates of Nelson and Goyder put together. Anyway, I digress.
It is a significant issue. I have several mines and several proposed mines in my electorate. The one sticking point is around environmental management and the effect on the community. The Batchelor expansion to Area 55 is a classic example. It simply requires a degree of risk management, and allowing communities to be at ease with the way the risks they identify are being addressed. The guidelines which came out for Area 55 was an example of trying to manage risks in that area, and the requirement on the company to clearly state how that actually happens.
This is a maturing of the mining industry and the extractive industry. It is the way to go. The minister and his department have been actively engaging with the Minerals Council on this. The current and previous CEOs were keen to engage in this process and move the industry forward, because I do not think the industry would have survived community reaction if there were not refinements, or an acknowledgement. The community wants reassurance about the way mines are operating and about safeguards in place.
My experience with the Batchelor development is that most of what they did in the mine management plan was not something they were worried about. There were intellectual property issues which are quite understandable. However, there was nothing secretive about the majority of what they did and this is a way of progressing through it.
The mining sector will continue to be a strong and significant part of the Northern Territory’s growth for many decades to come. The mining sector employs almost 4000 people in both full- and part-time employment. That was in the May quarter 2011 and represents 3.2% of the total number of people employed in the Northern Territory, so a significant section, and I would hazard a guess that the number is direct and there is significant indirect employment into our economy as well.
This new bill provides a sound and improved platform for the next step forward for this vital sector. It will ensure the sector’s contribution to the Northern Territory’s economy does grow and remains strong. The main purpose in amending the bill is to ensure the sector meets its expectations to the community in protecting the environment while contributing to the economic growth, employment, and social development of the Territory and the nation.
The bill represents the first systematic revision of the way in which the act applies and regulates mining operations since it was introduced 10 years ago in 2001. The key improvements of the bill include the tightening up of the compliance requirements of the act and the introduction of compulsory reporting on all environmental incidents, which is important to our community. The broadening of offence provisions with the introduction of a new offence that captures incidents which previously escaped the environmental offences in the act; there are many good operating miners and this will not affect them but the industry wants to protect against operators which do not do the right thing by the sector.
One of the other provisions is the tightening of the definition of substantial disturbance to clarify the activities needing approval and this includes the coverage of seismic surveys in Territory waters. Also, a requirement for those undertaking mining operations on a mineral lease to publicly report their level of environmental performance on an annual basis. Also, the clarifying of circumstances surrounding the varying of the grant authorisation and introduction of a provision that allows the government to require the delivery of a community benefits plan as part of the approval of a mining project.
This final point carries significant implications for the business and employment areas of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has taken this step to ensure the sector remains strong and continues to contribute to the overall economy. The impacts of mining on the economy are both direct and indirect with substantial investments in the industry to support this flow-on effects and improve the Northern Territory’s business operating environment.
The Northern Territory has a sound and well-supported business operating environment through my Department of Business and Employment. It supports businesses in a variety of ways to ensure this government listens to the business people of the Northern Territory and strives to deliver programs and facilitate projects to benefit business.
This government policy strives to support business, making sure they are strong and well-supported by government. This government has, over the last few years, received support, clarification, and acknowledgement through the Sensis Business Index as the highest-supported jurisdiction in the nation for business confidence.
It is well known that mines are located in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. While this represents challenges for the construction and operation of those mines, it also enables regional and remote communities to participate in major projects and provides an avenue for communities to be more self-sufficient. The community development plans will provide training and employment opportunities for members of those communities and I spoke earlier this week about the collaboration between the Minerals Council, the land councils, and the mining companies with Indigenous traineeships. It is bearing fruit and I look forward to the government, through its ITEP program, to continue to support that. What I heard the other night was that the programs which have run so far, the graduates who have come through, have been men, so they are trying very hard next year to run a women’s program.
From my experience in the mining industry, and talking to people in the mining industry, women are gentler on equipment and concentrate much more than men do. They see that women are a vital part of the mining industry as well, so we look forward to Aboriginal women coming through that program. We also know, with the transient nature of mining sector employees from job to job, that having some permanently-based, long-term employees from the local communities, means continuity, experience, and skills development can be retained. Through the community benefit plans, incorporating the training programs for the local Indigenous staff will be vital. Also, incorporating the industry participation plans we have on a number of jobs, so we ensure local businesses get the opportunities within those major projects. It all trickles down; if local businesses are getting work, they are employing more local people, and we can see that happen.
Madam Speaker, this is an amendment to the bill, which is long overdue. In my area, I have a mix of pro-miners and environmentalists as well, people who want to live on large, rural blocks, people who want to live in regional areas where much of this mining activity occurs. It is about being open and transparent, managing risk, and working with the local community. This is a great step forward. I congratulate the minister and his department for working with the industry to come forward with these amendments. It will be well-appreciated by the local community. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources for presenting significant amendments to the Mining Management Act. These amendments will enhance the operations of the Territory’s mining sector, especially in underpinning lasting benefits, and they are benefits that deliver for Territory communities across the Territory relating to mining developments, both large and small.
During these sittings, the Labor government has highlighted its commitment to driving the Territory’s economic growth, but not at the expense of the Territory’s environment, which is important. The environmental accountability amendments in the bill will mean compulsory reporting and direct investigations of environmental offences at any level. Territorians understandably expect that the resource sector works to mitigate its impact on the environment and does everything possible to achieve that outcome. The amendments will provide greater transparency in the sector, giving our community confidence that the environment is being protected and treated with respect. Our environment will be better protected, shifting the onus on mining companies to demonstrate best practices and appropriate risk management. These amendments align with our government’s Territory 2030 strategy.
I am also pleased to see the introduction of the requirement to deliver social and economic benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to the environmental regulation amendments. Mining projects provide real opportunities in some of our most remote areas, boosting job opportunities, enhancing the skills and knowledge of local people, supporting local operators in service and supply, and services to the community. Even in the face of the global financial crisis, mining has contributed to a quarter of our economy, supporting jobs for Territorians, and they continue to grow.
The Bootu Creek Manganese Mine, located 120 km north of Tennant Creek, has recently commissioned a secondary processing plant. It now has the capacity to produce one million tonnes per annum of manganese for shipment to Darwin for export. Recent drilling has identified further resources, extending the mine life, which is further great news.
Of course, mines do not happen overnight. You could accuse me of promoting mining as a real career opportunity, because I do, and I continually talk to young Territorians in the Barkly about those opportunities. I use the example of two of my own boys who both secured trades, then transferred that knowledge into the mining sector and work these new mining shifts - the new fly in/fly out shifts. One is 10 days on and five days off, and the other works 14 days on and seven days off. They both earn very good salaries. They are working with some of the best people in the industry; and are motivated and focused. They have financial plans. They are kids who grew up in the bush, but grabbed that opportunity. They had a relationship with the cattle industry - the pastoral lands of the Barkly - then focused on mining. Tennant Creek, as members would appreciate, is a celebrated mining town with a celebrated mining history and was once the powerhouse of the Northern Territory.
The old Tennant Creek was an area that produced greater gross state product than Darwin. There was a dynamic, multicultural community, which provided not only employment, but also real social outcomes. Sport and recreation flourished, community events flourished, community organisations flourished, and we saw prosperity that delivered real outcomes in a regional remote community.
Tennant Creek is on the way back, which is why I welcome the minister’s amendments to parliament, and the hard work the minister for Resources does because this period in history - if I focus on the Barkly, which I love to focus on, the area I have spent more than half my life - it really is coming back. I tell constituents it is the minerals breadbasket of the Northern Territory and will be for decades to come. We have a strong history with the mining sector and once again, exploration is booming in the Barkly. We have great confidence this exploration will lead to a number of new mining developments in the coming decade, benefiting not only the Barkly, but also the Territory.
In the Tennant Creek goldfields, Emmerson Resources, in a joint venture with Ivanhoe Australia, has invested more than $18m in exploration over the past three years, targeting gold and copper mineralisation. This project is generating great interest, not only in the community of Tennant Creek, but also the wider Barkly community. The Emmerson Resources venture has recently used a state-of-the-art helicopter-based geophysical technique known as HeliTEM to remotely detect mineralisation.
The locals are always excited when we see evidence of exploration around Tennant Creek and within the region. I well remember the exit of the drill rigs and I remember them coming back to town. The global financial crisis hit, they parked up briefly, but then it was great to see them rolling again. With all the new technology - when the locals see this exploration program is big, it is bold, it is bringing benefits to town, it is benefiting the economy - we are on a good thing.
Emmerson Resources first started drilling anomalies and surveying for anomalies, which led to their early discoveries of an intersection of high-grade copper in an area never previously drilled in the region. These exciting results suggest there is much more copper and gold to be found around Tennant Creek. Gold and copper is not limited to the historic Tennant Creek tenements. Concerning the legendary Rover field, about 70 km southwest of Tennant - drilling by Westgold Resources and Adelaide Resources is taking place and has discovered a new field of significant gold and copper resources. The most promising prospect in this field is Rover 1, where Westgold Resources have defined a resource of more than 8 million tonnes of copper and gold ore. Westgold Resources is planning to put in an exploration decline at Rover 1 to drill out the deposit, which it will do, undertaking a feasibility study on the development of a new underground mine within two to three years.
It is great when I am in town talking to local contractors who secure work out there. I always ask for updates. The latest update from an electrical contractor who was out there working on air conditioners, advised me there were 30 people on the site about 70 km southwest of Tennant Creek, but doing business and attending functions in Tennant Creek, and being very open and honest with the local community about their plans and ambitions.
When we talk about the next phase of development in the mining of ore, then we are talking about jobs. OM Holdings, mining manganese at Bootu Creek, is very open with us. It wants a minimum 30% of its workforce to come from Tennant Creek. It has been great to see a gradual increase in that workforce. I am out there talking to young Territorians in the electorate of Barkly: ‘Take up the offer, have a go’.
I am not all about creating the ultimate miner, though. What I am advising the young people around the electorate is, if they go into this industry, they will secure skills and gain experience that is transferable into all aspects of employment - construction, and transport, for instance - and it will take them all around the world. It is about opportunity. These projects offer real opportunity, not only in delivering prosperity, but also delivering people with real experience, real focus, in real industry. That is what is exciting about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, when we see these exploration projects taking place.
At the same time, Westgold and Adelaide Resources are continuing to drill a number of promising prospects in the same area, with many targets yet to be drilled.
Another very important commodity that has reared its head, known about for a very long time by Barkly residents who go back a long way, but now in real demand on a global scale, is phosphate. Australia’s largest underdeveloped phosphate deposit, Wonarah, sits adjacent to the Barkly Highway, 250 km east of Tennant Creek. This massive resource of over 600 million tonnes of phosphate ore has the potential to be a major mine with a life of many decades. The project owners, Minemakers Limited, are undertaking a feasibility study on the project in partnership with a major Indian company. This feasibility study is looking at development of a mine and downstream processing facilities to produce beneficiated rock phosphate for export, along with phosphoric acid and fertiliser products.
The phosphate potential of the Barkly region for phosphate has recently been highlighted further by Rum Jungle Resources’ discovery of a new deposit known as Barrow Creek No 1, located 120 km east of Barrow Creek. Only a year after the first discovery of this prospect, Rum Jungle Resources has defined resources of more than 50 million tonnes of near-surface phosphate. Rum Jungle Resources will be accompanying the NT government delegations, including the minister, minister Vatskalis, to China, Korea, and Japan this year to seek a major partner to assist them in bringing the project towards development.
These projects are attracting international interest and we are very proud of that in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. We are very welcoming of new people who want to come and work with us. When we talk about the phosphate deposits, we have some incredible opportunities, not only in the product and the mining of the product, but in the transport logistics that will move these products through to Darwin and the East Arm Wharf to be exported. Franco Martino, another celebrated community member of Tennant Creek - when I was campaigning to enter politics to try to win the seat of Barkly, we had many discussions, he gave me lots of advice, and when I talk to him about how we are going to maximise these opportunities, going back to the grass roots of a mining community, maximising our resource potential, growing the transport logistics to get these products to market - said to me:
- You know, it is not just about the trucks; it is about how many hamburgers you can sell the truck drivers.
When you think about those logistics, that is what it is really about, and Tennant Creek being the concept that my wife coined; the inland port. The centre of the Barkly, an area that can capture resources coming out of the region and on-sell them, transport them on to other ports, and to other destinations. With phosphate, we are seeing opportunities, whether it be a road transport model with road trains moving that product across our major arterials, or whether we see the construction of a rail link that will link Tennant Creek to Mt Isa; both projects will bring real benefits to the Northern Territory - particularly putting Tennant Creek on the map - to return to those glory days when gold was literally running in the streets of Tennant Creek in the 1950s, 1960s, and the 1970s, where it was the economic powerhouse of the Northern Territory due to the mining industry.
As the Minister for Transport and Minister for Construction, I recognise the importance of appropriate infrastructure to get minerals to their world markets. Highlighting the Barkly, in the last financial year, this government has delivered $1.6m for roads projects and $6.8m to construct the McArthur River Bridge and it approaches, and this year in the Barkly, this government is delivering $5.4m on various projects to improve roads in the region. A further $10.6m is being invested to strengthen and widen the Barkly Highway, supporting the mining industry. This project is a very important asset to our transport industry which assists in accommodating access to the Barkly region and surroundings.
Madam Speaker, that does not come easy; that is working with a team. That is working with a Henderson Labor government that has a clear policy around beef, around mining, around community and these …
Mr Wood: What about Carpentaria Highway?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, the Carpentaria Highway. I pick up on the interjection. The Carpentaria Highway suffered incredibly in the last Wet Season, the record Wet Season, and the tender has just been let to seal all those gravel patches that were necessary to get that highway opened and to get the trucks and the constituents rolling again. But in the bigger picture of policy, it is very clear what this government has done. It has extended that vision to a 2030 vision, it is in consultation with industry and community, and it is about delivering those important transport logistics - the supply chain. It is good to see this focus on the Barkly and, as a local member, I am at the table lobbying, and I get a few letters from the other side, which is good to see. I do not see many letters from the other side, but from this side, I get many letters …
Ms Purick: I send you letters.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Goyder, you are one of my regular reads - always good letters, always very articulate letters, always lobbying strongly for her constituents, and that is the way it works. From this side, I get bombarded! It translates into local members who know the system, work the system, and deliver results for their constituents, and I am proud to say that the crossover between a local member lobbying, and the minister, and lobbying at Cabinet level is a real team effort to put it all together for the Territory.
Investment in key roads, for example, the Tanami, where this year we are again funding extensions to the seal, provides greater access to move products from our mines to the markets. I have been criticised - when we talk about the great highway, the great Tanami Highway, over 780 km in length – regarding that Territory section. I announced that we are sealing a further 4 km, and people have to try to make mischief with it, but we now have over 120 km of that highway sealed. There is more being done every year. I say to the critics: ‘That is 4 km more than we had last year and 120 km more than we had 30 years ago’. This is big business, this is expensive work, but it is targeted under good policy, and it is targeted at growing the Territory.
Members who have recently headed to the Darwin Business Park at East Arm will now know that the construction of the new rail pass into the port is receiving its final touches. Already traffic is driving over the bridge and, as one commuter has reported, it is pretty amazing to go over the bridge as the train is going under. I have experienced that on the Stuart Highway at the Ali Curung turnoff. It is an incredible sensation when you are using a major arterial in the Northern Territory, the Stuart Highway, and crossing underneath you on the north-south railway is a locomotive, 1.8 km long, moving goods in the supply chain between the top and bottom of the continent, moving resources from across our jurisdictional boundaries, and using our port as the end point of their supply chain. It is a wonderful feeling. I acknowledge the extensive work under way at East Arm, led by the Darwin Port Corporation Chief Executive, Terry O’Connor, to enhance and expand infrastructure at the port to facilitate more export growth.
Our government is very proud to support the Territory’s mining industry, and I commend the minister for driving these amendments, because it is important to get the balance right. It is a world of opportunity. There is incredible opportunity for prosperity, but there are also real responsibilities for government, and the community and business, to get that balance right to protect the Territory’s environment. It is a great opportunity to be able to stand and speak on government policy; policy that has the machinations of legislation, the real nuts and bolts of ensuring we get the best outcome. It is great to listen to other members talk about their experiences and how it translates to their electorates, and their constituents.
As I have outlined in my contribution to the debate, Tennant Creek and the Barkly - a mining history, a pastoral culture, and some of the most fabulous Territorians in the place. We are excited. As the Treasurer outlined the other day, things are looking good in Tennant Creek. Real estate values have increased, and a land release program from this government, the first we have seen for 30 years in Tennant Creek, has been extremely successful, with more to come …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Thank goodness, we built all that infrastructure down there for you.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, that is a beauty. It should be recorded in Hansard; it was that good. It was all about ‘we did, we did’. Well, I am talking about now. I am talking about what we are doing. I am talking about our government servicing those blocks …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine! Member for Drysdale! Cease interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the area that is now being developed in Tennant Creek was abandoned; it was left abandoned. Our government went in and redid the services. We had to redo the sewerage and water; put the power in; and resurface the roads. It was abandoned infrastructure, as that area and that town had been abandoned for quite awhile under the Country Liberals. If you want to talk turkey, then let us talk, because when you have lived in that region for over 30 years, you can make comment. Some half-cut comment from interjection - let us debate it with the locals, let us talk about capital works programs, lucky to make four pages in an annual report in the Barkly region under the previous government. Let us talk about people determined to turn that around, and let us now celebrate what is happening in the Barkly.
Interjections are interjections, one-liners are one-liners, and that is about all they are. It might create some media spin for the member for Katherine, but bring it on! As I said recently, I do not just talk about my home town and the region where my kids have grown up; I like to share stories about other regions as well and I recently shared a story about Katherine which may have struck a nerve with the member for Katherine. People in Katherine are happy to hear good news stories about what our government is doing.
Madam Speaker, I digress. I go back to my home town and the Barkly I represent. I can talk about the good stories, and it is a good news story under a Henderson Labor government, and that is a fact of life. What we are doing is aligning with the opportunities - it is about talking the place up - and those opportunities are going to deliver prosperity to support future generations. These future generations do not all have to be miners, but if you get a start in an industry which has real world conditions, you can translate that anywhere you like.
I reiterate the other concept I am pushing within the regional and remote communities, the fly in/fly out culture. There has been much criticism of the fly in/fly out culture. We are about turning that around because the fly in/fly out culture can be fly in/fly out of Darwin from Yuendumu, or fly in/fly out of Tennant Creek, so you do not have to stay home for a job. You can have a job and, in these new shift breaks, you can work hard in supported accommodation environments with some of the best tradies on the planet, and be home in a regional or remote area. You can be on the Davenport Ranges or at a favourite spot of mine, the old Policeman Waterhole, and camp there for a few days. You can spend time with your family at home in Canteen Creek or Epenarra. You can come from Corella Creek and still access the prosperity of the future being delivered through our resource sector or the prosperity available in our pastoral sector. That is what the kids around Tennant Creek and the Barkly are now focused on.
That relates to preparation and, within our education system, we are getting the bare bones right. We are focusing on every child, every day. We are securing the opportunities so these kids are prepared for what can be theirs, what will be theirs, and what is rightfully theirs – opportunity.
I once again thank the minister, and this House, for the opportunity to speak about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, and a future that looks rosy under a Henderson Labor government.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of officers from the Department of Resources and Mr John Fogarty from the United States Environment Protection Authority. Mr Fogarty is in Darwin to speak at the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulatory Network Conference which is being held at the Convention Centre this Thursday and Friday. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also acknowledge the electorate officer for the member for Nelson, Ms Kim Lawlor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government
Proposed Censure of Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That this House censure the government for:
1. conduct leading to the government being in a state of crisis, namely:
an inability to properly address law and order;
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business …
Mr Mills: They have accepted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): I have already accepted. If we could have it distributed – I do not know if they have enough paper out there, but hopefully they do, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Is it signed, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MILLS: That list has been compiled by your actions and lack thereof, and what I have seen and what we have come to see and know ...
Ms Scrymgour: You are a liar, Terry, you are a liar! If anyone …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is already out there.
Ms Lawrie: This is your swan song, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: Tenuously hanging ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Treasurer!
Mr Conlan: No, it is your epitaph …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms Lawrie: You do not decide that ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This starts with a government that is able to spend its time talking about things that create an impression in their own minds – a sense of delusion that they are doing okay. They have turned their attention away from Territorians, who are deeply concerned and are looking to a government to do something that makes a real difference to them.
They talk about things they have numbers around; they have certain quantities around. However, when it comes to values and important things that mean something to Northern Territory families, they could not care less; they have become so consumed with the spin cycle. We have the little clever tactics being played from the other side which is a demonstration, in my view, of an entirely desperate government, clinging to the last vestiges of power.
The member for Casuarina says: ‘Mark my words: this is going to be a dirty campaign’. He is predicting something terrible is going to happen from the Country Liberal Party, by imputation. The fact is, we have that type of tactic being played from the other side. With their vast resources, all they can come up with is grubby little tactics to try to focus attention on the government. This is an opposition with its limited resources that has focused its attention - and is continuing to do so - on the things that matter.
We are fed up with this type of behaviour from the members of our government - who scoff and laugh and mock. I tell you that Territorians are watching you; they know what you are up to. We have people talking to us, believe it or not, and you have turned your attention away. You have turned your attention away to a small circle, and you believe your own lie. You believe you are doing okay; you are clapping each other on the back. You have your little group up there working out clever, gutter politics to try to advance your desperate political game – and you are not going to be supported in that.
If you are going to defend yourself, have a look around and see how many people are actually supporting you in real terms. You have lost your connection. You are not fair dinkum. You are not actually drawing support in the wider community. The people who are sitting on this side of the Chamber, who have come from our community, who are working with our limited resources in the community to hold this government to account, are being sustained by this community which is desperate for a change. They are desperate for something they can hang on to.
All this government holds on to is the hope over the horizon that something good is going to happen. They talk about infrastructure, which are things, but the things that matter are law, order, and families feeling safe in their own community. You do not talk about that. The Chief Minister was standing and mocking the opposition, saying: ‘They do not want to hear about it, Madam Speaker. They do not want to hear about all these great things that have happened in Palmerston’.
Well, I am pleased, as a resident of Palmerston, that there is a school finally built - two schools. However, I know, as a resident of the city, we have had no end of petitions calling upon this slow-acting and callous government to release the pressure on those overcrowded schools, which have been overcrowded for eight years! Now, you have finally done something, you expect the whole crowd to applaud you for doing what a government should have done in the first place!
You do not have a long-term plan, you have a short-term plan, which is a political plan to save your political hides – that is your own interest. The people of Palmerston, yes, sure, we do not mind a waterslide, we do not mind that type of infrastructure, but what we do mind is a government that has neglected the basic needs of a community - which is safety, protection in the street - and policies that work and strengthen a community. We do not have that; we have gutter politics and sneaky little tactics being played to try to bring the opposition down, so you can all laugh with glee and think you have tripped us up.
The fact is, we are not going to be deterred. I do not care what you have on your side. You can bring it all out, because the people will decide. They will make their own decision. They will see right through you because they remember the 2008 election. They knew where you were coming from, and they cast judgment on you because the game you played was not in the interests of the Northern Territory - it was just so you could hang on. You got the fright of your life because quiet Territorians right across the length and the breadth of the Territory had already made up their minds. They do not like what they see; they do like that kind of behaviour. You keep it up and they will make their judgments. I do not care what you have.
There is stuff everywhere but we are not going to get into that game. We are not going to get into that game because Territorians expect better of us, they will be looking to the opposition, and we know that. You can go on with your little clever mantras and say: ‘Where is the policy?’ I tell you what, Chief Minister who has been in the Chamber as long as I, cast your mind back in 2001, try to recall, go back in Hansard and recall the atmosphere in the Northern Territory in 2001. Recall the arrogance of a government at that time, and how you were posturing. You thought you had won every session in the parliament. You would go out into the lobby and think you had done really well - high five - you have done very well; but quietly the mood had changed in the electorate.
This time, the mood has not just changed in the northern suburbs, Palmerston, Darwin, Katherine, and Tennant Creek, the mood has changed in the bush. They have turned their attention away. They want something better and if you keep going the way you are, mark my words, the quiet people, the ones you cannot hear anymore, will make their decision. It is not about you. They can see - no matter how cleverly you spin the line - how you convince each other, and you are all convinced up there on the fifth floor, and all those back slappers will applaud your tactics, but you are the only ones. They can see right through you.
No matter how hard or how cleverly you spin the line, or how much you convince yourself - to deliberately withhold crime statistics and make that change - people will see that and read it for what it is. It is no coincidence that you bring in measures, serious response to a serious problem; well, it is a political response to a serious problem. That is, the problem of alcohol in the Northern Territory.
I put this challenge out there: in 2012, I want to see, Chief Minister - it could be in your own electorate, I do not care - you name the place and the time and I will be there for a public debate on this. Out there where the people will be making that decision, we will discuss these things, the facts will come out, and let people judge it, because the rhetoric and bullshit that goes on in this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would ask that you withdraw that.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw bullshit, Madam Speaker. I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Leader of the Opposition. I remind you that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … that which you believe, the deception you are under, the backslappers, those in your little groups who think you are doing very well out there in the lobby, and the three-and-a-half hollow men upstairs who are egging you on, and you have lost your connection. Let us play this as a pub test: have your debate on alcohol reform, head-to-head, out there in the community. The real measures that are being applied; they will be able to pass their judgment on this government, on its failure with law and order.
No clearer monument to your failure in this area will be established than the spend of $0.5bn on a prison. A previous government leaves a legacy - a railway - which is wealth-producing and demonstrates a vision for the Northern Territory that is in our DNA, and we see that. No matter what you say, we can see it - something that will produce wealth, produce hope, and a direction for the Northern Territory. What you produce is a monument to your failure, your failure to address law and order, and you build a $0.5bn monument to your failed policies in law and order. You can talk about the things you came up with during Question Time, but no one believes you.
You have been accused of falsifying records in child protection. It has been excruciating to see this government over the years, with the community absolutely appalled; and I still feel sickened to my gut when I read some of those accounts. One was in my own electorate, Deborah, who is no longer with us. This government spent its time and energy managing a media problem, managing the issue so it could find its way out of a political problem. The second one was: ‘What can we finally do?’ You were dragged kicking and screaming to offer and render assistance to children, to protect children in our community.
The accusations are absolutely devastating: falsifying records; covering up; denying; moving the blame; one minister to another minister to another minister – no matter what you say or how well you thought you went in Question Time; no matter what you say about the opposition; no matter what little grubby tactics you come up with, the community has already made up their mind. They have already made up their mind on that point. How could that occur? How could you let that happen?
What has happened to the Labor Party that this could occur after 10 years, that you get yourself to the point where you do not mind that occurring, and you can stand up here under assault from the opposition who want to hold this government to account? That is our responsibility, wanting you to protect children, and you spend all your time moving from minister to minister, changing your stories; and the accusations that come, and then you turn your attention to those who blow whistles, raise the alarm, trying to elicit a proper response. Believe it or not, there are people who make telephone calls. There are people who call us who are genuinely concerned, good people who are very concerned across a range of areas.
We know what you did with Mataranka. It is plain for all to see. Yes, you can laugh about it and think: ‘We are bulletproof because we have enjoyed government and we love the power that goes with it but, unfortunately, it has made us a bit deaf and blind’, but the people can see quite clearly. They can see what you did with Mataranka. You can point it in any way you want, but people can see quite clearly what you did, what the will of this government is.
Okay, we have an executive. I do not understand how this executive works. Have they lost control? Have they been taken for a ride? Are they actually in power? They make excuses and transfer responsibility away from themselves constantly. I have concluded, many times when you have come up with answers to accusations levelled at you from the media, from the opposition, from members of the community, even a dear whistleblower who said something, that you do not seem to care. You do not respond in a proper way, and the answers are basically excuses. You can easily conclude that there is no point in having this Territory Labor government. They seem to be figureheads. They do not have answers to questions. They do not take responsibility. They will offload that responsibility to someone else, and it becomes complete gobbledygook.
Who takes responsibility in a government? If a government takes no responsibility, there is no point in having a government; and this is a government that does not trouble itself with responsibility. The only problem it has to deal with is a political problem, how you manage that, and I can see what is happening here. We have perhaps 10 months to the next Territory election, and judging by the member for Casuarina who prophesises that there are going to be grubby tactics played: ‘Mark my words’. Well, lo and behold, next day, out comes this, shock, horror; report to the police, we have a letter here. I mean, fair dinkum.
He predicted right, because we know the form of this Labor government. It is desperate to hold on to power, will resort to whatever measures are at its disposal to try to hold on to power, and discredit their opponents. At the end of the day, Territorians are going to wonder who is paying any attention to our needs? Who is dealing with the pressures on our daily budget? Who is dealing with the long-term and strategic plans for urban development? Who is providing some hope for families living in the bush, remote communities, Indigenous people, who have looked to the Labor Party and been encouraged by the Labor Party all those years, all those votes, and all that support that has been given to the Labor Party, and what have they been repaid with? Confusion; they have been used and misused quite badly and they have lost their faith.
You might not believe that, but I have been around long enough and I can read the play. The tide has turned away from you. It has turned away from you in the bush for a very good reason, because there was hope and expectation and you failed to deliver, failed to give an adequate account of yourselves, and now you have resorted to tactics uncovered in this parliament through the member for Katherine. We know what is going on. People talk; people tell us what is going on. People make reports because they have lost their confidence, interest, and respect in this government. They tell us what is being said behind the scenes. The member for Daly says: ‘It is just politics; that is all you are playing’. Someone who makes that judgment is someone involved in that level of activity all the time and, frankly, we are not.
You have failed to assume responsibility on so many fronts - let us take Palmerston for an example. Do you think the people of Palmerston are going to applaud you because you built things in Palmerston? You actually believe that. You built all these nice things: Rugby League and soccer fields, put lights around the football field, built some change rooms and a grandstand, a water park and that sort of stuff and, as a result of building these things, you believe people are going to vote for you. They will say: ‘That is the type of thing a government should do’. ‘We want a health system that works, not a slogan; we do not want something that sounds like something it is not’.
People do not want to be oversold on basic things like health provision; they want a school that works and want to see their kids making real progress. They want to see the crime stats - if we could see them - showing real signs of improvement. They do not want all the hype about the scanning of your ID: ‘Do not worry, we will cherry-pick some data because we cannot give you the full data because people might misuse it for political purposes. We will give you some cherry-pick data and demonstrate this is working, to reassure you’. People are not to be taken for fools - they know. They have seen these measures put in place in other jurisdictions and they will not work because you are failing to address the real problem.
The withdrawing of data makes it difficult to prosecute the argument; however, they have already made their judgment; they know what you are up to. They want to know a scheme really does work, have confidence in it, and know you have their best interests at heart. If you had their best interests at heart, you would have kept the data going, but you do not. You do not want to be held accountable. You found an explanation why it is taken out of the equation: ‘Just take our glossy brochure’s word that it is working. Take our selective choosing of data as a demonstration this is working’. That is called deception and you cannot fool the people like that. You cannot have a Question Time where you talk about all the infrastructure you built and think everyone is going to love you for it. That is what governments do; however, people want good governance. They want a government that is fair dinkum and honest with them, not playing games.
Mark my words - the member for Casuarina is quite correct - it is going to be a grubby campaign, but I know where the grubbiness is going to come from, and I know the electorate is going to make its judgment. I do not care; the people will make their own judgment. They want something better than they have and this government is deserving of censure, make no mistake.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion. It is quite long, with many points, and I will try to address each point as best I can.
By way of background, Question Time today was a very weak effort by the opposition and this censure motion is a fairly weak attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to bolster his position. Looking back over the two weeks of these sittings, the strongest Question Time by the opposition was …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … the strongest showing by the opposition was on the first day of this two-weeks’ sittings when the member for Fong Lim led the charge on the carbon tax. Since he has withdrawn, there has been a fairly weak showing by the opposition during these …
Mr Elferink: Talk about withdrawn. Look around you. Look around you!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you will cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: They talk about bullyboy tactics and all the rest of it. They are the ones who are indulging in it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: I gave the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy, when he spoke, to listen in silence and listen carefully to what he had to say. I ask members of the opposition to extend the same courtesy to me. They might not like what I have to say. I make this observation …
Mr Elferink: Your own colleagues do not like it; look around you!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: There has been much mentioned today by the Leader of the Opposition about the election in 2008. He said, and rightly so, the CLP improved their position in 2008. One only has to look on that side of the Chamber to see that. However, since 2008 and 2009, there have been some pivotal turning points within the term of this parliament. What we have seen, from my perspective, but then I am biased …
Mr Elferink: A government in crisis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, what I have seen is a Chief Minister who has had difficult issues to deal with, and has built a team - and a disciplined team …
Mr Elferink: Discipline? Look at the backs of their chairs! Where is the discipline?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Westra van Holthe: What about your ministers who jumped ship?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Dr BURNS: What I have seen and experienced firsthand is a Chief Minister who has grown in the job, who has built a team around him - and that team …
Members interjecting.
Mr Elferink: They are gone; they are not here!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we are seeing who the bullyboys are, and the arrogance here today …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin will cease interjecting! Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: They do not like what I am saying, but I will say it – or I will continue to try to say it. The Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, has exhibited leadership through very difficult …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: I will talk into the microphone, and I will not let you interject again, member for Port Darwin, because I am sick of your arrogance. I am sick of your stupidity, which was evidenced today in Question Time …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is a censure motion brought on by the opposition. I would have thought members of the opposition would like to hear the government’s response to the censure motion. I will be putting people on further warnings. Leader of Government Business, address the censure motion, please.
Dr BURNS: I am addressing it, Madam Speaker. I am addressing some of the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition who mentioned the upcoming election several times, the 2012 election. He also mentioned the 2008 election, and I am addressing some of the issues he raised.
What I have seen since 2008 is a leader who has grown, who has built a disciplined team. That is what I have seen. What have I seen on the other side? I have seen an Opposition Leader who, in the words of the member for Port Darwin, brought the opposition to within a whisker of government. Since then, I have seen it unravel for the Leader of the Opposition. He is not a leader; he cannot lead. His leadership is, and will continue, to unravel …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: … over the next 10 months, and Territorians are aware of that - Territorians can see that. The Leader of the Opposition sometimes reminds me of a sheep. When the sheep dog is around, the lead sheep stamps its foot trying to look authoritative. That is what he does when he comes into this parliament. However, he has no authority. The only authority is the member for Fong Lim, who really has de facto control of the party opposite. That is the fact of the situation. Territorians will see that. They have a clear choice between leadership and lack of leadership, between honesty and someone facing difficult issues, and someone who hides …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … for seven hours in a restaurant because he is too gutless to go outside!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister.
Whilst this is a censure motion, the normal rules apply for the parliament in relation to behaviour and, honourable members, the disorder is well beyond anything normal.
Leader of Government Business, there are a few members who are already on warnings, so bear that in mind.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first element of their censure motion is an inability to properly address law and order. The CLP had a freeze on police numbers for several years in the 1990s. This government invested in 400 extra police across the Territory; a substantial investment. We commissioned a former Police Commissioner of Queensland, Jim O’Sullivan ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin will cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: ... to submit a report, and we acted on that report – very important. There was neglect we inherited from the CLP with law and order.
A great deal has been made about the gaol, the $0.5bn gaol the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. He said it was a monument to the failure of this government. Unfortunately, I need to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that governments have responsibilities; we have responsibilities to build schools, we have responsibilities to build health clinics, we have responsibility to build all types of infrastructure and, as government, we also have responsibilities to build prisons. It is an unfortunate fact of life that governments have charge of the Corrections system and have a responsibility.
God knows, if there were any way we could have avoided building a new prison, we would have taken that course of action, and the member for Nelson, through his journey, found out exactly the same. There is no way, and the Treasurer ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... alluded to this earlier in these proceedings ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: … about the inefficiency of trying to rebuild on the current gaol site, for all kinds of reasons. So, we are building a new goal, unfortunately. We would much rather spend that money on something else, but the reality is, it has to be done, member for Blain, I am sorry, and it is part of the responsibilities of government to do so …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: It is a completely spurious view to argue in that vein.
The second point, the complete neglect of the people of Central Australia. That is hyperbole and, as a government, we have invested in Central Australia. We acknowledge that Alice Springs, in particular, has quite a deal of social problems, and we are trying to address those problems.
The opposition says it will put 20 extra police in Alice Springs ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... and that is their policy. We do not have just 20 extra police, we have 400 extra police, and we leave it to the Police Commissioner to deploy those police and cover-off on police operations.
We have an opposition, and the member for Greatorex, in particular, who is quite disdainful and dismissive of police, and whenever police might challenge or not agree with them - they talk about brutalising public servants, but they are quite vicious in the way they attack anyone who stands in their way, who might not particularly agree with them …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Here we go, lumbering every Territorian with unsustainable levels of debt, and I can roll that one into recklessly spending GST revenues.
So, is the opposition saying we should not have build schools throughout the Northern Territory, or build services, or health clinics? I have travelled in the bush ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... a fair bit, and what was out there, or not out there, was a disgrace ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: ... and members opposite like to talk about the testament of the CLP achievement. The member for Braitling often talks about this - he has been in the Territory a couple of years - but he needs to really get around and have a look at what was there in 2001 …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know it is impossible for the minister to construct an argument without obsessing over the CLP. It was flattering; it is now getting a bit creepy …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Mr CONLAN: ... and we might need to get a restraining order out against him.
_______________________
Withdrawal from Chamber -
Member for Greatorex
Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat! Member for Greatorex, remove yourself from the Chamber, please. You were already on a warning. Remove yourself under Standing Order 248.
Mr CONLAN: You are kidding!
Madam SPEAKER: Remove yourself from the Chamber!
Mr CONLAN: Am I able to put …
Madam SPEAKER: Remove yourself from the Chamber, member for Greatorex, or I will name you!
______________________
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, all through this censure debate, I have tried to conduct myself with some dignity and decorum, but we have a rabble of an opposition. That is what they are; they are out of the box. The member for Blain is a nice bloke, he is a good bloke, but he cannot control them. They are out of the box and, basically, that is what Territorians will look at also …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … your inability to discipline, member for Blain, in stark contrast to our leader, who has a disciplined team.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, are they saying we should not have invested that GST revenue into delivering 400 extra police officers across the Territory? The number would have to be in the 400s, 400 extra nurses and extra teachers - are you saying we should not have invested? No! So, what are you saying? It is hard to know what you are saying, because you do not have any real policies. In contrast to 2001, which the member for Blain mentioned, I was a candidate then, and the opposition, although small, smaller than you, had a suite of policies. I do not see that from you.
I see very little policy development from you, and that is a crucial difference, because the people of the Northern Territory could look at those policies and make a decision, but with you it is a vacuum, a policy vacuum. Even when you do have a policy, you back away from it. We saw that last week with your policy on greenhouse and climate change. The Leader of the Opposition released a policy in 2009, which was quite plain and acknowledged that climate change was measurable and action needed to be taken on greenhouse gases; and then we had the member for Brennan come in here repudiating the lot. It is chaos on your side, there is no discipline in terms of policy …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Dr BURNS: And are you saying we should not have employed an extra 208 doctors? Well, you are a joke, that is the reason why this motion is a joke. Are they saying we should not have gone into debt in relation to the GFC and spending on infrastructure? They are the only ones in the Territory who are thinking that way. Business accords with what this government has done with going into deficit. I might add that we had - I think it was eight years of surplus prior to that deficit - eight years of surplus. I well remember the last budget of the former CLP government where Mike Reed, and I have much admiration for Mike Reed now that I have been a minister for a while, I understand that Mike Reed was a very good minister. I know for a fact that Mike Reed raided the pantry, the hollow log, the Conditions of Service Trust. He pulled $150m, from memory, out of the Conditions of Service Trust when he had a debt of $149m so he could have a surplus of $1m in an election year.
We have shown ourselves to be better fiscal managers than the opposition. Even when you had a good Treasurer like Mike Reed, the rest of it was just a rabble, really. We have had surplus budgets. I know the member for Port Darwin is getting desperate. I know the shadow of the member for Fong Lim is falling on him, and he is losing control of his troops. When they came in here they were all newbies, and here was the expert, doctor, professor, member for Port Darwin, and they are smart enough to see what he did today was shoot himself in the foot in a mighty way with calling imputations and inferences in questions. They are seeing you are not the Herr Doctor Professor after all, member for Port Darwin. You really bumbled it today, and you are losing your grip on the position you hold; however, I digress.
Much has been made of the crime statistics and the Chief Minister explained in this House today how we are moving in line with national publication of crime statistics. There is nothing sinister about it, nothing being hidden, nothing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, you have been warned.
Dr BURNS: … like the job offer he made to Leo Abbott. That was hidden and only came to light because there was a verbatim transcript which clearly showed he made a job offer to Leo Abbott. He dropped Tony Abbott in it as well, and Tony Abbott heard about it and said he knew nothing about it. One of those two is not telling the truth …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I think I know who it is. Anyway, I digress.
Mr Elferink: What about the things that matter to Territorians? What about the government’s absence from this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a further warning. You will be removing yourself very shortly!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, in relation to climate change there is a thing called the ozone layer; however, in this House there is a thing called the bozone layer - a substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. It was illustrated in the debate on climate change, the way the member for Brennan completely left his leader high and dry on that issue. There is much bozone layer happening on the other side.
Driving up the cost of living through failed land release policies: we are releasing land at five or six times the fastest rate ever. You only have to go out to Palmerston East and see the development …
Mr Westra van Holthe interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Dr BURNS: … and what is going on out there. There is a phenomenal amount of land release.
Standing with Julia Gillard is the allegation in support of the live cattle bans. The Chief Minister has made it very plain …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … as has the member for Casuarina, that we fought hard for the resumption of the live cattle trade. We were in accord with the Cattlemen’s Association because we did not politicise the issue, unlike members opposite, who were grasping after straws trying to politicise a range of issues.
Repeatedly ignoring the motions of this House: we are in minority government and we accept that, from time to time, we will lose motions on the floor of this House. However, we have a rock solid agreement with the member for Nelson regarding supply and a want of confidence in the government. We have that, and the member for Nelson probably knows, after all this time, he made the right decision. He only has to look at the rabble, disorder, and chaos on the other side – I believe he said so publicly - to know why he went with this side of the House, and rightly so. At the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition is unable to control his troops. It must exasperate him to see what goes on; must drive him to distraction that he cannot have a disciplined team.
We hope they are going to support statehood and the convention on statehood. I am not going to pre-empt debate, but we had the introduction of legislation today. I am hoping in the November sittings the opposition will be wholeheartedly supporting statehood and will have learnt from the mistakes of the past when Shane Stone tried to politicise the Statehood Convention and the whole shift to statehood, and the vote was lost. As Paul Keating famously observed: ‘They are like the Bourbons; they have learnt nothing and they have forgotten nothing’. It is history repeating itself. I hope not, but let us hope they can wholeheartedly and honestly support statehood and the Statehood Convention; however, they have form.
We have seen what they did on CDL and they are having a little tickle-up in this motion. They are very ambivalent about CDL, and I have mentioned their Janus face before - the two faces of the CLP in relation to container deposit legislation. We saw it with Angela Pamela. It was a difficult introduction to political life for the member for Araluen who, I believe, is a very sincere person. She found it hard. She made undertakings to the electorate then the heavies came down on her and others - I think the member for Greatorex as well - to completely reverse their position. That is the CLP; they cannot stick to a policy or a position. I do not believe they can be trusted. I hope the electorate, when they come to consider which way they are going to go next August, will look at these things.
Yes, they will look at where government may not have delivered, where government may not have been everything they wanted of us, they will look at you as well, and they will make a decision. The people are never wrong, member for Port Darwin, and we will see what decision they come up with next November.
We do know there are members on the other side - I will not name them – who are completely terrified about any challenge in their seat - completely terrified that a decent candidate will be named against them and they will lose their seat. The answer is: ‘You should have been working a bit harder!’ You should have been coming to the Rapid Creek Markets every Sunday, not just every time there is an election or an issue around. People can see who is working and who is not. People talk amongst themselves about what their local member may or may not have done for them. We fall or stay, largely on the basis of what we do in our electorates. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
You mentioned the tragic death of Deborah Melville, and we have debated this issue and talked about this very serious, sad issue in this House on a number of occasions. I have placed on the record my feelings and thoughts on this particular case. However, to say this government has – I think you said we forged documents, falsifying records in child protection. I ask the Leader of the Opposition - he mentioned it a few times but never substantiated it - is he alleging that a minister has falsified records? Is he alleging that a minister has directed a public servant to falsify records? If that is the case, that is a very serious allegation. We know in this House that falsifying records is a very serious thing we should not be engaging in - whether we are members, whether we are opposition members, or any member in this House. I ask, if there are further speakers from the other side on this censure motion, for them to substantiate what you are saying about falsifying records, because that is a very serious allegation.
The hyperbole about bullying public servants and hiring a private detective to intimidate a whistleblower: the minister has been on the record about how, in industrial claims against the department, there certainly was someone looking into those allegations against the department. It had nothing to do with bullying the person who, allegedly, was a whistleblower. This was a matter of process, of getting to the bottom of allegations - serious allegations - that had been made. I say that is transparency and openness, not bullying.
Knowingly delayed the release of pollution levels in the harbour: I am not sure what that is about. The member for Brennan talked about …
Mr Bohlin: Where is the Chief Minister? Has anyone seen him today?
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If you could remind the member for Drysdale that reference to the presence or absence of any member in the Chamber is against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. Member for Drysdale, withdraw whatever comment you made.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment that the Chief Minister is not here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no need for commentary, thank you.
Dr BURNS: The assertion that, somehow, we knowingly delayed the release of pollution levels in the harbour, raised earlier in a draft report the minister has not even received yet, but that is in line with many other things the member for Brennan does on the floor of this House to try to get a headline.
Container deposit legislation I have mentioned. Culpability for the Montara oil spill: the member for Casuarina detailed in legislation, in statute, what our responsibilities are.
Engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians: I see the gutter politics is getting a bit of a run. I read a transcript from the member for Macdonnell on Rohan Barwick this morning about gutter politics; she mentioned gutter politician about four or five times, so this is obviously a line developed by the CLP. I note with some amusement that when asked whether there was an agreement between herself and the Leader of the Opposition about her being a minister, she said: ‘There is no agreement. True God. True God, Rohan’. You might recall the other day I talked about people putting their hand on their heart, fingers curled, and saying ‘true God’, and I said be very careful when someone says that, so instantly when I read that I thought to myself: ‘Whammy! There is an agreement …’
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe in God; He is true.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order!
Dr BURNS: Picking up on the interjection by the member for Brennan. There are many deities in the world and maybe the true God in that case was Shiva the Destroyer. I digress Madam Speaker.
I worry, I have seen it in action, I have seen the hand on the heart and true God, and every time, there has been no truth, it has not been the truth. I know the mannerisms, I know the ‘tells’, and as soon as that was said, I said to myself: ‘There is an agreement, nothing surer’.
That is what lies at the bottom of the problems for the Leader of the Opposition. Agreements with Leo Abbott had to be dragged kicking and screaming, still denied it, stayed in a restaurant for seven hours, and now an agreement between him and the member for Macdonnell. I believe it exists, just like I believe God exists, member for Brennan, and this is a vain attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to try to shore up his leadership. I do not think he can lead these people over there, I think they are in revolt against him, I think he is having deep difficulties with his leadership.
Madam Speaker, this censure motion is a vain attempt for him to shore up his support. What I can say on this side of the House, our support for the Chief Minister is rock solid on this side of the House. He is a leader, he will lead this party to the next election, and the people will make their choice.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this censure motion brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I have never seen such a poor performance by the retiring member for Johnston. It was quite disappointing listening to this very retiring performance. All we heard from the retiring member for Johnston were deflections and hideous speculation about the leadership once again. We have heard it all before; it all comes back to this process of …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I considered the member’s performance to be Oscar winning.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order!
Mr Elferink: We agree, Madam Speaker, but he is just an actor.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that is not a point of order either!
Mrs LAMBLEY: If that was Oscar winning, gee whiz …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mrs LAMBLEY: If that was Oscar winning, Madam Speaker, it speaks volumes about the capacity, potential, and performance overall of this government. Continually harking back to the performance of the CLP 10 years ago and more is so boring, irrelevant, tiring, and quite embarrassing. They do not have anything else to pin on us, apart from endless speculation about the internal mechanisms, dramas, and apparent goings-on in the opposition ranks, and what we did 10 years ago or more.
This government has no retort or defence, and never accepts responsibility for its poor performance over the last 10 years. The retiring member for Johnston was a lone soldier, a voice in the mist, he had no friends and support during that speech, and I felt almost sorry for him; a little boy lost in the mist.
He said there is quite a deal of social problems in the Northern Territory, which is a complete understatement. This government has failed to address the social problems in the last 10 years and we are left with the mess we see in the Northern Territory today. Ten years of Labor government and look at the mess before us, look at the mess the next government has to clean up. God forbid, I hope it is us who gets the job to clean it up, because another term of this government and we will be looking down the chute at something unimaginable. Ten years of the Henderson Labor government and the state of government and governance has never been as bad.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine! Member for Arafura!
Mrs LAMBLEY: In January this year, we saw a piece in the NT News, ‘Northern Territory government rates the worst in the nation’. It talked about a survey done by the Australian Property Council …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, put that down, thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … talking about how this government rates the worst in the nation in affordable housing; land release; planning and management; and urban growth. The worst in the nation - that is how the people of the Northern Territory rated this government in January this year. The report card of this government is grim, grim, and grim. All we get are lies and manipulation of data and statistics, which I will talk about a little later.
Nowhere has this government failed more than in Central Australia; the poor cousin left out to dry in the desert, literally. This government has unashamedly neglected Central Australia.
Law and order: last summer, I heard the Minister for Central Australia admit it was a diabolical shame what happened - a tsunami of crime like we have never seen before; property offences up, juvenile crime up. The report tabled – it was not tabled actually – released by the Department of Justice, the review into juvenile justice is a lengthy and well-written report by my predecessor, a former Country Liberals’ member, profiling what a failure this government has been in juvenile justice.
They allowed a former Country Liberals’ member of parliament to tell them what a sham the juvenile justice system is. Work that out. It is a mystery to me why they asked the former member for Araluen to do that, but she did so, and she did it incredibly well. She tactfully outlined how juvenile crime has escalated in the Northern Territory in recent years; and how very little has been done to create a system that fully responds to the needs of juveniles in trouble in the Northern Territory. The recommendations are a report card saying: ‘Shape up government, get your act together, start reforming your bureaucracy, and start responding’. You have had 10 years to do that in juvenile justice, as you have had 10 years to do it in many other areas. This is just one example.
Alcohol reform - we have had five years of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. As I have said many times in this Chamber, we in Alice Springs, in Central Australia, are the experts on alcohol reform. We know what works. We know what happens. We know what does not work. We know what the truth is, and we have never heard any truth about alcohol reforms, and what is actually happening in terms of the restrictions and how they have failed to achieve any great change in alcohol-related crime and alcohol-related social problems in Alice Springs.
We have heard much about the Banned Drinker Register over the last couple of weeks; 1500 people placed on the Banned Drinker Register. That alone says absolutely nothing; that is one figure in isolation. What we need to know is how many of those people are still drinking, are continuing to drink. What is that figure, minister for alcohol reform? No, we will probably never get a measure of that. How many of those people are being surveyed, are being tracked, to find out whether they are actually drinking? Those people should be monitored so we get some reliable data around this, but no, the government continues to peddle out figures in isolation, which mean absolutely nothing but serves to mislead the public of the Northern Territory time and time again.
In regard to businesses closing in Alice Springs, we heard a sincere report on the radio early in the week, as my colleague mentioned earlier in Question Time, from the CEO of the Alice Springs Chamber of Commerce, Kay Eade. She said businesses are closing in the town, and I quote:
We are not listened to, anyway.
Businesses are indeed closing in Alice Springs; however, we get the banter from the Labor government saying: ‘Oh, but Bunnings is opening, and Best and Less is moving in, and it is all fantastic’. Once again, we are getting that information in isolation; we are not getting it in context of anything else that is happening in the town. We know from the national invasion of many of these big companies, particularly Bunnings, there is a major cost to these big projects - these big multinational firms coming in. They tend to cannibalise the employment of the town they move into.
In the town where I was born and bred, Grafton, Bunnings moved in and the two local hardware stores closed down. You can hardly rave on about the virtues of Bunnings without acknowledging there is a significant cost. Undoubtedly, within the next couple of years after Bunnings goes into Alice Springs, you will almost definitely see businesses close. You do not get that honesty from the other side of the room; you just get raw facts floating in the air without any contextual explanation or ownership of the fact that it is not all good. Bunnings coming is great news in relation to investment in the town, but there will definitely be a cost. We need to acknowledge, as a government, as a parliament, that these things are not always as rosy as they seem. What about all the locally-owned and operated businesses in Alice Springs that will suffer as a result of these big businesses going in? What about those? No mention from the government of the cost at all.
We have heard a great deal about Kilgariff, the amazing new land release and suburb development in Alice Springs. I waited six weeks for a briefing, to even get word back on a briefing, on the progress of the Kilgariff subdivision – six weeks. Am I wrong to feel slightly suspicious of why they have stalled me; why they put me off for six weeks? I suspect nothing much is happening. There is no hiding from the reality, the truth, and this government works hard to hide from the truth. Unlike the government, the opposition has absolutely nothing to hide. We have not put ourselves in this huge, deep hole the government finds itself in at the moment.
You talk about the CBD of Alice Springs; we have 2 ha of vacant land in the middle of Alice Springs which has been levelled over the last 10 years – 2 ha in a small, regional centre such as Alice Springs. That is outrageous and you have to ask why this is so? I will tell you why: this government has done nothing to stimulate development and business in Alice Springs. It can talk until it is blue in the face, but I know it is telling you rubbish about how it has worked on stimulating business and trying to get things happening. Neglect, neglect, and more neglect is the theme of how it has treated Central Australia over the last 10 years.
No new developments in the CBD of Alice Springs for over three years! The last ones to go up were the Imparja Building and Little Antz Childcare Centre – they were both built over three years ago. The Minister for Central Australia yesterday had the hide to bring up the revitalisation project of the CBD of Alice Springs; six years of consultation and we have not seen a red cent spent on anything else apart from consultation, consultation, and consultation. Lies, deceit, misleading information; it is all a bluff, it is all a charade, and this government has a heck of a lot to answer for!
Education: the Children’s Commissioner informed me and several colleagues earlier in the year that school attendance has never been so low in the history of the Northern Territory; 40% school attendance rates in some schools in the Northern Territory. How shameful is that? I picked up the annual report from the Department of Education and Training a couple of days ago. This is a complete and utter embarrassment for this government. They must look at this, turn away, and try to hide it under the table or something, because it is pages and pages of statistical data saying this government has failed in education.
Minister for Education, I know we have some amazing teachers out there. A teacher who lives in my electorate has just won the Teacher of the Year Award - the national Teacher of the Year Award. I am so incredibly proud of her. I do not know her personally, but it gives me shivers down my back to talk about the amazing achievements of people doing the right thing, working hard.
However, this government has done very little to help Northern Territory teachers do the job as best they can, to get the kids to school. Why are you not getting the kids to school? Why is the government not getting the children to school? It is mind blowing - absolutely mind-blowing how, after 10 years of being in government, school attendance in the Northern Territory has never been so low. There is no explanation for it apart from neglect, mismanagement, and this government taking its eye off the ball.
The Northern Territory population is shrinking in some places. In Alice Springs, it has not grown for years. The recent Census might show something different but, over the last 10 years, there has been no population growth whatsoever in Alice Springs and, quite possibly, in other parts of the Northern Territory. We are not growing at any great rate, anyway. We all know that. More people seem to be leaving the Northern Territory than arriving. What does that say about how this place has been governed over the last 10 years? What it says to me is this government has, once again, taken its eye of the ball.
The cost of living is one reason why. This is a place where people cannot afford to live. It is about housing, affordable housing, land release, good economic management, and controlling law and order in places such as Alice Springs. People do not want to live in a town in which they feel constantly fearful, checking their backs, and where there is no, or very little, economic confidence, or economic confidence is shrinking or diminishing.
The critical shortage of childcare in Alice Springs is a major problem. We have waiting lists throughout the town of over 100 children - 100 children waiting to be placed in a childcare centre so their parents can work and contribute meaningfully to the economic fabric of Alice Springs. This is a shameful situation, particularly when you talk about what is happening in Palmerston. Palmerston has a brand-new childcare centre sitting there, not open, not used, ready to go. For what reason? Why is this so? Why has the government not made it happen? Why have they not got on to the various providers and people responsible for operating this childcare centre? For goodness sake, you have people screaming out for childcare in Alice Springs - absolutely desperate, hamstrung. They want to contribute, to earn money, they want their children to be stimulated during the day and know their children are safe in a lovely, new childcare centre. However, in Palmerston, you have one that has not even opened; it has been sitting idle for months. Then, we are hearing stories that two other childcare centres in Palmerston could likely close or be moved - or some such story.
What is this government doing about enabling people to work and contribute in a meaningful way to the economy of the Northern Territory, so they want to stay here for years and years and enjoy the beauty, natural surrounds, and environment of the Northern Territory? I find it completely unfathomable why this government would not act, would not enable, and would not jump on these issues as they arise.
The Bushfires Council in Central Australia: bushfires in Alice Springs have never been so bad. We have been hearing about it for weeks. The planning for the current bushfire season was inadequate, the resources provided to the Bushfires Councils were inadequate, and, thus, we have had a situation where everyone involved with controlling bushfires has felt deeply disappointed and unsupported. The management, we have been told, of the Bushfires Council of Central Australia has been centralised to Darwin from Central Australia.
This is another theme of this government: centralise, centralise, centralise. Big Brother! This is the way of a Communist regime: ‘Let us bring all the control into the centre. Let us take it out of the regions, take it away from people they do not know and trust, and bring it all into the centre, all into Darwin’. It is typical Labor Party politics, it is typical communist regime, socialist regime tactics, centralisation, and this is what we have seen for years in Central Australia. It is absolutely shameful!
In the last couple of years, we have seen the Alice Springs office of the Commissioner for Public Employment close; Alice Springs CCTV monitoring move to Darwin; Alice Springs police communications move to Darwin; the Ombudsman’s office move to Darwin; the police media liaison position move to Darwin; Childcare Licensing Officers move to Darwin; and now we have seen the Bushfires Council management move to Darwin. Centralising is one of the great themes of this government - an absolute disgrace; they have absolutely no commitment to regions in the Northern Territory, they do not care about anywhere else but Darwin. It is plain for anyone to see.
The cost of living, as I said, has skyrocketed, and petrol prices have escalated almost out of control. I have heard very little from the government in response to irrational, unfair pricing around petrol. This is a critical part of everyone’s life in this day and age and we have heard next to nothing about petrol pricing.
Madam Speaker, I quickly go to child protection, which is my area of most interest. Child protection is probably the saddest area when it comes to the neglect of this government. When it comes to protecting children and strengthening families, this government has failed, failed, and failed again.
Six independent inquiries into child protection, six damning reports into this government’s failure in child protection, including 315 recommendations from these six reports all advising and recommending reform from top to bottom within the child protection system. Late last year, we saw that dreadful Four Corners program detailing three horrific cases of child abuse and neglect. It was called Dangerous Territory. Most of us in this Chamber saw that program and were shocked and distressed about what we saw. It profiled the case of Susan Mansfield, a woman who stepped outside the realms of the bureaucracy. She took a risk, reported a case to the media, used an e-mail instead of a verbal notification, and my goodness, is she not paying the price of showing a little initiative and showing she truly cares about children because this woman was subject to bullying and intimidating by this government. They like to shoot the messenger. On the other hand, the opposition would appreciate and value people like Susan Mansfield in the system.
Child protection is a sham in the Northern Territory. They have so much to hide, they have years of neglect and failure, they have made themselves impotent with regard to reforming the system. It is another example of the absolute failure of this government. This government has buried itself in lies and fabrications for years. The Ombudsman’s report, minister for Education, outlined …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Mr ELERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The clock still says 20 minutes.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been reset for the next speaker. Are you rising to speak?
Mr ELERINK: There was no wind down of the last minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was waiting for an extension. There was no wind down and …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just double-check with the Clerk. Resume your seat, thank you.
I am advised the clock did wind down and it was reset for 20 minutes. I am advised by the Clerk and I accept that advice.
Mr ELERINK: It did not happen, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am on my feet anyhow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, wow, look at this. Here is a government that is so interested in these matters that it leaves the retiring member for Johnston to run the defence. It could not be less interested, and it has demonstrated the height of its arrogance by taking this position. They do not sit here. I heard the member for Johnston, not supported by any of his colleagues, and I hope his colleagues are enjoying the cups of tea. This reminds me of another government in 2001 which took the same attitude whilst a very passionate opposition continued to raise issues that concerned Territorians.
The enfeebled defence by the member for Johnston was precisely that, and it was enfeebled for a single reason. It was enfeebled because the member for Johnston was unable to articulate any coherent argument to defend against the allegations in the censure motion, but rather, his position was to do exactly what this censure motion suggests the government does; that is, engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians. The demonstration by the member for Johnston that all he cared about was what was happening on the opposition benches demonstrated that is all the government can do. That is the best it can offer this House. This is the best it can offer Territorians, to try to trawl through the rumours and lies it has generated about the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to do a single thing; that is, to diminish the Leader of the Opposition, because they know, in the public mind, the Leader of the Opposition is considered to be a decent and upstanding man.
If there was ever going to be a strategy backfire on government, it is a strategy it is currently engaging in, and I encourage it to continue. I encourage it to continue with the lies, because it is not long before the lies and deceptions are seen for what they are, as we witnessed in today’s Northern Territory News.
Yesterday, the Northern Territory’s chief legal officer was on her feet in here alleging criminality on the part of the Leader of the Opposition - the second time the Northern Territory’s chief legal officer has used her position for nefarious, despicable, and deceptive purposes. Why would she do so? Because she is desperate. She once wrote to the federal Electoral Commissioner to allege criminality, and the federal Electoral Commissioner batted it away and said nonsense, this is nonsense. Nevertheless, it did not prevent her from abusing her position, and yet again she comes into this House and her opening line is to quote the Criminal Code in relation to offences of bribery, based on a letter she knew was an outright lie - a lie – nevertheless, she continued to pedal that lie and continued to do so today.
If you read Hansard from yesterday, you will note that she very carefully crafted her words to not reveal that the letter referred to a 2009 offer which was widely reported at the time. She would rather use her position to try to mislead Territorians to suggest the letter was referring to something much more recent; an offer that does not exist. That is the quality of governance that the people of the Northern Territory have.
What do we hear from the Leader of Government Business? He lurks in here like Monty Burns: ‘Excellent, excellent’, and what is he doing? He attacks the former ALP member for Macdonnell, who is now the Country Liberals member for Macdonnell, and how does he do it? Does he criticise her for the quality of her integrity, her political integrity, which is what you would expect from someone who calls for, and demands, a debate be conducted in an upright and forthright fashion? No, it is an attack. It is a nasty, personal, little attack. It is the type of grubby thing we have come to expect from the members opposite, because that is all they can offer the people of the Northern Territory.
They are exhausted. They are spent. There is nothing left in the tank. They are not even here in the Chamber to deal …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. As you know …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the fact that they are not here in the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, when I am speaking, you are not. Thank you for withdrawing. As you well know, reference to the presence or absence of members is contravening standing orders. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: It is difficult not to state the obvious in this House. Unfortunately, when an obvious statement contravenes the standing orders of this House, I become frustrated, as Territorians are frustrated with a government engaging in deceitful, gutter politics rather than governing for all Territorians. Yesterday, we heard the Minister for Central Australia do it by trying to fudge the number of speakers on the ministerial statement. They are constantly doing it, bringing in little lies, little deceits, and constantly feeding them out in the hope they can convince people that the Country Liberals are divided.
The Country Liberals are focused on issues that matter to the people of the Northern Territory. People who are worried about the things that matter to them can be found in all manner of places - their letters to us, the responses to what they see in the newspaper, their letters to the editor, their comments amongst each other, the comments they make to the Labor government - and what are they talking about? Cost of living. They are talking about the cost of living.
We hear from the minister for Lands today that this government releases land. If you check your own newspaper advertisements of a couple of years ago, they are not even close to the benchmarks set, and have not come close to the Treasury recommendations in relation to land release. Does this government care about that? Does it refer to that issue in this House? No, what it talks about is simply guttersniping politics. People in the Northern Territory are fed up with that type of thing. They are fed up in the capital city, they are fed up in our regional cities, they are fed up in the bush, and so am I.
The list we compiled to discuss in this House is too long for a simple censure motion. I am saddened I will not have sufficient time to deal with all issues; however, it is only a partial list of the things we could have talked about. The abuse the government heaps upon anyone who should dare to criticise it in any fashion reveals them to be the bullies they are. That is all they are, because they have nothing left in the tank. The last opportunity available to them is to try to rubbish anyone who dares to raise a critical word against them.
The government made promise after promise and has not kept them. There are many promises it has not kept, particularly in the area of child protection. I am dismayed to this day that we still find ourselves dealing with issues in child protection, which make me feel unwell at the thought of them. Government cannot fix all these things, but it has introduced an environment in the child protection area which leaves child protection workers feeling vulnerable, isolated, and unsupported by the government of the day. The introduction of investigators into people like Ms Mansfield, demonstrates this government is interested in nothing but message control. Whilst the Minister for Child Protection, as well as the CEO of child protection, encourage people to speak up - I have had those assurances from both the CEO and the minister - in fact, any person found speaking up will find themselves under investigation. What are they being pressured to do internally in the departments?
There is a good reference in the last Ombudsman’s report into this area - before the axe fell on the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate these things - that documents are being filled out post factum and essentially fabricated to support this government and its messages. That is not a healthy working environment for the people who work in that area. I wonder how many other places will see fabricated documents into the future. If we ever get a look at the books, it is something I will turn my attention to. A government which fabricates material is a government which has lost its way; the point where it has become only about the message and nothing about child protection.
I live in a state of dismay and astonishment when I deal with, frankly, the incompetence of this government. Without returning to yesterday’s debate at any length, the fact is the investigation surrounding the Mataranka cattle deaths was a farcical disaster, which could have been avoided at any number of junctures. Yet, ministers – plural - presided over a department which was heading towards the rocks. Not only were they heading towards the rocks, they were warned. They were warned, and there were life preservers thrown in their direction from the Ombudsman and other sources, and from inside their own departments. Did they respond? No, they did not! They did not care, they did not want to care; they just wanted to bury, cover up, conceal, and deceive, because that is what this government does.
Recently, the opposition had the temerity to challenge the government’s handling from day one of the container deposit legislation. Why? Because we support container deposit legislation and we wanted to see it work, but we could see the threats to that particular container deposit legislation. What did the government do? Ignored warning, ignored counsel, and chose to push their way through. All of a sudden, they are offended that someone has the audacity to ask a critical question. Now, they are surprised that, as a result of their incomplete preparation for the advancement of CDL in the Northern Territory, they are coming under public criticism, particularly from some Channel 9 reports. What is their solution? Blame the opposition! Blame everyone else except themselves! They do not put up their hands, they do not attempt to take responsibility. A person who denies responsibility cannot, and will not, become the source of the solution for the problems they are faced with, or the problems they have created for themselves.
What is their solution when it comes to the crime statistics in the Northern Territory? Lie! Lie and hide! We have a serious problem with crime in the Northern Territory, so what are we going to do? We are going to get the carrier pigeon and wring its little neck, so the carrier pigeon no longer provides any form of information to the public. What an obscene, arrogant government it has become. The answer and the solution to its problem is kill off the messenger.
Territorians are sick of having to deal with the issues in their community. This government knows it is sick; this is why it has gone down the road of alcohol policy reform. It has chosen its road - so be it - but at least be honest with Territorians and continue to report in the way you promised.
I remember when they were in opposition, their greatest complaint was there was no quarterly reporting. Indeed, Peter Toyne took great pains to announce that quarterly reporting would be done without fear or favour, without any interference from government, and those quarterly reports would be a report card on government. Indeed, Dr Peter Toyne was right when he came to that conclusion. This government would rather lie to Territorians than make good on Dr Peter Toyne’s promise to the people of the Northern Territory of an open, honest, and accountable government.
The lies continue to pour out of this government. All it is interested in is managing the message. I have no greater example of that at my fingertips than its management of the Montara oil spill. Once again, it was all someone else’s fault. It was federal government’s fault, despite the fact the legislation said the responsibility stopped with the Northern Territory jurisdiction ...
Mr Vatskalis: No, it did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We hear the lies continuing to be perpetuated ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It was a tick and flick operation, as far as this government was concerned - a tick and flick operation, no responsibility. It was happy to take the cash, happy to take the money so it could spend it …
Mr Vatskalis: No, we did not!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yet, the lies continue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is all about message management. I wonder how many annual reports will hit the table this afternoon after Question Time? Why is TAFR being set down for the last day of parliament? Why are we seeing the Ombudsman’s annual report being delivered to this House after Question Time on the last day of parliament? Why? Because it is a deceptive government and does not want to deal for one second with the consequences of what is in those reports, because I can tell you, if there was good news in TAFR, it would have hit the table Tuesday morning.
What is the attitude of the members opposite? I will tell you the attitude of the members opposite - I know no one is perfect in this House - but to see members of this House sitting there making masturbatory motions with their hands at members on the other …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the sort of thing I am seeing. That is the sort of thing I see in this House and I am deeply concerned when I see those types of things; not because it happens, but it displays the attitude which pervades this government. It is arrogant, it is tired, obnoxious, abusive, and it has no answers other than to attack the Leader of the Opposition who I know to be a decent, upright man, a man for whom I have enormous regard and respect, and a fellow who would lead this Northern Territory with integrity, courage, and responsibility.
That is why I continue to support this leader; because he is a good man, and this Territory needs a good man at the helm, not someone who is going to bury the Northern Territory under a pile of bunkum in the hope they can convince the electorate to vote for them next time round. There is no depth too deep, no low point too low, and no nadir too far south for this government to go when it comes to deceiving Territorians. The government’s response to this was a pure hate attack against members on this side of the House. Keep going, keep it up, keep it running out there, and how much longer will Territorians believe you.
Clearly, the NT News did not believe the Treasurer yesterday and I would urge any journalist dealing with any assertion made by this government to double-check the facts. If this government says it is midday, I would argue the journalist should go outside and make sure the sun is up. Just make sure, just double-check, because honestly, that is what it has become.
I could go on for hours about the shortcomings of this government, but I will not, because I am going to run out of time. What I do know is this government has finally run out of steam. They started well. I remember a young Dr Burns in 2001 excitedly coming up to me at the declaration of the polls saying he looked forward to working with me. I looked at the performance I just saw and thought to myself: ‘What a stark contrast. What a stark contrast that is’.
The enthusiasm of that young Dr Burns who came over to me and said: ‘In spite of what has happened, I look forward to working with the CLP to make the Territory a better place’, and then you listen to the nasty, spite-filled hateful diatribe and that is all that is left. I know why he is retiring. He has had enough. He is spent. The passion is gone and all that is left is the bitumen, which is the remnant parts of good intentions and it does not just exist in Dr Burns, it has infected every corner of this government and I hope many other members on that side of the House take his lead.
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, the result of the division is an equality of votes. Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, as there is not a majority of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 162)
(Serial 162)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, in closing debate I will try to answer many of the questions both members put to me, so we might not have to go to committee if they are satisfied with my answers. Thank you very much for the comments.
I am a great supporter of the mining industry, and that is well-known, both in the industry and the other side. There are people who believe that somehow there is a conspiracy to cover everything up with the mining industry, and one of the reasons we did not want to make the mining management plans public was because we wanted to cover up what the mining industry was doing wrong. The reality is there was no cover-up; there is no conspiracy of silence. Anyone who wants to access a mine management plan could apply to do so under Freedom of Information. It has happened before, people actually have applied, and a number of mine management plans have been released.
Instead of being reactive and reacting every time a particular group asks questions about mining, I believe we should be proactive. The industry has nothing to be afraid of. The industry has many things to be proud of. Yes, mining is an industry which impacts on the environment because of its activities. When you build a new house, you alter the environment; when you put in a swimming pool, you alter the environment; when the industry opens a new mine, of course it has an impact on the environment. We are trying to minimise this impact on the environment and, when the industry finishes operation, we return the disturbed area as close to the condition it was before it was disturbed.
We are committed to developing and maintaining a strong mining industry. We have seen record exploration expenditure in the Territory which indicates in the next few years there will be a significant number of new mines opening in the Territory, as highlighted by my colleague, the member for Barkly.
I would like to answer the questions put by the member for Goyder. With regard to co-regulation, this government remains committed to a strong culture of operator responsibility. The environmental obligations of this act, in Part 3, makes it clear mine operators and employees have an obligation to protect the environment. This obligation remains in force. While these amendments will improve the transparency of mining operations and reporting of environmental incidents, the operator continues to have responsibility for effective management of the site.
There is no such thing as self-regulation as was promoted recently by many people in the environment centre and small lobby groups. The government, the department, works closely with the operators. The operators have the responsibility to comply with the legislative framework. The department has the responsibility to inspect, survey, and ensure the operator fulfils the legal obligations. I welcome the member for Goyder’s support for co-regulation in the mining industry; however, at the same time, some of her colleagues, especially the shadow minister for Environment, want stronger and prescriptive regulation of the mining industry. He is not going to get it. Everywhere in the world, everywhere in Australia, has moved, not to self-regulation, but co-regulation, and we are happy with the way it operates.
With regard to mining management plans and environmental mining reports, as the member for Goyder pointed out, the mining management plan is an important tool for operational aspects of the mine. For that reason, we are focusing on reporting of environmental performance, and acknowledge the commercial-in-confidence information contained within other parts of the MMP. The proposal under these amendments is to make public the environmental component of the mine management plan, which could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act; however, we are not going to disclose the commercial-in-confidence information contained in an MMP.
I also point out that the independent monitor for the McArthur River Mine in no way takes away responsibility for regulating the mine from my department. That was a condition of approval; the company agreed to it; however, my department is still responsible for regulating the mine.
I am aware that a key concern of industry is it does not lead to more onerous reporting requirements. I do not want more paperwork; I want all the information now contained in different reports to be included in a single report that can be considered by the department. Trying to avoid red tape and paperwork is my ultimate goal. My department has undertaken to hold a workshop with industry representatives later this year to discuss how the new provision would be implemented. It is a commitment, and I am more than happy to place this on the public record.
The provision for an environmental mining report will apply to operational mines. This will not apply to extractive minerals or exploration. The reason for this is mines have the biggest and longest-lasting impact on the environment and, as a result, are of most concern to the public. The term generally used to describe these sites is ‘high risk’. It does not mean there is an imminent risk of environmental damage; it simply means there are large areas of impact, plant and equipment, and chemicals may be used during the mining process, during the mining operations and, when we undertake risk assessments, it highlights that operational mines, by their nature, have the greatest potential to impact on the environment and hence are the highest risk of all mining activities.
Risk-based management is fundamental to operating mines. We do not say every single mine has to have this. We say, depending on the operation of the mine, the process of the mine, or the chemicals that may be used, the risk will be different, and there will be a different level of requirement within the mine management plan.
The community benefits: the intention is to provide the mechanism through which a major operation can demonstrate its commitment to the communities in which it operates. That happens not only in the Territory, it also happens in Western Australia. Argyle Mine has community benefits accounts and trusts to provide benefits to the community. The community benefit plan can be delivered through a trust like the one we have at McArthur River, or it could be through a collection of other initiatives. We are not being prescriptive and are prepared to accept different options: existing commitments such as ALRA agreements or Indigenous land use agreements could be cited as evidence of providing those benefits, or a training school training people to work in the mines.
In public reporting, I expect companies to publish information about the community benefit plans at a general level. Who in their right minds, when they are mining and grant help to communities, would not go out and blow their trumpets about what a wonderful job they are doing? We are not going to demand they do that every year; it is up to the companies to do it. Every company that does something good for the community should be out there telling people what a good job they do.
The decision was taken to focus on mines because they have the highest impact on the surrounding communities. Exploration and extractive mining is usually transitory - today it happens, tomorrow it is gone. You cannot say it is going to be there for 20 years or 30 years, like the Newmont operations in the Tanami, McArthur River, and GEMCO on Groote Eylandt.
With regard to petroleum and geothermal, the legislation is about the Mine Management Act. I am amending only the Mine Management Act. The petroleum and geothermal camps are different acts. These amendments do not affect them yet. Those acts will be reviewed later and, if we see we have to make amendments, we will proceed to make amendments through the usual process.
With regards to INPEX, the gas production is from wells located within Western Australian waters. What happens here is only the manufacturing, the LNG. However, I point out that INPEX intends to deliver a range of community benefits and has commenced doing so already.
With regard to an ‘environmental incident’ and ‘serious environmental incident’, the act defines several levels of environmental harm which includes environmental nuisance, material environmental harm, and serious environmental harm. If you look at the definition in the very front of the amendments, there is ‘environmental incident’ and ‘serious environmental incident’. If you look within the amendments in the very beginning in Division 3, there are different levels: ‘serious environmental harm’ and ‘serious environmental harm’ with different levels – Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 user is a person who commits an offence when he engages in conduct on a mining site, and the conduct results in a contravention of environmental objectives and serious environmental harm. However, in Level 2, there has to be negligence on behalf of the person. The same thing applies to material environmental harm. While the first one happens when the person engages in conduct, Level 2 has to involve negligence. The same thing happens in environmental nuisance Level 3 and Level 4. It is clearly defined, so people can understand the differences in environmental incidents, environmental harm, and serious environmental harm.
A serious environmental incident also is an incident that causes material or serious environmental harm, and includes remediation costs of up to $50 000. Serious environmental harm includes remediation costs of more than $50 000.
I note the member for Goyder questioned what is reported, what is a serious environmental incident? Is it 20 000 litres of oil? Is it a significant volume of diesel that was lost on Groote Eylandt many years ago and they still recover it? Is 20 litres of oil knocked to the ground by accident? It is described clearly in the act whether it is a serious environmental incident or not. The department will discuss that with industry and develop guidelines in order to avoid unnecessary reporting of minor incidents.
One of the major concerns on all sites is hydrocarbon management. If there were a series of small spills on one site, it would indicate close examination is required. One-off, yes, it can happen, but if you have a series of small incidents, then it has to be examined - practices, storage areas, storage practice, etcetera.
In response to the honourable member’s question about the container of molasses, the container falling off a truck would require an immediate report to WorkSafe for health and safety reasons, because it fell off a truck. However, environmental harm – why? Has it actually fallen on the ground, and was collected and removed very quickly, or fallen into a waterway and caused some environmental problems in the waterway, or sensitive water areas? There are different levels depending on the conditions. You cannot simply have one measure that fits all.
Regarding public reporting, the government’s view is that serious environmental incidents should be publicly reported when they occur. This will be on the department’s website. Environmental incidents would be aggregated and reported in the annual report. This can be achieved within existing resources.
I note the member said different areas require different reporting. In Western Australia, they do not; Tasmania has a different reporting mechanism; and South Australia and New South Wales are different. Every state in Australia has a different reporting mechanism, but I will not say that Western Australia is the best. I have had much criticism from the industry about the Western Australian processes and, without criticising another state; we choose a particular way, other states choose another way.
The amendment to section 90 in relation to the release of public information would generally be exercised by the CEO or the delegate. The inclusion of the minister is a standard legislative provision. However, if there was significant public interest in an issue, the minister might direct the information to be released. The CEO releases all information; however, if it is a big incident, the minister can direct the information be released.
Legacy mining issues: I am aware of various legacy sites where tenements are now held by other companies. Mt Todd is a continuing concern for this government. It is now held by another company and there are a number of other sites in Pine Creek and Tennant Creek. The legislation is not intending to place a higher level of reporting on the current operator. We know it is a legacy mine, we know what happened. What we are trying to do is remediate in cooperation with the current operators. We cannot ask the current operators to report or remediate things that happened under previous operators. However, we will require them to remediate things that happen under them, rather than by the previous operator. It should be noted those agreements are not triggered until mining commences and nor is the reporting provision.
Environmental assessment: I note the honourable member’s comments about the environmental assessment process. Assessment of the environmental impact of a major development is undertaken independently from my department. My department does not do the environmental assessment, so I am unable to comment about this process, and I would strongly recommend having a discussion with my colleague, the minister for NRETAS. There is close cooperation between my department and NRETAS in order to address some of these issues; delays - sometimes what we believe is too much information required and sometimes we understand different people who have worked in the industry have a different understanding of the industry, and we try to explain that.
With regard to environmental grants, I have to say I was very surprised to hear the member for Goyder ask: ‘Why do you fund the Environment Centre, they are greenies, they want to stop mining in the Territory’. We live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even if that opinion is not a perfect one, the right one, or my opinion. Even the Country Liberals, in their 2008 platform, promised they would fund the Environment Centre and I notice the member for Brennan is studying up the notice on that because they promised to fund the Environment Centre to a total of $1.94m. It is not only us; the Country Liberals support the Environment Centre and the environmental movement.
I know the member for Fong Lim is highly critical about it. I suggest that before you come out and ask questions of us, you sit in your Caucus and ask questions of each other, and find out if you have common ground, and if you actually agree on something because currently I think you have two or three different positions on that issue. It seems you are somewhat divided.
With regard to the Criminal Code Act provisions, this is simply modernising the act so it is consistent with the Criminal Code Act in relation to liability. There are likely to be other instances in future, as acts are amended, for other acts. We have to bring all the acts into unison, so we do not have one act making one provision for offences and another, a different one. Everything now comes under the Criminal Code Act in relation to liability, so all the acts agree with each other.
Thank you, member for Nelson, for your questions.
In response to the member for Goyder, I said before the environmental mining report would include details of how conditions of approval arising from an EIS or PER are being met. There is already an EIS in place, and a PER, and it is a legal obligation, part of the mine management plan to comply with these provisions and these requirements, so it has to be included.
We understand the companies need to negotiate commercial matters in confidence and where a mining company reached a commercial agreement with a landlord; this information will not be released. That is commercial-in-confidence; however, everything else that is in the public arena and anything that can be taken out through the freedom of information will be included. We are not trying to hide things. We are trying to prove that the mining industry has nothing to fear. The mining industry operates in a framework, both legislative under the mining legislation, and the environmental legislation. Should the mining industry comply with these requirements, they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.
I previously said and advocated in a forum: ‘Do not stay back and hide, come out and tell what good things you do, talk about the employment you do, talk about the remediation you do’. If you go to GEMCO today and look at some of the areas that have been mined and rehabilitated, you cannot tell them from the area next to it that has never been mined or rehabilitated. If you go to Groote Eylandt, you can look at the rehabilitated areas and not see the difference. I will never forget the WWF diary that went international which had this pristine water area in Kakadu that was actually ERA’s holding ponds. They had to recall hundreds of thousands of those calendars and pulp them, because it was highly embarrassing for the World Wildlife Fund; one day against ERA, and the next day having one of their retention ponds as a pristine water area.
I said to the mining industry many times, yes, you have an impact on the environment, and we expect that. You build a house; you have an impact on the environment. You build a road; you have an impact on the environment. You put a pipeline in; you have an impact on the environment. Yes, we do, but now, when we finish, we remediate so the impact is minimal or even non-existent. In some areas, we now see things the way it was before. It is done so well, you cannot even recognise there was a mine there. Yes, there are some very bad examples, and Mt Todd is one I will bring up all the time. It was a disaster and, hopefully, it will be remediated, and we can remediate it.
I thank you for your support and comments. Your comments are always helpful because sometimes you bring something that we have missed or overlooked, and we can go back and rectify it. I will be continuing to support the industry because of the wealth it brings to the Territory, the job opportunities it brings to the Territory, particularly job opportunities in remote areas where there are not many jobs available. I remember going to Groote Eylandt many years ago when I first became minister for mines; if you looked behind the steering wheels of the big trucks, they were all white faces. Now you go to Groote Eylandt and you see Indigenous people driving the big trucks. I went to Port Hedland and found one of the biggest transport companies working for a mining company was an Indigenous-owned and Indigenous-operated company. I went to Xstrata, where I was very pleased to hear that 50 young people were now behind the simulators to learn to drive the big trucks.
Mining does much good. Yes, the mining industry can do something bad, if we lose the plot, if we do not work with them to ensure they comply with the environmental and the mining regulations.
Madam Speaker, if there are any other questions, I am very happy to answer them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I seek clarification of some issues and would like to place some things on the record. I accept the environmental component of the mine management plan is what government is wanting to get into the public domain, and that is probably fine, because it comes off the EIS, but you are not seeking to have the whole mine management plan go as a public document?
Mr VATSKALIS: You are right; only the environmental component.
Ms PURICK: Thank you. You also say the environmental reporting of information is only for mining companies on mineral leases, not extractives and not exploration companies. What about the situation where a company has a mineral lease, but does not have authorisation to operate – and I am thinking of a company in Tennant Creek – so they are technically under the Mining Management Act, and they do have a mining lease. Are they required to report the environmental component of the mine management plan - because they are explorers still - even though it is a mineral lease?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, they will not be required to do so; only when they start operations and start mining.
Ms PURICK: Okay. Thank you, minister. Just a point of clarification; you say it will not apply to the extractive industries, and I accept that and that is good. What about companies that extract material; for example, sand on coastlines and river estuaries, and possibly around our areas here, are they going to be excluded as well?
Mr VATSKALIS: As long as the extractive industry has an extractive industry licence, they will not be required to have the mine management plan and environmental component made public.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: However, I should point out anyone has the right to put in a freedom of information application for any MMP.
Ms PURICK: Yes, that is true. I want to clarify also; you said possibly later in the year or sometime in the near future, you will be looking to review the petroleum and geothermal acts to see if there should be a requirement for community benefits trust as well, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is correct, but only onshore. Offshore, it is the Commonwealth.
Ms PURICK: Of course. Minister, it comes under the Petroleum Act when a pipeline comes from the Ichthys field onshore. Would that project attract a requirement for a community benefits trust if the Petroleum Act were amended, similar to the Mining Management Act?
Mr VATSKALIS: My belief is, it is not; however, I will seek clarification because a pipeline is not a mining operation or a petroleum operation currently.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I meant the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Is that going to be pulled into those possible amendments?
Mr VATSKALIS: No.
Ms PURICK: Minister, can I get clarification; it is the environmental component of the mine management plan now, but is there any plan to have the audit and inspection reports made public?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is not my intention. My promise previously, and what we are doing now, is making public the environmental component of the mine management plan.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Minister, perhaps I should ask this question first. What is the time frame for the development of regulations and guidelines that are going to make this legislation work?
Mr VATSKALIS: The commencement will be 1 July 2012. Up until then, we will work very closely with industry to develop the regulations, and the industry has already been notified that we will be working with them.
Ms PURICK: I accept the government wants every environmental incident to be reported, investigated, and that report made public, if the Chief Executive believes it is in the public interest. What will be the criteria? What risk assessment is going to be done to tell whomever that there has been some kind of environmental harm?
Mr VATSKALIS: We intend to develop guidelines with the industry, so it will be very clear to the industry what they have to report. As you said before, if you knock over a can of brake fluid, do you have to report it? However, if people are knocking over cans of brake fluid twice a day for 30 days, we might have to report it or might have to look. Again, it would be the impact on the environment, the management of the incident, and the cost to remediate.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. How much does the government currently hold in securities for rehabilitation - environmental bonds?
Mr VATSKALIS: In total?
Ms PURICK: In total.
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot give you this answer now; however, we hold a significant amount of money in securities for different mines. For example, ALCAN is in excess of $400m and McArthur River is about $70m. The figure changes every year because every time the mine does a remediation, there will be a recalculation of the security bond.
Ms PURICK: Is any of that money being allocated? I know it is attached to particular mine sites; however, it must be earning interest somewhere. Is the government utilising any of that money to assist legacy sites or sites that have been abandoned or orphaned?
Mr VATSKALIS: Most of these bonds are not real money; they are bank guarantees, rather than money.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Minister, does the department currently have any projects or a database of the level of legacy mines or legacy projects? People call them orphaned or abandoned mines in the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have about 2000 legacy mines in the Territory. The department has undertaken a review which has not yet been finalised. Some are very small, some are very big, but the department is looking at them.
Ms PURICK: Minister, under the Mining Management Act, has there been any relinquishment of the higher order of leases; for example, mineral leases, in the last five or 10 years? I am only aware of one partial relinquishment, but have there been any relinquishment of leases?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, not that I am aware of.
Ms PURICK: Minister, in regards to components in your speech and some parts in the bill - and I understand there was a change to the Mineral Titles Act. When a company has its project on a mineral lease and has an adjacent area where they store their trucks or whatever, and there is a road to and from; the requirement is that there be environmental security over the access road, or roads, which the company will not have exclusive control over – and I did raise this in the briefing. Why can the company not apply for and get a special purpose lease over that road, or roads, to give them greater control and protection?
Mr VATSKALIS: That will apply only to private roads, not to public roads.
Ms PURICK: Okay. Minister, the documentation talked about it being an offence to impersonate a mining officer. Has anyone impersonated a mining officer to your knowledge, in the Territory? Why would they?
Mr VATSKALIS: We live in interesting times, so we have to make provisions for that; you never know what might happen. You have to remember currently, with the mining boom, people might impersonate all types of people to have access to some areas, so let us be prepared now, rather than sorry later.
Ms PURICK: Minister, regarding projects on pastoral land - because that is probably easier - they construct roads and dams and the project finishes; is there going to be a requirement for the company to rehabilitate those infrastructure items, even though they might bring benefit to the underlying title owner of the property?
Mr VATSKALIS: If the pastoralist says they want it rehabilitated, yes, that would be a requirement, but if the pastoralist is quite happy with extra dams he gets for nothing, and the extra roads he gets for nothing, it will not be required to be rehabilitated.
Ms PURICK: The lease could be relinquished and there will be no requirement; securities will be returned, for example?
Mr VATSKALIS: Subject to the agreement with the person who holds the original lease, the pastoral lease.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. That will be all for now.
Mr WOOD: I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I received an e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to their report on the alumina incident at Rio Tinto Alcan Gove in April 2010, and they said under a heading: ‘Legislative and system barriers to public interest governed mining practice’:
- The EPA considers the heavy reliance on evidence of environmental harm to trigger reporting and investigation responses to be a major gap in the legislation, which permits a person to breach an obligation under the act without being guilty of an environmental offence. In particular, the inability of the regulator to penalise RTA’s failure to notify the regulator of the incident is a legislative failing.
Could you say, in response to that, if this new legislation has overcome that legislative failing the EPA is talking about?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, it has. There is a provision for general offences in this new, amended legislation.
Mr WOOD: When they were putting this together, did they look at the EPA’s response in relation to the alumina incident?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, they have.
Mr WOOD: They went through that report?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Minister, in relation to extractives, you are saying they do not need an environmental plan, or they do have a mine management ...
Ms PURICK: They do not have to report on it.
Mr WOOD: They do not have to report their environmental plan?
Mr VATSKALIS: They need a plan, but they do not have to report it.
Mr WOOD: Because the effect of extractive mining is more cumulative than individual. It is my understanding that the extractive industry is looking at this particular issue. Have you heard of them reviewing the extractive industry in relation to environmental matters?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, I am not aware of it.
Mr WOOD: I thought they were doing a review. Cumulatively, they could probably cause as much damage as a small mine, so does the department have some sort of overall watch on what is happening in relation to extractive mining?
Mr VATSKALIS: The department has dedicated officers overlooking the extractive industry but again, cumulatively, you mean over all the industry, while every mine management plan applies to a particular operation operated by one particular operator on a particular site. I understand what you are saying; when you take it cumulatively, you might have an impact like the gravel pits at Channel Island, but mine management plans apply in one particular site operated by a particular operator.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. I had discussions with the extractive people and I know they were concerned. They did not want too much paperwork for the jobs they are doing, but there are times when I go out to Howard Peninsula and wonder whether there needs to be some overall environmental plan for the whole area. It is a concern that some of the legacy mines were never rehabilitated properly.
The other question is in relation to community benefits and, if a company does a deal with a group of people, is that deal or that plan to provide benefits to a community required to be public?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it does not. That would be commercial-in-confidence. The company may decide to keep it commercial-in-confidence and it does not have to be reported.
Mr WOOD: How does the government know what benefits have been given to the community in line with the legislation we are looking at today?
Mr VATSKALIS: Because the plans have to be submitted to the government as a condition of authorisation, so the government has to approve that particular plan.
Mr WOOD: One of the issues that came up when I was having discussions with the company that is looking at coal seam gas in Central Australia - I cannot think of its name now..
Mr VATSKALIS: Let us put it right. They do not look for coal seam gas; they were looking to gasify deep coal. That is a big difference.
Mr WOOD: I must have being listening to Lateline on the ABC last night for too long. They were looking for gas in the Central Australian region and, to some extent, felt they were limited by how they could consult with people in the region because they had to go through the land council. Has the government looked at ways where companies can talk directly to people, at least at the early stages, without having to go through a bureaucracy? I know the land council would have to be involved at some stage, but are they permitted to talk directly to small communities about what they are doing?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Nelson, this comes under Commonwealth legislation, so I do not have much power on that one. We have discussed with the particular company their concerns and we offered to speak to the land council; however, because it comes under the federal legislation, my ability to influence the land council is very limited or non-existent.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I thought you were a very influential person. Okay, I understand that, minister.
The other question is in relation to reports and, in the legislation; it says you have the power to release reports. I understand you would probably tell a company you were going to release a report but, if the company did not want that report to be released, have they any form of appeal before you release it?
Mr VATSKALIS: It can go through a process similar to the Information Act.
Mr WOOD: I might have misunderstood your answer. Under the act, you have the power to release reports. If the company does not want you to release that report, have they the right to appeal against your decision?
Mr VATSKALIS: We show the company what we propose to release, we give it to them, and they have the right to appeal.
Mr WOOD: I will go back a step. I had a note under extractive I did not ask. How do bonds for extractive mining work? Are they similar to big mines, where you have a bank security?
Mr VATSKALIS: One hundred per cent rehabilitation bond.
Mr WOOD: All right. That is all the questions I have, thank you, minister.
Ms PURICK: Regarding the community benefits account, trust, or program the company sets up, what happens in the situation where the company and the departmental people trying to get the authorisation to operate cannot agree? For example, if the government says: ‘No, that is not good enough; we want you to do X, Y, and Z, and we want you to give over to this community 200 miles away’. How do you mediate? Who mediates, and how is it sorted out?
Mr VATSKALIS: The department cannot direct the company where to give the compensation, or who to incorporate. If it is Indigenous communities involved, certainly it would be the local land council. Ultimately, if we cannot agree on what will happen, we can go to the court, but we always endeavour not to go to the court; we try to find a good solution.
Usually, as it happened in McArthur River, we had no problem at all. Some people did not like it because they thought they were cut off from free money but, ultimately, the target is to benefit the community, not individuals. At McArthur River, the model we put in place, and we would put that to other companies - company representatives, local citizens, and government together forming a committee that will assess the application and make decisions.
Ms PURICK: Is the department going to develop guidelines specifically to help new players in understanding what a community benefits program is about?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, certainly we are.
Mr WOOD: On that issue, for clarification; if another uranium mine was to start up - and they pay royalties - is there a requirement then to pay community benefits?
Mr VATSKALIS: The minister has the power to ask, as part of the authorisation, to establish a community benefit plan, depending on the impact on the community, and depending on other facts as well.
Mr WOOD: The difference would be royalties go to individuals to some extent, whereas you are saying the mine would be helping the community more in general.
Mr VATSKALIS: There is a combination. For example, in the case of ERA, the royalties are paid to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth provides the Territory a rate equivalent, because we actually monitor the operations of the mine, and then some royalties are paid directly to the land council to be distributed to traditional owners, depending if too many legislations are involved, some of them Commonwealth, some of them Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: This might be a hypothetical. What happens if there is a mine a long way from a community - I am not saying that the land is not owned by someone - but say it is somewhere between Elliott and the Tanami, the Western Australian border. I know Tanami gold mine is there, but how does one work out who is the community in those cases?
Mr VATSKALIS: Depending on the tenure of the land. If the land is owned by a particular group of people, bearing in mind 50% of the Territory land mass is Indigenous land, it does not matter if the community is 5 km or 500 km, then that is something to be considered. My understanding is the Argyle mine provides community benefits to a community over 200 km away from the mine.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister.
Ms PURICK: When we were talking about the community benefits and the company could not get an agreement with the government, you said it might move upwards and go to the court. Did you mean the Lands and Mining Tribunal; is that the court where the inability to reach an agreement would end up?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it would be the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Ms PURICK: Okay, thank you.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Office of the Ombudsman – Annual Report 2009-10
Note Paper – Office of the Ombudsman – Annual Report 2009-10
Continued from 16 August 2011.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on 16 August I tabled this report and sought leave to continue my remarks at a later date, and that we note the report.
I commend the Ombudsman for her report. She has done a great deal of work over the last year or so. She mentions in her foreword that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I want to ensure - there are currently two Ombudsman’s Annual Report …
Madam SPEAKER: This is the 2009-10 report.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and I am guessing, but are you talking about the one she has just delivered for 2010-11?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it has not been tabled yet. This is the one …
Mr ELFERINK: Are you making a tabling statement. It sounds like …
Madam SPEAKER: The 2009-10.
Dr Burns: No, I was referring to the fact I sought leave in August to continue my remarks at a later date.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I misunderstood, that is fine. I just wanted to ensure …
Dr Burns: The other report will be tabled later.
Mr ELFERINK: It is all right, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence, Leader of Government Business.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I was alluding to the foreword by the Ombudsman:
- This report was required to be delivered to the Chief Minister by 30 September 2010 for tabling in the Legislative Assembly. I acknowledge my responsibility for the delay and offer my regret and apologies to the members of the Legislative Assembly for any apparent disrespect. The default was mainly due to a defect that developed in our database resulting in statistics having to be collated manually. The delay was exacerbated by workload pressure.
I know all members of the Assembly will accept in good grace what the Ombudsman said. There was certainly discussion amongst members concerned that the report had not been tabled within the statutory period; however, we accept the report and acknowledge what the Ombudsman has said regarding the lateness of the report.
As the Ombudsman says in her foreword:
- Much has been achieved in 2009-10 and the culmination of several major investigations over many months will be reports completed in 2010-11, some probably before this annual report is tabled.
All members and all ministers will have read the report by the Ombudsman to this House. As always, the Ombudsman provides stories, or little instructive tales, illustrating some of the work done by the Ombudsman over a range of areas; not only in government, but also in local authorities.
As minister, I was interested to read her comments which she titles on page 41: ‘Addressing antisocial behaviour - Territory Housing’. This is a positive story and that is why I am going to focus on it. Obviously, those negative or constructive criticisms put forward by the Ombudsman, all ministers and agencies need to take those seriously and move to implement recommendations by the Ombudsman about their operations.
This is a positive story. The Ombudsman says:
- A complainant alleged Territory Housing had failed to act appropriately regarding ongoing complaints of antisocial behaviour lodged against a neighbour. Enquiries were conducted and documentation exchanged between the complainant, Territory Housing, and the minister was reviewed.
Due to the neighbour’s right to privacy, I was unable to provide the complainant with all details of all action taken by Territory Housing. Territory Housing, as the landlord for both tenants, also could not tell the complainant what they had done about the allegedly disruptive neighbour as it had an obligation of confidentiality to both tenants. However, I reviewed the action taken by Territory Housing and decided it was reasonable that the following strategies designed to address antisocial behaviour were adopted by Territory Housing.
The Ombudsman goes on to list some of those actions and the first dot point is:
conducted a neighbourhood survey to determine the impact of the reported behaviour on surrounding residents;
…
That is often an action taken by Territory Housing, particularly with this type of complaint, and I commend them for going house-to-house, talking to neighbours, finding out about the validity of complaints. There are times when there is a complaint from one person, but it is not backed up, or there are no complaints made by other neighbours. In some cases, it comes down to personal conflicts between people or a mutual dislike between people and sometimes it is on that personal basis. In many cases, of course, there are valid complaints and Territory Housing endeavours to get to the bottom of those.
The other thing the Ombudsman noted as a reasonable course of action was the request by Territory Housing to request police attendance and records about reported incidents. Housing works very closely with the police and I mentioned in my second reading speech about public housing safety officers and how there is going to be a memorandum of understanding between police and Housing. That is a very constructive way forward and the CEO of Housing, Mr Ken Davies, has had a number of discussions with senior police on this very issue.
I commend those senior police officers for wanting to become involved, for wanting to support this initiative, because there is no doubt much crime and antisocial behaviour unfortunately emanates from public housing properties, as the member for Fong Lim and I discovered when we visited Shiers Street together and there was very swift action taken there. Non-tenants were making the trouble and indulging in, not only antisocial, disruptive, and threatening behaviour, but also criminal behaviour, I am told, in the surrounding areas and possibly even on the premises. They were given the rush. I will not say the first word that usually goes with the rush, but they were given the rush out of there; they were sent out. They were not tenants, had no right to be there, and they were - well, you cannot say evicted - but they left the premises in a hurry.
The Ombudsman said it was reasonable that Territory Housing required the tenants to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, which is an agreement not to engage in any type of antisocial behaviour. In addition, they closely manage the tenancy and this is achieved by the tenancy manager regularly contacting the tenants and undertaking property inspections.
Lastly, that Territory Housing referred tenants to external support agencies for advice and assistance. If I could just comment on that, Madam Speaker - in public housing, there is no doubt - there are people who have a range of needs, who need support in a range of areas. One of the functions of Territory Housing is to try to support those tenants by assisting them to access those services and putting them in contact with those services. As the type of landlord we are, we do have an obligation to try to help people sustain tenancies.
However, as I have said within this parliament before, and as I am saying with the bill that will be up for debate - I am not trying to pre-empt debate - but I am prepared to take stringent action against those tenants who do not do the right thing, despite all the support they have received.
In the closing paragraph, the Ombudsman comments:
- If the behaviour is serious Territory Housing can terminate the tenancy and apply to the Local Court or Commissioner of Tenancies to evict the tenants. In addition, Territory Housing confirmed that they encourage parties to attend mediation and provided the complainant with advice on taking action against the neighbour in the Local Court which the complainant did and was successful in addressing the problem.
There are a number of stories in there. As always, very interesting about police, Police Administration Act, and protective custody about police; the Ombudsman has a large interaction with police. Various departments; the education department and parent contributions - that was certainly a controversial one. This shire council is mentioned here, so these are important issues people raise with the Ombudsman, and I do commend the work of the Ombudsman and her office. We welcome the report by the Ombudsman and, later today, we will have another report tabled within this parliament from the Ombudsman.
I conclude my remarks there.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms - Report on the First Three Months
Continued from 26 October 2011.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s statement. It seems appropriate during ‘Octsober’ that we, as a parliament, come together to debate alcohol reforms; the implementation and initial results.
This is a comprehensive alcohol reform package, but it is not the silver bullet, it is not a miracle prescription for the challenges we face as a Territory - that does not exist. This is a decades-long problem, if not longer.
One of the stories I love; a family legend. We had arguments in Question Time about what you can and cannot do in this Chamber, and while we might argue about imputation and inferences, we can talk about family legends.
My great-grandfather arrived in Tennant Creek back in the 1930s, and it is a great tall tale in the family that he was driving the beer wagon and it broke down. That is why Tennant Creek is not next to the creek, because everyone relocated to the wagon. It is one of my family favourite stories but, unfortunately, not true. Maggie Hickey dashed me on that one. The genesis of the story was that Con Perry, my great-grandfather, found the first water supply in Tennant Creek, but over the years it became the story about the beer wagon, which I quite like.
Our reforms are one more critical step in tackling the challenges we face in making a difference to what is a huge problem in the Territory. Many people in the Territory love a drink, and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe drinking will always remain a part of the Territory lifestyle - a beer with your colleagues after work, a glass of wine with your partner over dinner, heading out on the town with some of your mates, a couple of cold beers in the esky when you go fishing - alcohol is part of the Territory lifestyle, and part of the lifestyle of people around the world. The issue we need to deal with is when is enough, enough.
We have very responsible publicans and restaurateurs in the Territory who make a great contribution to the economy and provide services for tourists and for locals alike; we also have an active and mature Australian Hotels Association. But, one of the big problems we have to deal with is, when is enough, enough; and in my electorate you probably see the best and the worst of it.
I love to head to the clubs in my electorate, and when you visit a club, they serve alcohol responsibly: the Ski Club; the Darwin Sailing Club; the Trailer Boat Club; the Railway Club; the Turf Club; and the Buff Club. There are probably a few more clubs; we have many clubs in my electorate and they take that responsibility seriously and are fantastic community clubs. We also have great spots along our foreshore which are popular places to have a sunset beer, where you are allowed to - there are certain areas where you can and certain areas where you cannot – and they are great to take visiting friends and relatives where you can sit back, enjoy the sunsets, and you say how good is this?
Alcohol is always going to be part of the Territory lifestyle; however, we need to know when enough is enough. There is a clear public awareness of the link between alcohol, particularly takeaway alcohol, and problems in the Territory - as the minister said, 60% of all assaults, and 67% of all domestic violence incidents.
Much of the credit for the public awareness between alcohol and crime needs to go to the very effective and mature campaign from the NT News that encouraged people to just think. This is a problem that cannot be out of sight, out of mind; it is why we brought in mandatory reporting of domestic violence, and it is why we brought in the Banned Drinker Register. The reform draws a line in the sand. We have said enough is enough and we have turned off the tap to problem drinkers. That is the crux of these reforms. We are banning problem drinkers from buying takeaway alcohol, we are ensuring there is intervention, and there will be mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers.
Mandatory rehabilitation might not work, but we have a responsibility, as a community, to try to make that intervention. It might not stop them drinking forever, but we have to try. It is our responsibility to do our best to reduce the harm alcohol causes.
The policy intentions of our alcohol reforms are to make a difference; to make a dent in the problem that has plagued the Territory for decades, because we know at the heart of many problems police deal with is alcohol - 60% of all assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents - 72% of Territory prisoners committed their offence under the influence. Those are extraordinary statistics, and the devil is in the detail; it is clear we have to turn off the tap to problem drunks. That is why we have put in place a Banned Drinker Register which the police say is the best tool they have been given to deal with the problem.
Working with police is one of the most important parts of our job as local members. I take talking to the police in my local area seriously, and I do it regularly as part of our plan to tackle local issues with the Police Beat based at the Parap shops with services to Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops, and sees police getting out on the beat on bikes, on foot - we even have a trail bike where they get out to tricky parts of East Point and other areas. They get out along the foreshore, they get out through the shops, and they talk to residents and local traders.
Those conversations by local police with local people on local issues have seen an improvement in police intelligence on local problems. They have been making better-informed decisions about general duty patrols; they tackle problems earlier and better, and they have better cooperation with other agencies.
A good example is the work the police have done in tackling illegal camping issues at the breezeway at East Point near Colivas Road. They have an active Landcare group there and many local residents enjoy the area; however, it can be a regular hot spot for illegal camping and the problems which stem from that. We know, in general, when takeaway alcohol is drunk out of sight there can be serious problems, and police statistics back that up. Also, at that illegal camping spot we have seen spot fires and littering; there are no toilet facilities, and local residents who back on to the breezeway have the obvious problem of people entering their property, using their facilities, such as taps, or taking things.
I have met on site with residents, I have walked through the area, and I have talked with local police from the Police Beat. The police are aware the area is a problem from past experience and they have worked with council, and it is great to see council get involved and move those people on, and work with those people about why they are there and how they can get them to return to country.
The people who were illegally camping in that breezeway had actually taken it up a level - there were tents and cars. We need to make a clear distinction between homelessness, which is a serious issue that needs certain responses, and people who visit and choose to camp there, and require a completely different response. If you are visiting from out of town and you have a car and a tent, you have means of transport and a tent, then you can afford a room for the night.
The police got into the problem with council and cleaned the area up and, with their local contacts and regular patrolling, they can now stay on top of that problem; they become aware of it before it ever gets out of hand, before it gets to a critical mass, and I believe local police on the beat make a big difference. They got in touch with Corrections, had a team of low security prisoners out there to clean up the litter in the area, and the work they have done is a real credit to them. It is also a real credit to the value of having local police on the beat doing work with me, local people, general duties police, council, and justice. It is an example of how having local police on the beat, local intelligence, working with locals, talking to other agencies - in this instance council and justice - can make a big difference. One of the benefits of having a local Police Beat is if you have a local issue that worries you; you can sit down with someone and talk about it.
Officers in my area are on the beat from early afternoon through to the morning, and the shopfront is open during business hours. Police from the Parap Police Beat make an active effort to stay in touch with traders in Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park, and this initiative has been warmly welcomed by traders to have the capacity to regularly share any information they have, any stories, any changes they see occurring in the local area with police, and this further informs what police do. It is important to note though, if you see something happening, a crime in progress, that you call the police immediately on 131 444 or, if it is an emergency, 000. If you just want to talk with police officers about local community problems, the local Police Beat can do that.
The solution to problems in the area, such as camping out of control at the breezeway, is hard work and requires rolling up the sleeves and using the tools we have, like the new alcohol reforms which police say is the best tool they have ever had. There are no silver bullets - there is hard work - and hard work is the best way to tackle most problems which is made easier with the alcohol reforms and alcohol management plans.
Alcohol reforms add to a significant body of reform work we have already done, much of which has been done around specific places, and we have - I might have this number wrong - about 48 area management plans. What has become very clear over recent years, particularly post-federal intervention, is the mobility of people. While area management plans are important, we have to have Territory-wide laws, which is what we have seen come out of the Enough is Enough reform package. People need to know, if they abandon one spot, they cannot hop in the car and drive somewhere else, and that is one reason a Banned Drinker Register is so critical to enforcing the ban on takeaway alcohol and reducing the motivation of a problem drunk to move.
We know the effects of chronic alcohol abuse on families, its devastation, dysfunction, and damage to children. It is the community - you, me, the family out to dinner, the person going for a jog along a bike path - we all suffer when alcohol is abused, and that is why these reforms to turn off the tap to problem drinkers are so critical.
I welcome the minister’s statement and the early reports that it is making a difference. These are early days there is still much work to be done, and I know we have a minister who is prepared to do that work. So much of what we do in this area comes back to hard work. My prime responsibility as local member is to be in constant contact with local residents, traders, and the police, to ensure there is a constant flow of information and we are responding to problems immediately. Early action is often best to deal with these things, and you have to do the work to make that happen; it does not happen overnight, and it does not happen by a miracle. You have to do some hard work to get that result. I really enjoy working with my local residents, traders, and police, and by doing that you get some very good results.
I wish the minister all the best, and I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister for Alcohol Policy, for bringing this very important statement before the House. It is important we review and take stock of where we are at after the first three months of the Enough is Enough package of alcohol reforms implemented by the Henderson Labor government.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions of members of this House and, as the minister says, it is early days, but the signs are certainly promising.
We all know these tough reforms have been borne out of a need and a community expectation, as well as of government, that we had to tackle head-on the issue of alcohol abuse and the toll it takes on the Territory and Territorians. The statistics are staggering - 60% of all assaults occurring across the Territory are alcohol-related, and 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related.
In 2010, there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or into sobering-up shelters; and 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol, according to a survey of our prison population. You cannot ignore those statistics, you cannot ignore the cost associated with those statistics, and that is why this package of reforms was introduced.
Whilst the cost is staggering, the recent study the minister referred to undertaken by Menzies School of Health and Research puts the cost associated with alcohol misuse at $642m per year, a figure which is more than four times the national average. What else might we do with those taxpayer dollars? That $642m could be used to build schools, new hospitals, housing - it is very close to the total figure of delivering SIHIP across the Northern Territory.
I go back to the study conducted by Menzies School of Health and Research in which they attempted to calculate the cost, as a dollar value, to our health system, our law enforcement, justice and correction systems, as well as the impact upon our workforce. Less tangible, in terms of measurement, is the cost to children and families, the cost of human misery, and the cost of children unable to get to school the next day because of difficulties with alcohol dependency in the household.
It came as no surprise when the report into the care and protection of children, tabled more than a year ago, identified alcohol as being a critical factor and contributor to the abuse and neglect of children. The costs are both tangible and intangible; they have to be reined in and dealt with, and this can only happen by going to the very source of the problem, which is alcohol itself, and the scourge it is for those who are unable to consume it responsibly.
This is why the government had introduced the Enough is Enough reforms, because strong and decisive action, supported and enforced by a legislative framework, is the only way to deal with alcohol misuse by targeting the problem drinker. It has been a highly consultative process to bring these reforms about. We debated the proposed reforms in this House almost a year ago to the day, followed a few days later with the minister tabling the exposure draft of the two bills and, with community and stakeholders able to provide feedback to government, the bills were introduced to the House in March of this year. They were passed in May, and came into effect on 1 July 2011.
It was quite a challenging time frame, but was driven by an absolute sense of responsibility that this issue needed to be tackled head-on, and we needed to drive these reforms through. Members on this side, obviously, supported the reforms. Key stakeholders, such as AMSANT, NTCOSS, Amity and FORWAARD all came out publicly to support and welcome the reforms. There was broad stakeholder support for the reforms from the outset, with the exception, quite notably, of the members opposite, which is very disappointing.
I should qualify that because, before joining the members opposite, the member for Macdonnell, who is never afraid to speak her mind and go with the courage of her convictions - and good on her - supported the bill when it was debated in this House on 5 May. She said, and I quote from Hansard:
- I support the government’s bill because I believe it is trying to do something. I want to put it in very simple terms; alcoholics are sick people, and alcohol is the biggest troublemaker we have. When you look at kids not going to school, domestic violence, child abuse, it is all related to one thing, and we say alcohol is the troublemaker in Aboriginal communities.
- Alcohol is a major factor in many bad things that have happened in a person’s life - truancy in children, domestic violence, houses not being kept up to Territory Housing standard, and the way people behave in the street in general
- Minister, I congratulate you for bringing this bill forward.
We know that the Leader of the Opposition listens very carefully to the member for Macdonnell. He has recently promoted her to a new role as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs, so I believe the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition, needs to sit down and talk with the member for Macdonnell and think very carefully about what he has said on the public record, in particular, about scrapping the Banned Drinker Register.
It is only three months into the reforms, but it is important to take stock of where we are at and what the evidence-based feedback by way of statistics tells us, as well as the anecdotal feedback. It is only right, given the magnitude of these reforms, the toughest in the nation, possibly in the world, that we should provide that feedback to the community and continue the dialogue in this House.
I spoke at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in July about tough reforms in a global context. I was invited to deliver a paper about the challenges for women in small societies and, whilst other speakers talked about the need for getting women into positions of decision-making and the need to get women into parliament, I did talk about that but I talked within the Northern Territory context about some of the challenges women face in being able to move ahead and take on those key roles, and I talked about the scourge of alcohol and domestic violence and all those awful issues associated with alcohol misuse.
At the conclusion of my paper, I had a number of people approach me to say how interesting they found my contribution. They were particularly interested in the alcohol reforms of this government within a legislative framework. Members from provinces of Canada asked me about it, and also members from some of the island nations. Interestingly, I spoke with a member who represents the very small legislature of the Falkland Islands, and he advised they have what they call a black list in the Falkland Islands where the names of people who are supposedly banned from drinking alcohol are placed but, because it is not in a framework that has any teeth, it is largely ineffective. He and others were most interested to hear how the Northern Territory is tackling alcohol, especially in the context of protecting women, children, and families.
If I go back to the minister’s statement, she highlights these reforms as having very measurable indicators of success. Of course, we acknowledge it is early days; three months. Nevertheless, let us have a look at some of those very important statistical indicators – 1576 people are on the Banned Drinker Register. That is a phenomenal figure; 1576 fewer people who have access to takeaway alcohol and, we would expect, a reduction in the related issues. There have been a total of 3221 banning notices issued; 760 people have received their first BAT notice, Banning Alcohol and Treatment notices. One-hundred and fifty people have received their second BAT notice, and 165 have received their third BAT notice under the reforms. As we know, a further breach for those on their third will result in automatic referral to the newly established Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal.
I understand the tribunal has been formed, and members appointed to it, and I am pleased to note it does have good representation from around the Territory, including one of my constituents. I will not state his name because I am unsure of the parameters regarding any announcements the minister might be making, but this person from my electorate of Nhulunbuy is very familiar with the alcohol reforms, certainly in East Arnhem Land, and very supportive of the stand government has taken to bring in reforms that are Territory-wide, not just for Northeast Arnhem Land.
This particular gentleman has also been a member of the Harmony Group for a number of years in the Northern Territory, so has a good understanding of the need to consult and work with stakeholders. Outside of his busy full-time job and much of the voluntary work he does, which includes being an officer with St John Ambulance, I know he has seen firsthand, over the years, the terrible damage which alcohol can and does do to people and families. I know he is really keen to get started with the important work of the tribunal, and I wish him and the tribunal every success with the important work they will be doing as part of the Enough is Enough reforms, and dealing with problem drinkers when they begin hearing and assessing referrals from 1 January 2012.
I know this gentleman, this constituent of mine, is on the tribunal because he made a visit to my office to say: ‘Lynne, I just wanted to let you know that I applied for it, I am on it, and I am really excited about being a part of it’. So, that is fantastic, and I have no doubt the enthusiasm at that level is across the tribunal, as it is across other parts of the Northern Territory from various groups, individuals, families, and stakeholder groups who welcome these reforms.
Tackling alcohol misuse in the Territory, and the genesis of these reforms goes back to the successful implementation of alcohol management plans in Northeast Arnhem Land, first on Groote Eylandt. Having watched the robust model for takeaway alcohol implemented and the reduction of problems and social dysfunction because access to alcohol was managed, a similar alcohol management plan was developed for the Gove Peninsula. I need to be very clear that those reforms are in place and those alcohol management plans in Northeast Arnhem Land will remain. They are actually much tougher than the reforms around the rest of the Territory, but they will in no way be changed or diluted; and they stand alone.
As the minister has said on the record, the Banned Drinker Register itself is not in Nhulunbuy as yet, but it will be very soon. We look forward to that because it will mean people who are living on the Gove Peninsula or on Groote Eylandt who may be within the liquor permit system and not have a liquor permit to purchase alcohol in Northeast Arnhem Land, or perhaps have a permit which puts limitations on what they can purchase as takeaway, like half-a-dozen cans of light beer a day or similar. It is important to recognise, because people I spoke with were a little concerned about that, and would say to me: ‘We have really good plans working out here in Nhulunbuy. I hope this does not mean that we are going to lose what we have, and just become part of the wider Territory program’. So, it is important to acknowledge we will have the Banned Drinker Register in Northeast Arnhem region, and in addition to that, we will have the very strong program which has been in place for a while.
I want to do a bit of a history lesson here; go back to the start and recognise the very grassroots level at which the liquor reforms in Nhulunbuy, and the wider Gove Peninsula, came into being. It is well documented t when bauxite was discovered on the Gove Peninsula and the partners of the Gove joint venture commenced mining, the traditional landowners did launch a legal challenge to stop mining; that is a well-known fact. It is also a well-known fact they lost that legal challenge. Perhaps what is lesser known is the traditional owners also launched a legal challenge not to see liquor sold through takeaway outlets. Sadly, they lost that challenge as well, and today there are five licensed takeaway liquor outlets in the town of Nhulunbuy.
This background provides some context to a very important letter dated 14 November 2004, written and sent to the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and copied to key leaders within the community. The letter was authored by three very strong Yirrkala women; three strong Marika women, including the late Dr Marika. Basically, that letter was a plea for the community, for community leaders, to work together to see the issue of liquor dealt with in Nhulunbuy. In fact, their original suggestion was to see those liquor outlets closed. Liquor outlets did not close; however, over a couple of years of working collaboratively a permit was agreed to which would reduce access to alcohol; remove people from the source of the problem, if it was a problem for them.
I have read that letter and it is on the record, so I am not going to read it again. However, this letter generated much community debate about how alcohol might be managed to reduce the very negative impacts outlined in this letter. Whilst those very negative impacts were in relation to the Indigenous community, we all know it is a problem not limited to the Indigenous community; those impacts reach right across the community.
It is important to acknowledge that Nhulunbuy is a mining town which employs a high number of males and, the time that letter was written was about the time the Alcan Gove G3 expansion had been announced and we knew the company was preparing to ramp up the construction workforce and to mobilise a sizeable workforce to the site; so, in relation to timing, it was good.
What ensued from that important letter was a formal application which was lodged by my constituent, Mr Banambi Wunungmurra, who was then Chair of the local Harmony Group, and is currently the strong and excellent President of the East Arnhem Shire Council. Basically, that letter was written to request Gove Peninsula be a restricted area. From there, the Liquor Commission conducted public hearings and received numerous submissions, the majority in support of the introduction of the proposed restrictions.
If we fast-forward from there to 1 March 2008 when the takeaway liquor permit system came into being in Nhulunbuy after an enormous amount of work to set up the systems to support it, including software to be developed and installed at the point-of-sale at takeaway liquor outlets.
Looking back over those years, we have come a long way. At that time there was a huge amount of communication work to educate people about what they needed to do in order to obtain a permit and what the circumstances were that might see a person lose their permit. It was a very new system and there were glitches; but, quite clearly there was strong support for it. There continues to be strong support for it, not unlike the Banned Drinker Register rolled out around the Territory …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and member for Arafura,
At the time, one of the things people grumbled about was at the point-of-sale they had to produce their ID. It has never bothered me, but it bothered a few people who have moved on and got over it.
I am a member of the Arnhem Club, as are most of Nhulunbuy’s residents, and to get into the Arnhem Club you have to produce your membership card and swipe it as you enter the door, and on occasions you may be asked to show your ID at the reception desk. I do not see that as an issue and, to be honest, if we were to conduct a survey in Nhulunbuy to say: ‘Hands up who would like to see this permit system scrapped?’ People would say: ‘No, it’s okay. We are fine with it’. They will say that because they recognise it is really delivering some great benefits. It continues to work extremely well in Nhulunbuy and has provided evidence to support alcohol management plans work and are effective in dealing with alcohol misuse.
We know it works because in the years it has been in place, in fact, the first few days it was in place we witnessed a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related crime. We witnessed a dramatic reduction in public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. We witnessed, and there are statistics to back it up and continue to back it up, a dramatic reduction in the number of police lock-ups, a dramatic reduction in the number of people who present to Gove Hospital with alcohol-related issues, and a dramatic reduction in the amount of litter around town because we do not have people parking themselves in certain spots to consume alcohol.
It is important what has happened in Northeast Arnhem Land has provided good evidence that this can work, and this government does work with evidence-based policy, and I am very proud evidence of the success of alcohol management plans in my region have contributed to the current five-point plan and the Enough is Enough strategy.
I want to make a comment on a side issue to do with the government bending over backwards to accommodate people to get their recognised identification to enable them to make purchases, recognising some people may not have a Territory driver’s licence or an Ochre Card. For a period of time they were offered free, so people could get a renewed driver’s licence, a marriage certificate, assuming those certificates and licences were here in the Territory. Anyone could get them for free. The minister did quote the number of people who accessed these for free; I do not have it on hand, but it is phenomenal and, what is more, the period of time was extended to allow more people access.
The people of Marparu in my electorate are eternally grateful for that opportunity. The people of Marparu are absolute teetotallers so they were not seeking identification for the purpose of purchasing liquor from a takeaway liquor store, but because they genuinely seized the opportunity to access a driver’s licence, or a new birth certificate, or a marriage certificate. One of the issues in the Indigenous communities, and I know the member for Arafura will recognise this, is the spelling of their names on birth certificates, drivers’ licences, or passports, depending on which family member had registered; for example, a new child in the family may be at odds with the records at the health clinic, and it can be quite a nightmare for these people. If they are applying for a passport or a driver’s licence they do not have identification that matches up with the name. So this presented a fantastic opportunity, and I know there were many applications for free birth certificates and replacement drivers’ licences from the community, and I know they are eternally grateful for that.
Three months into these reforms, we are talking about them, and I hope we are talking about them again in another three months, and in a year, so we are constantly measuring the success which will allow us to see what we can do better. It is not just about standing here saying: ‘Isn’t this fantastic?’ It is also about looking at the data to see what we are learning from it.
I will close there, but I commend the minister for her very hard work, supported by the very hard work of her office and the agencies that have supported these reforms, and thank her for bringing this statement before the House. I look forward to her bringing this subject back before the House in a few month’s time for another review, and I commend her statement to the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the alcohol statement brought forward by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. The alcohol policy is about our government’s changes which we have implemented through the Enough is Enough policy, which is a position I have repeatedly made since 2001. Actually, well before that, as someone who came out of the health sector and into politics.
Upon the Labor government coming in, I was appointed as Chair of the first Substance Abuse committee in 2001. I fully and wholeheartedly support the changes and note that, while opposition members constantly want to argue the toss and be totally negative about the policy and breach sanctions, the concept of taking this action to address problem drinkers is not new in the Territory. The CLP enacted similar legislation in the 1990s, but did not have the courage or commitment to apply it.
What the contemporary Country Liberals want to argue, especially in the context of antisocial behaviour in the Territory’s main urban centres, particularly in Alice Springs. For about nine years I lived and worked in Katherine and saw firsthand some of the problems in the Katherine community, and also saw what can happen in a community if everyone works together to address and look at solutions on the ground to deal with that.
The tough action on grog, and this has been the mantra used constantly by a number of people whose alcohol-dominated lifestyles do not directly break laws or impact on the public consciousness, that we should target problem drinkers - and that is true - should not be in any way inconvenienced. If you are okay and you are flying under the radar, you should not be disturbed.
There are a number of illogical, fantasy elements to this argument which particularly favours the sellers of alcohol.
Members of the opposition have often talked about the intervention in the Northern Territory and into our communities I remember that day when the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and his federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, made the announcement to intervene into the Northern Territory, one of the first things Mal Brough or John Howard, as the Prime Minister, talked about was the alcohol restrictions that would apply in the Northern Territory. Being a non-drinker myself, I applauded the former Prime Minister and his Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough.
I will touch on the Arafura electorate and particularly the Tiwi Islands, which are my people. I have often stood in this House and talked about the issues of chronic alcoholism, the chronic violence and the violent epidemics that happen in communities where they have what are classified as social clubs which image conjures up in one’s mind a social club which has rules, people have to be members, you would have a civilised environment, and people would have a few drinks; you would probably have one or two beers with your mates and the camaraderie, everyone is happy, enjoying themselves, having a beer after a hard day’s work. I wish that was the case in the Tiwi Islands.
On the Tiwi Islands we have a club in each one of the communities. In each one of those communities the consumption of alcohol by Tiwi people, particularly at Nguiu, was four times the national average - an absolute disgrace. I lived there in the 1990s and every night we had four to five medical evacuations out of that community. Every single one of those evacuations were women being medically evacuated after being on the receiving end of their drunken husbands, and the violence inflicted on these women was absolutely horrific.
At that time, at Nguiu, which is now renamed Wurrumiyanga, a community of 1700 people in those days, and I am only talking about the 1990s, about 15 years ago, there were no police on the ground in those communities. So, if a woman was assaulted, or a child was abused, much of it was through alcohol aided and abetted by unfettered drugs that were going into these communities because we did not have police on the ground in those days. I remember seven days a week you would be lucky if you got to sleep at three or four o’clock in the morning, and then you would have to get up the next morning to make sure the council office and everything else was open.
Alcohol reforms often fell on deaf ears with the then CLP government. I listened to members this afternoon, they kept saying: ‘Members on the other side constantly preach and hammer on, particularly the new member for Araluen; at least with the former member for Araluen there was intellect in the debate. If she argued or debated an issue, at least she put a position across and debated it quite ferociously.’ That is the difference between the former member for Araluen and this member for Araluen who does no service whatsoever to her electorate; it is just constant carping. I call the member for Araluen and the member for Greatorex the members for gripe and hype. On any given day, there is the hype and then there is the gripe; there is never any solution or working with government about going forward.
When I can do trips to Central Australia, like all members of this parliament, I enjoy going to Alice Springs. It is a community that does have issues; you would have to be Blind Freddy if you thought Alice Springs was the perfect Utopia and there was nothing wrong. Of course, there are issues, but we needed to work through them.
The other thing the CLP constantly bang on about is they think the drinking population of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal - and that is not true - we all know chronic alcoholism, and the issues and problems with alcohol, goes across all races. It does not matter whether you are black or white, Chinese, or whatever race you are, alcoholism is an issue that affects everyone.
I believe the Enough is Enough policy, the implementation of that policy, the rehabilitation programs and the way forward this government has put in place is the right way to go. It puts in place the steps so people can get the reform and rehabilitation that they need. It is not just about saying: ‘We are going to ban you, but we are not going to take the next step’, which is about placing someone on the banned register and providing the rehabilitation process for them.
One of the areas the intervention did bring in on the Tiwi Islands was changes to drinking hours and club hours in those communities. Particularly for communities like Nguiu, it has not placed a total ban on alcohol, but what it has provided is certain days in which there is no alcohol whatsoever in the community, and what you see when you go to those communities on the days the clubs are closed is mums and dads with their children down at the beaches playing and enjoying life as a family. That is something that has been missing in these communities for a long time.
In my electorate on the Tiwi Islands every community has a wet canteen. Things are better; issues regarding violence have reduced, but we still have some way to go in removing violence. It would be good to reduce the violence even more, and with the substantial numbers of police in those communities now that is going some way to address those issues.
At Gunbalanya there is wet canteen, and we see the same issues happening there. I remembered being on the select committee and I went out there with the former member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim, who was pro-alcohol and thought every community should have a wet canteen. We met with the people at the club at Gunbalanya, and I said to him: ‘Dr Lim, it is important to talk to the people who run the club and workers, and everyone else. We have talked to members of the community, but I want to take you, Dr Lim, and I want you to sit down with a group of women who often do not get heard in these debates’. I take my hat off to Dr Lim, he came with me, he sat down, and he heard those women. The women were crying and begged him to support fundamental changes in their community.
Any of us who were here in 2001 and knew Dr Lim - Richard Lim was not a warm and fluffy person, it was hard for him to get emotional about anything, but he got quite emotional about that, and when we left that meeting with the women he thanked me for taking him and allowing him to be part of and listen to what those women were saying.
That helped get the first report where we suggested changes, for which I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and Syd Stirling, who was in charge of Racing, Gaming and Licensing before that. Since 2001, we have been on this journey of constantly reforming, and that is what I heard the Chief Minister saying: the Labor government is all about constant reform. You can travel around, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, and you see things in your electorate; or you can travel around with members of the opposition and you can share and have an insight and be part of the steps going forward. That time with those women at Gunbalanya with Richard Lim – Dr Lim and I rarely agreed on things - but it was an interesting time on the select committee looking at alcohol abuse in those communities with Dr Lim.
It is always interesting, historically, to go back over what has been said previously, how it was said, what we had talked about. I always find Hansard a really interesting tool to go back to, not just my own speeches, but to look at different debates we have had, and issues we have talked about, and also what members of the opposition had talked about, particularly on this issue.
It was interesting; I pulled some stuff from 1991 for my colleague, the Minister for Central Australia, when the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen were going on about the doom and gloom in Alice Springs. It was interesting reading excerpts from Hansard about a Matter of Public Importance regarding Alice Springs, only this time the matter of public importance was brought on by Neil Bell, the former Labor member for Macdonnell, and you see that theme, which is not making light or in any way denigrating that there are issues in these towns.
I touched on briefly the nearly nine years I spent in Katherine, and the issues of antisocial behaviour. The grog culture was awash in places like Katherine being at the crossroads to Western Australia to the south and to the east. The grog culture was awash in Katherine at that time. As a service provider working with the police, with the hospital, with the health department, with women’s crisis centres, with child protection authorities, and with the Katherine Town Council, we were all working together to try and deal with this issue.
The problem is, as a community, you can deal with this issue, but you have to have the armoury in place to enable organisations and governments to have a framework to deal with this. I believe that is what the Attorney-General and the Minister for Alcohol Policy and this government have done with the Enough is Enough policy and programs. It has given each of those regions, particularly our urban centres, the strategies to deal with it.
When we talk about the Little Children are Sacred report, when we talk about the intervention into the Northern Territory, and the rivers of grog that was talked about in the Little Children are Sacred report, yes, many of our remote areas did have clubs, but many of our remote communities were actually restricted areas under the Liquor Act provisions. The rivers of grog were, in a sense, in some of our urban centres, particularly Katherine, which was, as I said, awash with grog and there were major issues.
In Tennant Creek, I know people have often criticised the ‘thirsty Thursday’, or the day where they had no alcohol. Similarly, with the restrictions in Alice Springs, you often hear people say: ‘I do not have a problem, so why should I be penalised?’ I believe alcohol affects all of us, and I do not drink alcohol, but I do not begrudge people drinking alcohol, I believe everyone has a right to drink alcohol. Often I say to my own people and members of my own family, who have chronic alcohol problems, that …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have nearly finished, but thank you.
There are members of my own family who are chronic alcoholics, and I say: ‘Yes, it is your right to have a drink, but it is also your responsibility, and if you are going to drink, you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you do not want to be responsible for your actions in terms of your drinking, then that right should be taken away from you.’ I have always been a supporter of mandatory rehabilitation which was mentioned in our first report in 2001. There are members on this side, and I know the minister herself knows I have very liberal views, quite conservative views, in relation to alcohol. As I said, I do not begrudge people having a drink, as long as they take that responsibility; and if they fail to take that responsibility, then that right should be removed.
I will not go on anymore. I thank the minister and the government; I believe the Enough is Enough policy is a step in the right direction, and I fully support the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government did commit to reporting back on the first three months of the reforms, and we have done that with this ministerial statement during the sittings. We noted that we are only three months in and, with some aspects yet to become fully operational, we see the early indications are very positive.
It is a shame the members opposite do not want to accept the Banned Drinker Register is actually making inroads into cutting alcohol-fuelled violence in our community. They have managed, throughout the debate, to ignore the advice of the experts at the coalface. They have ignored the advice of the police who say the Banned Drinker Register is working, of the health sector who support the initiative because it does not criminalise alcoholism - a stark difference in policy between the opposition and government.
This reform directly targets the problem with minimal impact on the broader community. We focus on takeaway alcohol sales that make up an estimated 70% of alcohol consumption in the Territory. In the first three months of these reforms, PROMIS police data reports a 22% reduction in total alcohol-related incidents, from July to September this year, compared with the same period in 2010. Over that same three month period, a 15% drop in alcohol-related assaults across the Territory which equates to 164 less alcohol-fuelled assaults in the three months since 1 July. This includes, in a breakdown, regionally, a 20% drop in Darwin; 23% reduction in Palmerston; 17% drop in Alice Springs; 15.8% drop in Katherine, and a 19.5% drop in Tennant Creek.
The Banned Drinker Register is critical to enforcing bans. In total, there have been more than 1100 refusals of sale to problem drinkers to buy alcohol Territory-wide. Under the CLP, these drinkers would still have access to alcohol.
The Banned Drinker Register is a quick scan; less than seven seconds, to identify banned drinkers at the point-of-sale to enforce the bans. It is working. On more than 1000 occasions, banned drinkers have been refused sale. The Banned Drinker Register is a small inconvenience to help cut crime.
If you listen to Pete Davies on Mix, he said, and I quote
Well, it is interesting, I know from my perspective it was a bit of a bugger when it first came in. They say, oh, can I have your licence as well, but now when I go through the bottle shop, I’ve got my licence, I’ve got my key card, and I’ve got my hotel’s loyalty card. I have the three cards ready now. It is has almost become second nature, and I think that has probably happened with most people’.
Despite the police stating this is the best tool they have had to tackle alcohol-related crime, the opposition say they would scrap the Banned Drinker Register. When commenting on the Banned Drinker Register, Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne stated, and I quote:
- Police did see it as one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool, available to police to actually deal with the source problem of antisocial behaviour and the violence that was occurring in the community. I think these early indicators prove that the initiative is working.
The Assistant Police Commissioner also stated he would like to see the initiative continue, and I quote:
- From a policing point of view, we see some tremendous results from this initiative.
The opposition has committed to scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. The Alcohol Policy shadow minister has said in his response to this statement the CLP would not scrap anything without evaluating it first. It begs the question: exactly what is their policy? Inconsistency is already showing through in this debate. The CLP are on the record as stating the links between community violence and alcohol consumption are negligible. They ignore that being turned off tap is a very real consequence for problem drinkers. They ignore that alcohol-related crime is being reduced with the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register. They ignore the advice of the police at the coalface, the police that have supported this initiative from day one; who contributed to the policy formation with wise advice; and the police who continue to support it because they say it works.
They should be ashamed of questioning police independence in this issue when they question the data that has been provided directly from the police PROMIS system. The opposition have claimed people would have to show ID at a barbecue. Not one single person has had to show ID at a barbecue. They stated bottle shop attendants would stalk young women who showed their ID at the bottle shop. Wrong. The shadow minister said people buying alcohol online should not have to give their details or address. Well, we are not sure how he expects deliveries to be made if they do not give their address. He went on to say that the alcohol reforms would mean we would lose taxes from alcohol sales going online, despite the fact we do not collect taxes from alcohol sales, the Commonwealth does. A High Court decision in the 1990s ruled the Territory constitutionally unable to tax or levy alcohol sales.
Their ideas to tackle alcohol-related crime - well, we have had some interesting suggestions. I remember hearing in this Chamber, and being shocked, when the member for Drysdale suggested we copy New Zealand and ban drive-through at the bottle shop. The member for Braitling suggested we should open bottle shops earlier in Alice Springs and close them four hours earlier, at 5 pm. They have no credibility.
The opposition has committed to overturning the alcohol laws, the laws which have turned more than 1500 problem drinkers off tap. This is the same opposition who voted against repeat drinker drivers losing their licence, and against alcohol ignition locks. They are ignoring the stark facts: 60% of violent crime is linked to alcohol misuse. They are ignoring in just three months we have seen a 15% drop across the Territory in alcohol-fuelled assaults under these reforms.
At the end of the first three months of these reforms, there were 1576 people on the Banned Drinker Register; 760 people - 71% - had received one BAT notice; 150 - 14% - had received a second BAT notice; and 165 people - 15% - had received a third BAT notice, and they are off tap for an entire year. At the end of September 2011, of the 165 in receipt of their third BAT notice, 104 have gone on to breach that BAT notice, and they will be the clients of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. These people will be taken into a treatment regime.
Mandatory treatment through the tribunal commences from 1 January when the tribunal becomes fully operational. We have brought forward the tribunal operations for self-referrals to 1 November. Of the 1576 people on the Banned Drinker Register in September, 455 were for court ordered banning notices, including SMART orders and bail orders; and 1075 for Banning and Treatment Notices issued by police. In total, 3221 bans have been issued under the reform. This highlights the effectiveness of the tool and its application by Territory police.
This government is proud these reforms continue our record of investing in treatment and rehabilitation services; $34.3m over five years is invested through these alcohol reforms; $5.2m has been invested this year to expand treatment options for problem drinkers, which includes: extra beds; community based outreach services in major centres and growth towns; expanded alcohol withdrawal support options; home based residential low risk, plus, high risk hostel beds for withdrawal; and brief interventions by GPs and primary health providers.
We have worked collaboratively with the health and rehabilitation sector, and I sincerely thank them for their contributions and support. Without them, we could not have achieved the reforms to date.
We have established the SMART Court and 29 people have already commenced treatment under this initiative. We have established the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal and, as I said, they will start reviews of banning notices and start to hear applications for people volunteering to be banned from 1 November, and be fully operational by 1 January.
Support for the reforms has been widespread; it has come from the Northern Territory Police; the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, commonly known as AMSANT; the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, commonly referred to as NTCOSS; Amity and FORWAARD - both very reputable alcohol and other drug treatment providers - the Responsible Drinkers Lobby in Alice Springs; the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs; and the industry itself, the Australian Hotels Association and the Liquor Stores Association.
These have been the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in our nation and, as you have heard in this debate through various speakers, the reforms are off the back of knowledge our government has achieved through a series of reforms since we came to government in 2001. We have learnt what works and what does not work. We have taken what works and put them into these reforms and have significantly expanded on them.
These reforms target the problem drinker to turn them off tap and put them into treatment. They are evidence-based on the evaluations of alcohol management plans and supply measures of the past, and they are promising early results - about a 15% drop in alcohol-related crime across the Territory, and a 22% drop in alcohol-related incidents across the Territory.
The opposition seriously has no credibility in this debate; they have contradicted themselves with the shadow minister contradicting the opposition leader. We have had some bizarre suggestions coming from members opposite, and it is time for them to understand, through their prism of ideological opposition, not everything Labor does is a bad thing. The test of time will show one of the greatest things we can do is turn people’s lives around; change what is occurring in their lives by getting them into mandated treatment.
I recall in the many consultations and conversations I had with many people in the formation of this policy, the wisdom of Dr John Boffa - and we do not always agree - he looked at me and said: ‘You cannot start to change the decisions people are making if they are in the fog of alcohol. You have to get them off alcohol to deal with other issues’. It is that fundamental issue of turning them off tap. If you do not have a tool, such as the Banned Drinking Register to turn them off tap, how do you start with those issues of withdrawal support and early interventions either through GPs, AMSANT or institutions such as FORWAARD? How do you have those conversations about what they should or could be doing regarding their family responsibilities if you are not turning them off tap first?
The fundamental difference, what this boils down to between the opposition and the government, is we are not criminalising alcoholics.
People who commit criminal offences are dealt with through the criminal regime, they go to court; but people who do not commit an offence, who are drunken, need to be dealt with under the health system and through the treatment regimes we put in place here through the tribunal. There is a fundamental difference and I would point the opposition to the World Health Authority and what they say on criminalising alcoholism - research it, opposition. You should hang your heads in shame if you read those research papers and those studies, and maintain this ‘lock them up’ mentality.
I commend the statement to members.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Arafura
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Arafura to make a personal explanation. I ask members to remember it is not a debate.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, during Question Time today the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin felt I had made certain inferences towards them. If that is the case, I apologise if any hurt has been caused to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
MOTION
Note Statement -
Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future
Note Statement -
Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future
Continued from 26 October 2011.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Indigenous Development’s statement.
My Department of Business and Employment offers services which have improved Indigenous employment results in both the public and private sector. One program is a jointly funded Northern Territory/Australian government Indigenous training for employment program which supports some 20 projects with a commitment of $2.2m in 2010-11.
Strategies and programs to increase Indigenous employment in government include the jobs guarantee program which offers students living in remote Territory growth towns, and who achieve a Year 10 Certificate of Education and Training, a pathway to employment in their community through an apprenticeship, traineeship or a similar structured training program. Last year, in its pilot phase, three students embarked on their journey to a job in the Northern Territory Public Service. The program also identified 10 other employment opportunities for students in retail, local councils, and customer services. This guarantee concept is planned to roll-out with other employees in these townships.
The government’s Indigenous Employment Program provides Indigenous people with skills development and training for entry-level recruitment into the NTPS. The program has provided opportunities for 103 Indigenous people since its pilot back in 2009.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program has a focus on engaging Indigenous apprentices and trainees in diverse areas across government. Currently, there are approximately 44 Indigenous full-time apprentices, and six Indigenous school-based apprentices participating in this program, developing skills and experience in the areas such as conservation and management, education support, IT, and business.
The department also supports regional and remote shires to undertake workforce planning to encourage sustainable employment for local Indigenous Territorians. We are working with remote businesses and employers by creating opportunities through our Northern Territory government procurement system, and also assisting to build local government capacity by undertaking government contracts. Procurement changes have been introduced which allow government agencies to directly contract those shires which have a more than 30% Indigenous workforce to undertake work that occurs within their shire boundaries; and the department is now working with the four major Australian banks on finance provisions on Aboriginal …
Mr GILES: 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.
We have a quorum.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will just back up a little. The department is working with four major Australian banks on finance provisions on Aboriginal land so people can raise capital to start businesses, invest and grow their wealth.
In addition, remote Indigenous corporations are being supported to become property developers of government business centres. We are working directly with Indigenous corporations to tender for the development and long-term leasing of government office accommodation in our Territory growth towns. These buildings, with government as the anchor tenant, will also present opportunities for local developers to consider retail space as well. Underpinning the work with businesses developed from our remote entrepreneurs builds commercial and business literacy within our growth towns. Business literacy is essential in sustainable business, and we are working on this key component as it is those businesses which will provide jobs for the future within the growth towns.
I turn to the government-owned corporation under my responsibility, the Power and Water Corporation. Through its board in March, it endorsed the 10-year Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy 2010-20. The aim of this strategy is to increase Indigenous participation within the mainstream corporate workforce by 2020. In keeping with the Territory 2030 strategy, investing in and valuing our people, community, and culture, Power and Water will enhance the level of participation by Indigenous Australians through specific recruitment and workforce development initiatives. Mr Peter Mayo was recruited to the position of HR consultant in the Indigenous employment area, and is expected to commence by the end of this month. Peter’s position falls under the workforce capacity building team.
The key priority areas of the strategy are workforce, environment, attraction, retention, and communication. The role of the strategy will initially focus on the following areas:
cross-cultural training for Power and Water employees,
There is much work going on within government, and we have seen the rise of the participation rate with the NTPS, and the goal over the next few years is to get to 10%, and that is well within our grasp, and then moving to a relative comparator with the population demographic of the Northern Territory. So, things are moving extremely well. Through our buying power, with our procurement, in every aspect we are trying to encourage Indigenous employment and grow the towns in the area.
I commend the statement to the House. It is a big area that continually needs focus and we have a number of policies in this area. It is a focus of whole-of-government getting a demographic into work because we know if we can get Indigenous Territorians into work from a range of areas they are able to be more self-sufficient and live a much more productive life.
Within my electorate increasing jobs in the shires with government contracts has brought some real wins. The civil crew at Nauiyu has 90%, if not more, Indigenous employees, and that organisation, that work unit, is looking at up-skilling those guys, and in other areas of the community as well.
I commend the Thamarrurr Development Corporation for its effort with their factory and providing trainees to SIHIP, which is quite a success story. I knew many of the guys working there. There was Sammy Derby, an old friend of mine who worked extremely hard with SIHIP getting some certificates, and now he is looking to move on with other works; he will move into other areas and encourage that to happen.
It is a focus of the government in all areas, whether it is Aboriginal health workers, or in the sport and recreation area, to get Indigenous people in and move them into the private sector. The public service provides a great opportunity to be a staging point for Indigenous employment by using the wraparound services, providing the mentors, and working through some of the most basic situations of life skills. Getting people into the private sector is the ultimate goal where they can stand on their own two feet and move on through this career development.
On a number of occasions I have met with industry groups, and also individual businesses, and they are very keen to engage with this group. I mentioned in the House this week the work that goes on with the Minerals Council. They have done a fantastic job, and I must give credit to Chris Natt who has done a fantastic job in getting the Indigenous pre-employment program going with the mining industry. Those graduates have quite a significant retention rate and they are doing a fantastic job in preparing them and, as I said today, having the women come through. The next program will be women coming through to move into the mining industry, not just on the mine site, but into the corporate area, and working there will certainly enhance those people. They have had approximately 25 graduates go through.
It is gratifying to see the private sector is shouldering some of the corporate responsibility to our community to get long-term unemployed, especially Indigenous long-term unemployed, not only from the urban areas, but from remote areas and towns, into work, understanding there are complex barriers they face with respect to attaining and staying in employment. Over the last couple of years since the program has been running, they have learnt many lessons and built them into future programs; it really is a great program.
It is great to be part of a government and a party that values Indigenous people, and the remote communities, and has policies to make it happen within government. Without policy, without direction, you cannot direct and guide the government in its expenditure.
I commend the statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Office of the Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Office of the Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Office of the Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Print Paper – Office of the Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Office of Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Note Paper – Office of Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Office of the Ombudsman – Annual Report 2010-11
Office of the Ombudsman – Annual Report 2010-11
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Report of the Ombudsman 2010-11.
MOTION
Print Paper – Office of the Ombudsman - Annual Report 2010-11
Print Paper – Office of the Ombudsman - Annual Report 2010-11
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Office of the Ombudsman - Annual Report 2010-11
Note Paper – Office of the Ombudsman - Annual Report 2010-11
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11.
In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act I am pleased to table the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
After a sustained period of economic growth and strong financial outcomes, as evidenced by eight consecutive cash surpluses to 2009-10, the financial outcome for the Territory in 2010-11 has been affected by three years of substantially reduced revenues, most notably the GST, and the need for higher government infrastructure spending as a result of the GFC.
GST revenue for the Territory in 2010-11 was more than $300m lower than predicted prior to the GFC, and $144m lower in absolute terms than that received in 2009-10. Overall, the Territory has lost more than $450m in GST over the last two years. Infrastructure investment in 2010-11 was $1.7bn, $200m higher than in 2009-10 and double the level achieved in 2008-09. Economic data indicates that without this significant contribution by the Territory government to counteract the decline in private sector investment, economic growth in the Territory would have been negatively affected.
The combination of lower economic activity nationally and increased infrastructure spending has resulted in a cash deficit of $387m in 2010-11. The final deficit outcome is higher than the revised estimate in May due to the timing of expected Commonwealth revenues, accelerated expenditure from 2011-12, and higher infrastructure spending including national disaster spending. The effects of timing differences will be included in the 2011-12 mid-year report and will contribute to a nett improvement in the 2011-12 outcome.
In anticipation of the worsening fiscal position, a series of budget improvement measures were introduced in May 2010 in order to constrain operating expenditure growth, including: the introduction of a staffing cap; a reprioritisation of agency appropriation to meet increased demand pressures and new initiatives; and an increased efficiency dividend. These measures resulted in nett savings of $52m in 2010-11, and will result in nett savings in excess of $150m by the end of 2011-12.
A summary of the key 2010-11 outcomes included in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are: for the general government sector, an operating surplus of $238m and cash deficit of $387m; significantly higher capital spending for the general government sector of over $1.2bn with $1.7bn in total infrastructure spending including repairs and maintenance and the Power and Water Corporation; taxation collections per capita well below the average of the states, and nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue ratios for the general government sector increased, largely due to the 2010-11 cash deficit.
Despite the significant drop in revenues to the Territory, the restraint measures introduced by the Henderson government to curb the growth in operating expenses have, in part, contributed to maintaining an accrual-operating surplus of $238m. This also highlights the target of limiting operating expenditure growth to below that of revenue growth, excluding Commonwealth tied funding, has been achieved for 2010-11.
As mentioned previously, infrastructure investment is a key component of the government’s fiscal strategy and is essential for the delivery of the Territory’s social and economic services. The Henderson government has achieved record infrastructure investment in 2010-11 and protected jobs, and supported the local economy in the current subdued economic conditions.
Total infrastructure spending for 2010-11 was $17bn and six times depreciation levels, significantly exceeding the fiscal strategy target of spending twice depreciation. This significant infrastructure spending has been successful in offsetting lower private sector investment. Economic growth and employment have remained positive in the Territory as a result of this strategy, as evidenced by a 77.8% increase in public sector investment since 2008-2009, offsetting a decline of 43.1% in private sector investment.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2010-2011 is $1172m, which is $454m higher than the 2009-10 outcome. The increase is the result of the 2010-11 cash deficit and the debt to equity swap with the Power and Water Corporation announced in the 2010-11 Budget. While the nett debt to revenue ratio has increased to 25% in 2010, it still remains significantly below the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities have also increased from the 2009-10 outcome due to the increase in nett debt together with an increase in accrued expenses associated with higher SIHIP building activity, higher employee leave entitlements, and higher superannuation liability as a result of revised actuarial assumptions.
When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett financial liabilities as at 30 June 2011, have increased to 96%, which is up from 85% in 2009-10 but, again, is well below the 131% recorded in 2001-01.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2010-11 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has once again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion.
The 2010-11 outcome reflects the two speed national economy and uncertain economic conditions which have affected Territory revenues. The Territory is not alone in doing it tough with all other jurisdictions predicting a cash deficit position for 2010-2011 in their 2011-2012 Budgets. All jurisdictions that have to date published their 2010-2011 outcome reports have confirmed their deficit positions.
The Henderson government remains committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly amidst these uncertain economic times while maintaining our commitment to investing in Territory infrastructure and supporting Territory jobs and economic growth.
The challenge in the short term remains, the continued adherence to fiscal restraint measures in order to contain operational spending below revenue growth. Once revenue streams improve and there is a reduced requirement to invest heavily in infrastructure, this will provide the capacity to return the Budget to surplus and reduce debt levels.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the 2010-2011 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and I commend it to the House.
I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many great schools in the Fannie Bay electorate and Darwin High School is definitely one of them. On 10 October this year, students participating in the VET in Schools Certificate II in Hospitality (Kitchen Operations) catered for a function at the Community Day for Pearl Supported Living. This was under the supervision of chef and hotel manager from Southern Cross, Lynn Stanley.
The students cooked a traditional menu chosen by the residents of the Pearl Retirement Village. Pearl Aged Care is providing a much needed home for senior Territorians who need a hospital bed. It provides quality of life and reduces the pressure on our hospital, and we need to provide better services and more opportunities for our senior Territorians. The integrated aged care retirement village does just that - it is a great place with fabulous residents and fantastic staff, and they were all looking forward to the Darwin High School students’ catering efforts.
The favoured dishes on the night were prawn cocktail, beef Wellington and crme brle. They were just some of the dishes on offer. They were the ones I ate; and they were delicious.
The dinner was attended by the residents of the aged care facility, and others, including activities coordinator, Monia Juste-Constant, and event organiser and hospitality trainer from Darwin High School, Lorraine Kerrigan. Lorraine is a qualified chef of 22 years’ trade experience. She did her training in the United Kingdom, was granted a skilled visa six years ago, and only a few weeks ago became an Australian citizen, which is fantastic. There is no doubt that Australia has gained a very good person in Lorraine.
The shortage in the hospitality industry inspired Lorraine to become a qualified trainer. This is her first position outside a large organisation. She had previously trained in a full-time working environment, but not a classroom. In her words, it is the most rewarding job she has ever done. I was impressed with the standard of catering and the community spirit of the event, which included the coming together of senior Territorians and local high school students.
The starters of prawn cocktail, or cream of tomato soup and croutons, were prepared by Beatrice Poni and Beatrice Jackson. The mains of beef Wellington, roasted pumpkin, and ricotta tortellini with sage butter, were constructed by Robyn Matthews and Sarah Meldrum. The students not only cooked the food, but assisted in the set up of the dining room, and the service of the food at the function. Jill Schier, Jay Owen, Gwen Wilkinson, Ellen Favennec, Adam Smith, Mala Lemon, and Samantha Hammond all helped with the preparation of the food and dining area; and Eric Lawrence Kute helped make the desserts. They did an excellent job of preparing a high quality meal and service. They were professional and courteous, the food was delicious, and you could not have asked for anything more. These were Certificate II students catering at the Pearl Seniors’ Village.
The residents loved having the students there, and a common sentiment on the night was how nice it was to have so many young people around. They were impressed with the students’ manner and demeanour. They were not the only ones impressed - I am never surprised by the achievements of Darwin High School students - a tremendous school that continuously produces quality students, and I was very impressed by the students on the night; so friendly and helpful. It is a fantastic example of what people do in schools now.
Getting out like that is an event inspired by community spirit, that obviously also saw education outcomes, and saw them engaging with senior Territorians in that retirement village. It is a fantastic story and I certainly hope, in the future, that Pearl attracts more people who are inspired by community spirit. If anyone wants to volunteer, you can contact Pearl any time, and they will talk to you about how you can volunteer and the many ways you can do that.
This was a community day that saw the students there from 9 am until past 9 pm. They were there for over 12 hours, doing the prep, the cooking, the set up, the cleaning, the lot. It was an impressive effort. Congratulations to everyone involved; it was a wonderful event which gave the students a rare opportunity to work as a team in a commercial environment and contribute to the community while also gaining real life industry experience for their Certificate II in Hospitality, Kitchen Operations.
The kitchen at Pearl is fantastic; obviously, a brand new building. The care and thought that has gone into that from Southern Cross Care has been quite extraordinary, and if you ever get a chance to do a tour of that retirement village, you will be impressed with the thought that has gone into it, and the quality of what they have done. But, a building is a building, and it is there for the service it provides.
The staff have a wonderful attitude, and that is reflected in the glint in the eyes of the residents; they really do appreciate the time they get to spend at Pearl and the quality of care and attention they get; it really is a wonderful operation.
Going back to the top, the supervision of Chef and Hotel Manager, Lynn Stanley, from Southern Cross, was an excellent opportunity and experience for the students to be able to work under her tutelage, in her kitchen, with all her years of experience. She ran a tight ship, and it was a fabulous night, and I wish everyone all the best. I hope to see more things like that at Pearl in the future, and I commend all the students.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish this evening to talk briefly on the good exploits of the Humpty Doo Primary School, which is one of the schools in my electorate, and a fine school it is, complete with a rich history in teaching, enriching, and entertaining countless numbers of students over the 30-plus years of its life.
The school was opened over 30 years ago when Humpty Doo was just a tiny dot on the map. Now the school is surrounded by other schools, churches, shops, sporting and community facilities, and many more people on rural blocks and properties. There are around 394 students, which makes it a very large primary school, and that in itself brings challenges in teaching and accommodating the students, teachers, and support staff.
Recently, I attended their school concert with the theme of space, and what a lovely evening it was. The classes performed to space music, which was as funny as it was entertaining. From looking at the costumes it was clear that many hours of work had been expended to create such memorable costumes and a memorable event, and I am sure much hard work was done by class teachers and the parents.
The concert program included: Nightflight to Venus; Spacial Awareness; Star Trekkin’; Space Cadets; We Are One; Best Kept Secret; Written in the Stars; Moonstruck; Dr Who theme; The Truth is Out There; Why does the Sun Shine?; The History of Space Travel; What Planet Are You From; and Space Shuffle - all done by the classes, and it was a very lovely time.
The school is a credit to the hardworking teaching staff, ably led by Principal, Eric Smith, and Deputy Principal, Geoff Gillman, and the many staff across the classes and Special Education. A school would not be a school unless it has good administration and support staff, and Sheryl Stevens and Trish Stuart at the front office are there always to help and provide sound advice. Not to overlook the school council under the chairmanship of Michele Shugg and all her fellow councillors; they too did a good job and put in a great deal of time.
While many students achieve good and special awards at the school and in all manner of extracurricular activities, recently Karl Fox won the BMX Northern Territory championships which were held in Nhulunbuy; congratulations to him.
I would also like to briefly mention the awards from the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club, which I attended recently, and I am the patron of that club. It is a funny, terrific club, with many good families and parents putting in countless hours to see their children, both boys and girls, enjoy horse riding and equestrian.
The awards for the year were: Lead Line, the Champion was Jordyn Pethick, with Reserve Champion, Summer Malone; Junior Rider Champion was Emily Hubble; and the Reserve went to Amy Fisher; 10 to 13-year-olds, the Champion was Jayme Frost, and Reserve was Shannah Mudge; 13 to 15-year-olds, the Champion was Caleb White; and the Reserve went to Paige Barcroft; 15 to 17-year-olds, the Champion was Stella Smith; no reserve because there probably was not enough at the club to make choices from; 17 to 26-year-olds, the Champion was Nadine Ikin; and 26-years old and over, the Champion was Jane Spinks. Well done to all of them and well done to the club. It is a good club and a very popular club; it has huge and good attendance at all the events they hold during the year. They are in recess next year, but I look forward to them starting up again at the beginning of the year.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a serious comment; it is nothing to do with my electorate, but more to do with my shadow portfolios. I have gone through the Pastoral Land Board’s Annual Report for 2009-10, and I express concern with the contents in the foreword, which I quote:
- For several years, the Board has been concerned that the momentum of the pastoral land monitoring programs has slowed. If the current level of monitoring is not increased it will take more than 10 years for all pastoral leases in the Northern Territory to be visited and this is insufficient to provide an assessment of land conditions throughout the pastoral estate.
The question has to be asked, why are they unable to do their job? I would say it is because they are not being resourced properly and government is not taking this part of the industry seriously. Further down in the report, and this is particularly concerning in regard to the review of the Pastoral Land Act and the pending amendments to that act, which are on hold at the moment, and rightly so:
Although the Board has no input into the review of the Pastoral Land Act during the 2009-10 reporting year it is timely to report that a bill to amend the legislation was released for public comment in March 2011. The Pastoral Land Board lodged a submission about the proposed amendments as well as the Native Vegetation Management Bill.
You have amendments to the Pastoral Land Act, and yet the Pastoral Land Board was not even consulted. That is just appalling. I further quote from the foreword:
- However, an issue of concern to the Board is the major changes to the Pastoral Land Act and the role of the Pastoral Land Board, including the removal of the statutory requirement for monitoring of the pastoral estate.
They will not be monitoring the massive pastoral estate - half the Northern Territory’s land mass.
Other issues raised in the submission by the board include the bureaucratic decision-making model adopted, and the need for objective criteria in land clearing decisions at the enterprise property level. Under the proposed amendments the government wants to put through in regard to the Pastoral Land Act, the Pastoral Land Board will have no formal functions, and they will no longer be an independent body with any statutory responsibilities for the pastoral estate. If the legislative changes are enacted in 2012, this will be the last report of the Pastoral Land Board as required by its current statutory obligations. What is going to happen is, the government wants this Pastoral Land Board to consult with the minister, and yet they are not giving it any statutory powers.
They are taking away a very important role this board has played to monitor and manage half the Northern Territory’s land mass. I have looked at the proposed bill and amendments and they say the minister will take advice from the new Pastoral Land Board. I find that quite bizarre because, from talking with industry and this board, they have never had a meeting with the current minister; and have not and did not have a meeting with the previous minister. Why would the board report to the minister under the new amendments when the minister was never interested in talking with them prior to these amendments coming into existence? It is a very serious issue.
Clearly, I have issues with this and I will be taking them up with the minister’s office and the appropriate authorities; however, we need to seriously look at this impending legislation because 50% of the Northern Territory’s land mass will not be monitored correctly. Also, there are obviously no resources being allocated to undertake the very important job of the pastoral land monitoring programs.
Related to this, and in the report tabled yesterday regarding the Animal Welfare Sub-committee - one of the recommendations was for government to look at how Mataranka Station could possibly come under the management or monitoring role of the Pastoral Land Board. That is a good recommendation and I hope the government seriously looks at that; however, it should be looking seriously at what it is trying to do and how it is trying to disembowel the Pastoral Land Board, because it is just not on.
Our pastoral industry needs help and support. It does not need things being taken away from it at this point in time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fantastic to have an opportunity to speak tonight. It is very difficult talking in adjournments because I am heavily involved in so many different activities in Alice Springs, but I will reflect on one activity I was involved in last Saturday, before moving on to other issues.
I am the patron of the Alice Springs Karting Club, and it is a great honour to be part of one of the motor sports in Alice Springs. On Saturday night, I attended the annual awards night, a great function held at the go-kart club in the open air in the car park under some shade; a fantastic setting and great food. I congratulate Craig Sheer who ran the night, organised all the trophies and pulled everything together.
I recognise the hard work of the committee, and in particular, Vice President, Jamie de Brenni; and President, Gary Burns; along with Peter Oakey, the Treasurer; Natalie Mohamed, the Secretary; and other committee members: Mike Thompson, Paul Gower, Nicky Betteridge, Daniel Ling and Paul Little. Congratulations to Paul’s son, Jordi, for the success he experienced this year.
I congratulate James Ling for becoming the Junior Club Champion, and Craig Shear for the Club Man of the Year.
There has been a reinvigorated approach to the go-kart club over the last couple of years; there is a high number of carts now running around the circuit and a higher level of participation by local community members who are now actively racing or have their kids or friends and family racing - that is fantastic.
It is a great sport for middle-aged or older men to get themselves involved in. Too often in society we do not see enough people of my age and older actively participating in sport. It is a great event and I would encourage anyone who reads this Hansard, or who is eagerly listening on the radio; when they find themselves in Alice Springs, come down to the go-kart club. I am sure we could arrange a trip round the track on Daisy’s No 47. Congratulations to those guys, and I look forward to a fantastic year.
I can say, with my seven minutes remaining at 7.16 pm, I am heavily disappointed we are already in adjournment. There are a number of important things we need to be talking about on a more regular basis. The government likes to complain that it brings statements into this House and the opposition does not speak enough. Well, an issue that is important to all of us is Indigenous affairs. There was an Indigenous statement introduced into this parliament yesterday that only had a couple of speakers, and today only one person was able to speak before the government adjourned it. That is a sign of a lazy government.
I was sitting here with a speech prepared, the way I normally prepare my speeches with a few dot points, but I was sitting here with a speech prepared ready to talk about issues that need to be debated in this Chamber, whether it is outstations and talking about the rumours that are floating around at the moment about Malinja, just north of Elliott, that has had no water. Everyone has been moved out of their outstation into Elliott for overcrowding. We were talking about the rumours about Minyerri community who are apparently getting their SIHIP works done at the moment, and the allegations people have to sleep in the creek while their houses are being refurbished. Those rumours are rife at the moment.
These are the things we should be debating in this Chamber; not going home early because we have a tired and lazy government. We should be debating why, under SIHIP, the Northern Territory Labor government are putting power poles in the middle of the road.
There was a fantastic story written by Alyssa Betts in today’s Northern Territory News highlighting ‘only in the Territory’, the complete incompetence and non-commonsense of why someone would put a power pole in the middle of the road; and not just once, they did it seven times. Because: ‘That’s all right, because it is just those Aboriginal people in that town camp; that is just the way it’s done. We will put the power pole there, and we might fix the road later’. So, everyone has to drive around and they damage their cars, and then they get in trouble for driving damaged and derelict cars on the road, because we do not want damaged and derelict cars on the road. This nonsensical approach to administration in the Northern Territory, particularly on this important issue of SIHIP, under the umbrella of Aboriginal affairs, should have been debated today rather than the government going home early. It is a very important point.
We should have been standing here debating the shires and how the minister, the member for Arnhem, the Minister for Local Government, now known as the one who speaks with the forked tongue, says on the one hand that she fully supports the shires, but she is out in the Daly having meetings at Peppimenarti, and tomorrow at Daly River, talking about how she is going to break up the Victoria Daly Shire, with the member for Daly. He sees the political problem he has, because he has not listened to the people. Right across the Northern Territory there is only one word people are talking about and that is ‘shires’. The second word is ‘outstations’.
People have had enough of shires and we should be debating shires. Bring in a statement on local government next time you are in here, minister with the forked tongue. Come in here and tell us what you are going to do for every other shire. You have now put the offer out for a breakup of a council in Victoria Daly through the Daly Region, which is something I fully support. I support a regional council model and if the community says to me they want a regional council for Wadeye, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Daly River, Emu Point, the two Woodies, and Woolianna, they will get it under the Country Liberals because that is our role in consulting with people after the election about what type of regional council structure they want, as we get rid of these shires that everyone I talk to in the bush says are toxic. That is what we should be talking about.
I encourage every community that wants to get rid of these shires and have a regional council to approach Adam Giles, the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, about what type of model they can have, because under the Country Liberals we will listen. We will give you a regional council. We will rid you of these toxic shires.
We will bring reform of local government in the Northern Territory that the people need and the people want, and we will stop the shires and Labor having no outstation policy and driving everyone into Darwin, into Palmerston, to live on our streets; into Alice Springs, into Tennant Creek, into Katherine, living on the streets, living rough; children not getting a good education and we all see the social factors that come out of that.
I challenge the minister with the forked tongue to come here with a statement on local government. Tell us which other shires she is going to break up. Stop hiding behind that veil of secrecy, the veil of the forked tongue where she says one thing out bush to the people on the ground, plays trickery and treachery to the Aboriginal people, and says something else in the media up here. She is trying to placate the workers in the shires.
I said last week that we will improve the services in the regional councils. We will be delivering more jobs in the bush - not fewer, more jobs – more jobs, more services under the Country Liberals with the regional council model …
Ms Walker: Next you will be saying you will be fighting them on the beaches!
Mr GILES: … more and more …
Ms Walker: More and more hot air!
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy goes on and tries to interrupt proceedings in this debate because she knows she is at risk; because she knows, politically, she is in trouble because the shires are poison in her region. She knows.
Moving onto another matter, I am told the prison officer numbers at Alice Springs correctional centre are about 120 people looking after more than 600 inmates, and that includes having to look after and resource the Tennant Creek or Barkly work camp. If rumours are true that as few as five prison officers are looking after 600, and more, inmates at night and on the weekends, that is a disgrace. How do you expect five prison officers to be able to look after more than 600 prisoners at night; 120 prisoners an officer? It is no wonder there are problems going on with the negotiation of the EBA. I encourage all prison officers to speak up about the poor staffing levels at the Alice Springs prison because it is putting officers’ lives in jeopardy in terms of OH&S. That is not a good place to be working in.
Lastly, today I have written to the Construction minister, the Lands and Planning minister, and copied to the Chief Minister, calling on them to bring forward their Kilgariff subdivision plans.
Alice Springs’ economy is in a difficult position. Tourism is down, people are leaving, the property and business services are feeling the effects of a downturn in the housing industry, and it is having flow-on effects to retail and hospitality. If we are going to start driving forward with our economy, the key area to start rectification is the residential housing construction industry. I encourage the minister, I would implore him to talk to me about bringing forward the Kilgariff redevelopment so we can see an increase in residential housing; a stimulation of the construction sector, particularly on residential development, and that is something that can start to spur on our local community.
While we wait for industries such as tourism to regroup itself with the Australian dollar; while we wait for the tourist numbers to come back; while we wait for some of those tourism campaigns to get greater attraction to bring people back to Alice Springs. And, at the same time as we are stimulating our economy through the residential housing construction sector, we might get the government to listen on law and order; to get the criminals off the street; to make parents, and mums and dads, and kids feel safe to be able to walk around the streets; not just at night, but in the daytime, and we can start ridding ourselves of six-foot fences with razor wire where we all retreat to in the evening after work. We need to build that community back up again, and that starts with the government addressing law and order and, importantly, we have to stimulate the local economy; that is about private sector …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! It would appear that the clock has timed out. Therefore the member’s …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Did it start?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it did.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have an education theme to my adjournment tonight, and here are a few things I would like to talk about. The first one is the highly successful excursion to Canberra in September for Year 6 Nhulunbuy Primary School students, from 2 to 12 September. I have a child in Year 6 at Nhulunbuy Primary School, and I had accompanied my other child to Canberra on a school trip a few years ago so I was really pleased to be able to attend this year’s trip as well.
I should add that I went as a parent/helper, so I was not there for a holiday; it was actually hard work, but it was also really enjoyable. I will not go through the list of names of the children who attended, but seek leave to table that list of names to have it incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is that permissible? I attempted to do that recently and was told that you either have to put the whole speech in or only …
Ms WALKER: It is just the list of names, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a list of 50 names.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I remember that issue you raise. There is a difference between a list of names of people and the rest of the speech. I think it was a eulogy you wanted to incorporate. There are some differences, and it was ruled that you could not do it, but a list of names you can incorporate.
Ms WALKER: It is a list of 50 names of students; first names, surnames, not from a spreadsheet. So I will incorporate those names, thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker:
Mitchell Alexander, Emma Alexander, Georgette Birch, Mattias Cedervall Norton, Shyanne Dhurrkay, Marika Dobell, Ryleigh Dowd, Hayley Dunn, Braedon Dwyer, Kiara Foggin, Holly Goncalves, Jack Haddock, Will Heath, Shania Jongedyk, Tyler Lomarrd, Mali Martin, Joel McCarthy, Tom McGrath, Lachlan Millard, Jacinta Misob, Joel Morris, Braedon Moyle, Kaya Munungurr, Maggie Nash, Samuel Nyamazana, Mitchell Obrien, Ned Odell, Rhianna Parker, Lucille Patullo, Madison Pearce, Mathew Peart, Lara Phelps, Jack Pitkin, Dakota Priestley, Trent Richter, Bree Roath, Finn Russell, Winston Singh, Maddi Slatter, Koby Snowden, Cameron Stiff, Emily Tankard, Lincoln Teagle, Patrick Walker, Ruby Walker, Billy Wanambi, Callum Williamson, Charlie Willis, Emily Wrathall, and Maryann Yunupingu.
I also acknowledge the two Year 6 teachers who were on this trip, Ms Ahna Hawkett and Ms Kate Phillips. These two women are absolutely incredible, and I take my hat off to them, as did the other parents who were on this particular trip. They were on call 24/7; it was a 12-day trip, and that 12-day trip included two weekends. They gave up two weekends - I know the Principal, Matt Watson, organised those two teachers would have that time restored to them in lieu - but they were absolutely incredible. They were good in that they are always very firm, but very fair, and always very consistent in dealing with the children.
Everywhere we went, and we had a huge agenda in and around Canberra, to the War Memorial, the Australian Institute of Sport, fun things like ice skating, but it did not matter, wherever we went, people always commented on how well-behaved our students were, and how smart they looked.
We were all decked out in uniform tracksuits and, to be honest, I hate wearing a tracksuit, but I did not care, it was so cold down there, I just needed to be warm. But these tracksuits were really smart; they are the colours of the Territory and had the school name embroidered on the back, so everyone knew where we were from. Everywhere we went, people commented and complimented the kids on their behaviour and how everyone looked. That is a credit to the kids, it is a credit to their families, and a credit to their school as well.
I need to mention the parents who accompanied: Ali Snowden, Glenda Birch - who was my room-mate throughout the trip, and what a great room-mate she was - Melissa Phelps, Rowdy McGrath, and Mal Pitkin. I thank all those parents who took leave from their jobs and paid their own way to be there, and worked really hard. Each parent was allocated a group of children to look after. I was regarded as a floater, because I actually had to leave the school trip two days early, and I did not travel with them to Canberra but met them there that night following some business I was on in Melbourne.
I also want to acknowledge the hard-working parent committee, chaired by Anna Cedervall Norton, and acknowledge the huge amount of work that parent committee did in fundraising. These kids, with their families, raised thousands and thousands of dollars to help make the trip more affordable to everyone. They baked cakes, did a dog wash every Saturday morning, picked up rubbish and, basically, any job that was going around town. If people are looking for a fundraising opportunity and contact my office, we always say: ‘Oh, phone the primary school, see if the Year 6 Canberra trip students are interested in doing that’.
I also acknowledge Mr Mike Sandford, Assistant Principal, who certainly worked very hard in overseeing that everything was sorted and kosher for the trip, and also liaised with the tour company, Macquarie Tours in New South Wales, about the itinerary, the accommodation, and a million things that needed to be organised.
I know parents are organising and fundraising for next year’s trip. I wish them well and I hope this excursion continues to happen at Nhulunbuy Primary School for many years to come, because it is incredibly worthwhile to get kids to our national capital to learn more about our country, our history, and our involvement in wars. National Archives was another place we visited that was fascinating, and the National Sound and Film Archives as well. I will leave it there for that particular one.
I mentioned that I had to leave Canberra on Saturday, 10 September, two days before the kids were due back in Nhulunbuy, and the reason I had to leave was because I was attending the Northern Territory Training Awards that evening in Darwin at the Convention Centre. I want to say what an outstanding event it was to bring together, across a number of different categories celebrating excellence in training, from training providers to those receiving the training, to employers who support training, and businesses that support training. It was a fantastic night. This sounds a bit selfish, but I am going to highlight the six finalists from my electorate. For a bush electorate, I reckon we punch above our weight in the education and training sector.
For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Student of the Year Award, Ludwig Schebeck, from Nhulunbuy was a finalist. This young man is currently studying a Certificate II in Engineering at Rio Tinto Alcan. He is a graduate of the Rio Tinto Alcan Alert Program, and a very worthy finalist. Steven Dhurrkay, who is doing a Certificate II in Metaliforous Mining Operations, again with Rio Tinto, is also a finalist. I went to the Alert Program graduation when Steven and Ludwig graduated some months ago, and I cannot tell you how good that RTA Alert Program is. The sense of pride, not only amongst those graduates - not all young men, but mainly young men and their families - is incredible.
In the category VET in Schools Student of the Year sponsored by the East Arnhem Shire Council, congratulations to Keegan Kelly, who was runner-up. Keegan Kelly is doing Certificate I Engineering at Nhulunbuy High School through the Nhulunbuy High School RTO. Keegan is a fantastic young man, and he would be very busy right now because they are about to start their Year 12 exams next week. I wish Keegan every success.
Also in that category VET in Schools Student of the Year was Taylor Neimz, who has undertaken various certificates. She is also a Nhulunbuy High School student participating in VET through the RTO at Nhulunbuy High School.
School Based Apprentice or Trainee of the Year, sponsored by Group Training Northern Territory, one of the finalists was young Michael Mayer, from Nhulunbuy High School who has been studying with Certificate II in Business, again through the RTO at the high school, and through the host employer where he goes, I suspect for one day a week, with Rio Tinto Alcan. Michael Mayer is a fantastic young man; he is also an excellent tennis player and a great coach as well - he coaches my boys. I daresay this Saturday night he might be up for an award or two.
The VET Teacher/Trainer of the Year Award winner, sponsored by Mr Richard Ryan of AO and Territory Technology Solutions, was Marlene Organ from Nhulunbuy High School. She is the coordinator and trainer for the RTO at Nhulunbuy High School and also established the RTO - she is incredible. She went to the Australian finals in Sydney last year, which I attended representing the minister; Marlene did not win, but I have my fingers and toes crossed this year that Marlene will be the winner because she is such an outstanding individual, and incredibly committed to what she does.
The Employer of the Year Award, sponsored by Southern Cross Television, one of the finalists was the East Arnhem Shire Council. I have heard the member for Braitling bag the shires and call them toxic; I cannot tell him how offensive that is to shires, including the East Arnhem Shire Council, which is doing an amazing job. To see it nominated for this award - I am disappointed it did not win - however, the fact that it was a finalist is something to be very proud of. I want to congratulate Traditional Credit Union, who won that particular award.
It looks like I am running out of time. I was going to talk about the Smart Schools Award and winners because again my electorate was punching above its weight, and our remote Indigenous schools, but I will save that for another time.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Mount Liebig School on their sports weekend on 19 October. Congratulations to teachers, Carolyn Keegan and Larry Kenny, and to the Indigenous teachers because it was a cross-border sports weekend, and kids came over from Western Australia, from Kiwirrkurra. I thank Roderick Kantamara and Rita, his wife; Maureen Napangardi, Lorna Wheeler, Sarah Stockman, Patricia Phillipus, Violet Nelson, Josephine Minor, Alison Multa, and teachers who came from Kiwirrkurra.
The last time the sports weekend was held was in 1981 at Papunya. It is so fantastic to see the Pintupi/Luritja sports carnival back in that area and kids enjoying sports activities along with their teachers. Sonja Bamford from Softball NT gave them a hand, and also Mark Wakeling from Soccer Northern Territory, and Reggie Smith from Football Northern Territory so it was a real collaboration between the schools and the government departments giving support to these kids coming together to celebrate sports. They have changed the name from tug-of-war to tug-a-rope; better name to use when we are dealing with children.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will read out the statement they sent to me:
On 19 October, Mount Liebig School held the second inter-school Pintubi/Luritja sports carnival, the first being held in Papunya in 1981. The schools attending included Haasts Bluff, Kintore, Papunya, and students travelled from Kiwirrkurra in Western Australia, and the host school, Mount Liebig. Seventy-five primary school children from Transition to Year 7 participated in the carnival and 24 teaching staff supported it. Also supporting the carnival were Sonja Bamford from Softball NT, Mark Wakeling from Soccer Northern Territory, and Reggie Smith from Football NT. I also thank Glenys and Faye for preparing the food for the children while they were there.
The children participated in softball, football, soccer, sprints, and tug-of-rope. Unfortunately, due to bad weather on Thursday evening, the athletic events: shot put, javelin, and discus were cancelled.
The finals for the sporting events were held on Thursday afternoon commencing with soccer. The finalists were Kiwirrkurra and Haasts Bluff. It was a very close game with scores levelled at one-all at final time. At the end of the time, the scores were locked leading to a penalty shoot-out to decide the overall winner. The final result was Haasts Bluff, 2 and Kiwirrkurra 3. A special mention of the goalie, Ronica, from Kiwirrkurra; a very brave little girl.
The softball finals were contested by Kiwirrkurra and Mount Liebig schools. It was a very well-played final from all competitors. The final score was Mount Liebig, 12 and Kiwirrkurra, 5. A special mention to Watiyawanu School, Mount Liebig’s captain, Megan, for great pitching.
The last final on agenda for the day was football. In the final were Kintore and Mount Liebig. Kintore got off to a flying start with great skills shown by Patrick and Moses. Mount Liebig regrouped and managed an exciting comeback with great contributions by Jacob, Davin, Harold and Megan, Sacquel, and Selina. The final score was Kintore 5 goals and 4 behinds, and Mount Liebig with 7 goals and 5 behinds. Go the Saints!
Age sprints were held on the Friday morning with children sprinting 50 metres. The final results were Transition and Year 1, Tanisha from Kintore School; Year 2, Sheraldine from Haasts Bluff School; Year 3, Billy from Haasts Bluff School; Year 4, Patrick from Kintore School; Year 5, Harold from Mount Liebig School; Year 6, Davin from Mount Liebig School; and Middle years, Presley and Isaiah from Papunya School.
There was a very exciting round robin competition of tug-of-rope which saw Haasts Bluff School and Mount Liebig make it to the final. Despite having only a 15-minute rest, Haasts Bluff was able to regroup and win the competition 2 to 1. The overall runner-up of the carnival was Kiwirrkurra, and the overall winner was Mount Liebig School. Trophies were presented to all the children by the community people. Once again, I say thank you to Glenys, Faye, and Neil and, of course, his late father. His father passed away only a couple of days ago.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, my motivation to move to the Territory was to experience frontier country in Australia and, to a large degree, the last frontier. I certainly found that country just over 30 years ago and now, having spent more than half of my life in the Territory, can reflect on the incredible learning that goes with it.
The natural environment is one aspect of the frontier, and the Territory is certainly world-class in that respect; however, the people who occupy the land are the dynamic elements on country with their culture, language, law, and sense of community.
When I landed in Tennant Creek, I arrived at a busy regional airport serviced by two major Australian airlines that supported the thriving mining and pastoral economy, boasting a population of over 5000. One aspect of this frontier town I remember was it seemed to have every nationality on Earth, and the delicatessen at the famous Peter’s Place Supermarket had more continental smallgoods than the metropolitan market places of western Sydney I had left behind.
I distinctly remember the Aboriginal people moving amongst the exciting multicultural melting pot, particularly those older people whose presence expressed the stories of a timeless land and a component of our Australian community with which I was not fully cognisant. One early image that sticks in my mind is of an old, red Dodge truck full of Aboriginal people from a nearby outstation on a Saturday morning parked up the road from Peter’s Place as the people did their shopping and moved about the bustling main street businesses. As I came to learn more about the community, I discovered Nelson Jappangkka and the other Nouradidgee law men who travelled in the old truck bringing their outstation community to town each week to access services and shopping.
On reflection, I had the privilege of living among, working with, and learning from some of the most honoured frontiersmen like Walter Nelson, Peter Dixon, Mr D D Frank, Peter Weston, Archie Allan, Hector Anderson, Jack Cotton, Old Tommy Beasley, King Billy, Stepper Epenarra, Big Nelson, Gerry Ladd, Old Davy, Dingo Tommy, Don Rory, Don Dixon, Johnson Timothy, Musso Harvey, Barney Pluto, Dinny McDinney, Eric King, Tommy George, Julloo and the incredible women who stood beside them looking after their families and communities.
I was privileged to learn my lessons from celebrated ceremonial leaders, and I reflect on the old people as my mentors who not only taught me about physical survival on new lands, but about the important spiritual connectivity to country, about true identity, and about family.
It is with great sadness I witnessed the passing of these Elders and leaders in our community over many years and, most recently, of Mr Nugget Smith, aged 81 years, of Alpurrurulam, who also played an important part in my cross-cultural education, now as a member of parliament. Mr Smith was truly the old school gentleman who walked in two worlds and welcomed me to a community he had pioneered in a highly-politicised move off Lake Nash Station to establish Alpurrurulam in the early 1980s.
Most recently, as the Minister for Lands and Planning, I worked with this Elder as he represented his community through the NT Place Names Committee to provide the Alpurrurulam street names in first language that will add to the list of powerful legacies he has left behind representing a wonderful lifetime of struggle and achievement. For the ancestors, the Elders, our community leaders, and those recently deceased, may they rest in peace as we who are left behind go on to honour their lives and their valuable contributions to the society we all share and celebrate.
It is with great sadness that I acknowledge the passing of one of the true McCarthy family matriarchs, Aileen Carey, date of birth, 9 April 1930.
Aunt Aileen passed away in Brisbane on 25 October 2011 in the company of her family after a brief illness, leaving behind her daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughters, as well as the many family members and friends who loved this great lady.
Aileen was a beautiful child with an older brother, Bob, and a younger brother, John, and grew into an attractive woman who commanded the attention of those in whichever room she entered. My mother’s mother, Cecilia Geelan was protective of young Aileen, often providing strict counsel in relation to the many suitors that would call, and was very clear to Aileen’s parents on the character assessment of such gentleman, judging very few as being worthy. Aileen eventually married and had two children, Jeffrey and Robyn, and as life’s circumstances would dictate chose to raise her family as a single mother in tough times in western Sydney. The absolute bonus for my family was that my brothers and sisters stayed close to our cousins and aunt, growing up together in a close extended family network. It is ironic that out of the siblings two wild colonial boys emerged; that being Wongali cousin, Jeff Carey, Aileen’s son, and me.
Our relationship challenged the rest of the family, but grew into a close bond sharing some wild times on the east coast, and concluding in just over 20 years spent together in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Aunt Aileen was the coolest aunt you could get; she was truly hip and, on reflection, she achieved this celebrated status by staying close to the young people in her family.
Aileen nurtured her own children, as well as our family and the friends we brought into her family home, which kept her in touch with what was happening in the teenage culture and on the street. We were not always considerate to Aunt Aileen and, in our own ways, threw up many challenges along the way. However, Aunt Aileen never once gave up and supported all the kids who entered her life, often with that realistic tough love.
One of the highlights along the way was Aunt Aileen packing up her family home and moving to Tennant Creek with her daughter, Robyn, and granddaughter, Kristie. There were already two McCarthys in the region and when both Aileen and Robyn gained employment, add Wongali to the mix; they all worked for the Department of Education and we were looking at a very real opportunity of taking over.
Aunt Aileen chose to leave the Territory after Robyn and Kristie were settled. Cousin Jeffrey was well and truly galvanised to Tennant Creek, and two other McCarthys had joined the family in the Territory. Aunt Aileen returned to Sydney and eventually moved to Brisbane to be with Robyn and Val, their children, and Kristie and Cameron, and their young children, and celebrated with her fantastic family legacy; however, at 81 years, was called to be with her God.
Aileen Carey was a great Australian, a true woman of faith, a battler, a character, and much loved by all her friends and family.
Goodbye Aunt Aileen and rest in peace.
I look forward to the gathering of the McCarthy clan next week where we will celebrate your life and farewell you in the solemn traditions of the Catholic Church and, as you would expect, Aileen, share the family history with the young ones that will, of course, involve both tears and laughter.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, this will be short because due to a computer glitch, I have not been able to print all the information I wanted, unfortunately. I want to raise the concerns I have in regard to the Palmerston Animal Welfare Shelter.
Lisa and her team of employees, around nine, plus a band of very dedicated volunteers have, unfortunately, had to vacate their premises in the Palmerston City Council compound and, essentially, nearly shut up shop. Nearly probably does not explain how intense a process this has been, something we have been working with and something I know the member for Daly is fully aware of as well. I know he knows quite a bit and was able to do a small, if not much, bit. Unfortunately, the member for Stuart is fully aware of it as well or, if he is not, his departmental staff has failed to properly inform the minister of potential failings within his department.
Without doubt, PAWS, a very much-loved animal welfare organisation based on volunteers, predominantly, is a not-for-profit charitable organisation and has its challenges, without a doubt. Management has not always come easy and these people are predominantly volunteers; however, they have been doing a massive range of services to the public.
One issue in particular I raise concern about is, in 2008 when they won a tender, subsequently becoming a contract for NRETAS for snake catching in the Darwin region. There were also contracts awarded for the Katherine region, and then for the Alice Springs region. They are separate contracts; however, they all, I believe, fall under the same contract number, which is D07-0596. The documents I have on my computer - the trusty little thing that will not let me print – has a contract acceptance which is signed by a Mr Mike Butler, Acting Director, Contracts and Procurement Services, on 14 April 2008. The contract rate listed in that same contract is for a service fee of $122 per active capturing or attempting to catch a snake or reptile.
My concern is that three months after this contract was entered into with the Northern Territory government, and after, whether there be an abundant season for snakes or not, the estimated 400-odd snakes that were put down in the tender guidelines, which was listed as a guide only, was reached within three months, and the Northern Territory government stopped paying; they refused to pay on invoice. The Northern Territory stopped paying and refused to pay the invoices issued.
For the month of April, it was $10 200; for the month of May, it was $16 300. They refused to pay these bills. This small organisation had wages. This small organisation was put into a position of great weakness.
What then happened is staff from within the department dragged them into the office and said: ‘Oh, no, it is all wrong. You need to sign this amendment to contract and only put in an invoice for $4333.33 per month. You must sign this’. Being in a position of weakness, being perhaps business nave, being a very small charitable organisation, they were left in a position with debts and having no option but to sign a small contract. That changed the dynamics. This original contract was a 60-month contract. Rough figures on the base of only 10 000 a month, so 92 callouts for capturing reptiles would have meant by the end of 2013 - the end of this intended contract - this small organisation would have made $600 000.
Subsequently, because of the blueing which occurred within the departments, this company had to succumb to its financial burden because of the sheer volume of snakes they were capturing, the service they were doing for the public, and the bullying that was forced upon them to change their contract - they were going bankrupt at the hands of the Northern Territory government. Along with other issues, these have predominantly led to this business, this little organisation, being in great jeopardy and having to retract from Palmerston, retract from many of the services they have been providing, which will probably affect whether or not a dog seized off the road becomes euthanised or re-homed. PAWS do the re-homing and, if they cannot operate, that dog will be euthanised.
I do not have all the details here because, again, this computer has stopped me from printing it. However, the minister is fully aware, and if he is not, he should grab his advisors and ask what happened. Because if this government had been dealing with one of the big corporations - Halkitis, Thiess, Macmahon - they would not have dragged them into a little room and said: ‘You guys have to sign this new contract and put yourself in financial jeopardy’. You would not have taken them into a room and bullied them over a barrel, and cost them. That would not have happened. In fact, it is obvious when we see prison blowouts of $200m, this government does not care about spending the money, but when it comes to dealing with someone who is weak and vulnerable, a small community group, you do not mind grabbing them and proverbially shafting them because you can. Grab a lady who is vulnerable, drag her into a room, she is financially strained at the time of seeking the amendment to a contract, and do her over.
This is a great government - a disgusting, disgraceful, trashcan that should be ousted at the first opportunity. This lady deserves due compensation and, as I said, if it was any other company, if it was Telstra or Optus, you would be pinned against the wall as a government for your behaviour.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make this adjournment speech my reply to the motion we put forward yesterday because, after speaking with the Table Office and the Deputy Clerks, this has now gone down to the Orders of the Day and it is now No 6. It will probably never come up and, if this government is re-elected in 2012, we will be talking of the motion as it says: ‘Treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known emerging crime hot spot.’ But if this government is re-elected, by the time it gets debated again it will probably be the 2013-14 summer of crime.
I want to respond, while I could and while it is fresh in my mind, to some of the minister’s comments from yesterday. He said the government does not have all the solutions; there is no magic wand; these issues have been around for a long time; the issues I raised with regard to this motion. I will, just quickly read that again:
- … to treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spot and put into place comprehensive law and order strategies to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots.
It is not good enough to say, just because it has been around for a long time, we can wash our hands of it; they have been, but you guys have not done enough. It is not good enough to say, just because these issues have been around for a long time, that is some sort of excuse. The minister mentioned that Alice Springs is a conservative stronghold; strong conservative seats in Central Australia, and the minister even admitted that he does not think that Labor will ever win a seat in Alice Springs.
Well, that is ridiculous. You have had 10 years to win the confidence, hearts, and minds of the people of Central Australia. All you had to do was front up and show some respect to the place. You came very close in 2005 to actually winning a seat in Alice Springs. You had a big name in the former mayor, Fran Kilgariff, up against the long time incumbent, Richard Lim. There was the Denis Burke factor, which was facing the CLP at the time. The tide was going out for the Country Liberals, and it was flowing in for the Australian Labor Party. In fact, you annihilated the CLP, picked up 19 seats, and left us with just four. So, if ever there was an opportunity to marshal the confidence and win the hearts and minds of the people of Central Australia, it was then and you missed that opportunity.
You may not get an opportunity like that again for a long time, but it is not our fault and you cannot blame the people of Central Australia and say: ‘They are all conservatives. They will never vote for us’. Rubbish! There are people down there that vote Labor, and there are people down there that are long-term, hard, rusted-on Labor supporters; they have been for their whole lives and they want to vote for you. The problem is they just cannot bring themselves to vote for you at the moment, the large majority of them, if the poll of 2008 is any indication with two party preferred vote in Central Australia of 75% to 25%.
That is not our fault and that is not the people of Central Australia’s fault. They are not just a bunch of old Liberal conservatives who could not care less about Labor. It is your fault. You have missed the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those people in Alice Springs and Central Australia. It is your fault, and this whole situation is your fault.
The minister said there is a 60-day operation about to commence. That is very interesting. I have not heard much about this 60-day operation. I would like to hear more about what it is. He did not embellish or expand on this last night in his comments, but I am guessing it is a 60-day blitz. A blitz might be a strong word - whatever you want to call it - to tackle and focus on law and order is good, and we say hallelujah, thank goodness, and well done.
Sixty days though, what happens after 60 days? Do things just slip back to the way they were? And when does that begin? Has that begun already? If so, that takes us up to December, maybe the end of December. There is still a lot of summer left in Alice Springs; there is still a lot of summer left through the official summer months of January and February and then there are still the warmer months of March leading well into April. That is a great deal of time for a great deal of damage to be done. I expect and hope that when that 60-day operation expires, there will be another operation of sorts and the government will not just say, okay, we have done that, and they will still treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spot, and they will continue to put in comprehensive law and order strategies to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots in Central Australia.
He says there are no immediate results, we have to put these plans in, and we have to get these things done, and we have to sit back and wait for the results; in many cases, you do. Things do not happen overnight and maybe eventually they will happen, but you have had 10 years - you have had 10 years to address this situation.
If, as the minister said, things were really bad in 1991 - and I believe him - if things were so bad, you were obviously aware, minister, of the situation and the potential for such lawlessness on the streets in Central Australia. If we had a massive peak in 1991, why did you not put in place comprehensive law and order strategies when you first came to power in 2001 to ensure that 10 years later we were not going to see a repeat of it? If you had done that, you could say we had a massive peak, this huge spike in lawlessness in 1991, but when we came to power - we had 10 years of trouble and unrest on the streets in Alice Springs - in 2001, we put in our comprehensive law and order strategies, and 10 years later, the place is wonderful; confidence is booming on the streets, people feel safe to walk from restaurants to bars at night, they feel safe to take their kids to parks, kids riding their bikes down the streets after dark, and the like. But, no, we have quite the opposite. To suggest there are no immediate results when you have had 10 years to get these things right - another missed opportunity.
The Youth Action Plan – he talks about Anzac Hill High School – as the member for Araluen said: ‘We shut down a high school, now we have to figure out what to do with it’. I have said before, it is just like that classic Yes Minister episode of the most efficient hospital in Great Britain; it is most efficient because it has no patients. This one is a bit like that; it is a youth hub with no kids in it. I have been there before and not a child in sight, but plenty of people in offices typing away and writing reports and doing something.
On and on he went with his excuses as to why things are the way they are in Alice Springs. He did pretty well not to mention the CLP; we put that challenge out to him. He mentioned the member for Braitling three times, the member for Greatorex three times, the opposition four times, the member for Araluen twice, and the Country Liberal brand once. He mentioned the opposition, all in all, about 13 times. If he was playing footy, that would be clangers or turnovers and he would be sent off, he would be benched; 13 turnovers in 30 minutes is pretty ordinary and he would be on the bench. I believe it is pretty ordinary, although he did do much better than his own Chief Minister today in one three-minute response to a question; he mentioned the CLP eight times, overall 17 times in Question Time. Everyone else mentioned us 44 times - a total of 61 times – so, again, we are front and centre in the hearts and minds of the Territory government.
The Chief Minister still has not got it. He does not quite get it yet that he cannot construct an argument without mentioning the Country Liberals, the Leader of the Opposition, or what have you. It is our job to focus on you, to keep you and hold you to account; it is your job to concentrate and focus on the people of the Northern Territory, and you are unable to do it as we have demonstrated today by the amount of focus, obsession, and unhealthy appetite you have for us. Maybe that is a lesson for the Northern Territory government
All in all, that is my response to the Alice Springs law and order motion brought to the House yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in spite of the Treasurer’s reassurances that all is sweetness and light in the world of Treasury, when the hard facts and the hard light of day strikes the budget papers coming out of government, we see that things are not well.
As the Treasurer reported to this House earlier today, the budget deficit has come in for the last financial year at $387m. The Treasurer said we would have a budget deficit, but a little more than 12 months ago when that budget was handed down, if memory serves me, it was about $309m. By the time the last budget came down for the current financial year, that number had expanded to $374m, and now the final figure for the year is $387m. To put that into context: in the six weeks between the current financial year budget coming down, the 2011-12 Budget, and the end of the 2010-11 financial year, the government was able to spend $2m or so a week more than they predicted six weeks out.
I note, with some amusement, for lack of better words, an expression in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which helps to explain this extra $2m a week they did not mean to accidentally spend in the last six weeks of the year. The expression, and I love these Treasury euphemisms, they were suffering from ‘an accelerated expenditure’. That means they spent money faster than they expected to - they spent money faster. They have this enormous capacity to spend money, and it is coming home to them.
I am dismayed that this Treasurer continues to say how everything is sweetness and light in budget land and that everything will be wonderful in the future, and all we have to do is wait for the surpluses to come out. But, those surpluses do not exist within the Treasury’s predictions into the future.
They cannot predict when that surplus will come back; they can tell us how much deficit there will be in the future. They predict deficit after deficit into the future, and then we have a guarantee of a surplus. Where? By what date? Certainly not by any projections of this government. Moreover, they have spent money on items off-budget which are quite surprising. I will give you an example. There was an off-budget spend of $18m for the Wirrina redevelopment. Okay, that is fine; I understand you want to redevelop the Wirrina area, that is good. But surely the purposes of Budget Cabinet is to plan bulk expenditure like $18m; so you go into Cabinet and make that part of your budget cycle. How can you, off the budget cycle, spend $18m? What, we forgot about it and we thought we would just add it on later? Or is it a case that this is government that makes policy on the run?
Another example is $17.8m for the construction of the gas-fired power station at Wadeye. Really, that was off-budget expenditure? You did not know you had to spend $17.8m on a new power station at Wadeye? You just sort of stumbled upon it, you went down there one day and said: ‘Oh, my goodness, there is a power station needed here’?
Surely we need integrity in our budget process so we can project and predict that sort of expenditure. A $4m grant for the construction of a new squash facility at the Marrara sports complex. Again, fine, if you want to do it, build the Marrara squash complex, but there is a budget cycle for it. This is about budgetary management, and the management is not there. It is just: ‘Oh, we have to go into Cabinet, we have to go reach into the public purse, and we have to spend money on this and that and this’, off the budget cycle.
The $7m for the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms; this was also off the budget cycle. Surely government knew at the last Budget Cabinet that they were going down this path of the Enough is Enough alcohol plan. Or did they? Because it does not appear that they did. They have just simply said: ‘Oh, sugar, we need $6m or $7m extra for the Enough is Enough campaign’. Surely that was part of the budget considerations at the last Budget Cabinet. I mean, what were you guys doing in there, because the total off-budget expenditure reaches $79.7m? That is $79.7m that you did not know you were going to spend on surprise expenditure like power stations, Wirrina redevelopments, and centrepiece policies. It shows and betrays a government that makes policy on the run, which is why they cannot stick to their budgets.
If you start tracking through other parts of the document you see how the government’s planning processes, and make-it-up-as-you-go-along processes, resonate through the document. I quote from page 15 of the document:
- This combined with increased infrastructure spending to support Territory jobs means the 2010-11 outcome of a cash deficit is expected to continue, albeit at a lower level, over the forward estimates period. Over the medium-term, when revenue and expenditure are expected to return to more usual levels, the objective of returning the budget to an operating cash surplus will provide the capacity to reduce Territory debt.
Okay, we are going to earn more than we spend. The fact is, there is no projected date attached to that. Moreover, the truth is perhaps that the new world we occupy, where Australians are saving more and spending less and being more cautious, hence GST revenues are falling, perhaps that is the new norm. This is a nervous environment we occupy, and I am not going to go into an economic dissertation on what is happening in Europe and all those things at the moment, but this is probably going to be the new reality for the next five or six years. Contain your decision-making process, get your budget systems right, and then prepare for the expenditure for major budget items in the budget process. You do not accidentally decide one day you need to buy a new power station. You do not accidentally decide you need a new set of squash courts. You can apply that to the budget process; that is why we have a budget process. Other than that, why bother?
It is with interest I note some of their revenue exercises are so embarrassing they have been removed, it would appear, from the budget paper. I draw the honourable Treasurer to page 13 where it says:
- In addition to these expense/payment variations there have been some minor …
Blank. It just hangs there in space. Then, suddenly, you find:
- … public housing stock and the net timing of expenditure across years.
That sentence does not make sense until you hold the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report up to the light and look very closely, and disappeared out of the annual report are the words:
- … variations to net capital spending, largely related to lower than anticipated sales of public housing stock …
Some of the more cynical amongst us would perhaps suggest the disappearance of the line that they are not making enough cash out of their real estate arm - namely, the public housing stock - is so embarrassing that someone wanted to delete it almost completely from the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. However, I am not such a cynical person. No, clearly that is a printing error but a very unfortunate place to put one, because it means all of a sudden discussion of the sales of public housing stock have been expunged from the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report; however, enough of that.
I also note there are some serious or substantial variations in some of the departments, and I am curious about why the police did not know they had to buy a new aeroplane at the beginning of the year. Once again, I expect it would have been a normal part of the budget cycle that you would have put a capital item like that before the Cabinet; but there it is:
- Funding for replacement aircraft to support operations - $4m’
Wow, I am surprised at that.
If there was ever a testimony to the higher crime rates in the Northern Territory, part of the extra $10m spent on employee expenses includes overtime. That means our police are busier than ever and have not been able to successfully budget for the poor outcomes on police overtime expenses.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to speak about an issue that has been raised by a number of my constituents, and many of their friends, who are currently enrolled with a registered training organisation to complete a Diploma of Enrolled Nursing.
We have a major shortage of nursing staff in this country, and later I would like to quote a number of those statistics. However, it is great to see there are Territorians studying this important and worthwhile vocation. The shortage is the reason why our Health minister has spent time overseas trying to attract and recruit staff for our hospitals: enrolled and registered nurses, doctors, surgeons, and a range of other people required to run a successful system. We now have the Flinders School of Medicine where we can have homegrown doctors and homegrown nurses. We also need homegrown enrolled nurses.
There are a group of people enrolled in a diploma course with an RTO called the Carer Training Centre but, unfortunately, there are some issues in relation to placements. These placements are for acute clinical placements; it is part of their training and they are required to do a six-week stint. I might add these stints are not paid; they do it with no salary and they run for six weeks. The people are required to take six weeks off work to do these placements and, I say again, they are not paid for them, and my information is they have all made arrangements to take this leave.
They now found there are some issues with the memorandum of understanding between the RTO - in fact, supposedly, all the RTOs - and the Health department, and their placements are in jeopardy. Given they have already been allocated the time off; if they are not able to complete these placements as part of their diploma, then these people are going to suffer financially.
Anxiety levels are running quite high in these groups, which is why they came to see me. As a result, I phoned the Chief Executive Officer of the RTO, the Carer Training Centre, and spoke to him in relation to a number of issues and asked many questions put to me by my constituents and their friends. He informed me there was an issue with the memorandum of understanding in relation to acute clinical placements at Royal Darwin Hospital and Katherine Hospital.
He also informed me, as a result of the number of questions I put to him, he only became aware of this issue when his organisation applied for placements. That was approximately five months ago, and the CEO has been trying to find a resolution to this issue for five months. He gave me some information in relation to contact he has had on a regular basis with people at Royal Darwin Hospital who are responsible for this and it seems they have delayed and delayed, with no good reason why it should take five months.
The CEO of CTC informed me all MOUs are being rewritten, when I put to him that my constituents had told me other students enrolled with other RTOs had received placements. Yet, the CEO of CTC was informed he had to wait until all the MOUs were written. There seems to be an inequity here that some RTOs are getting their placements approved and their students placed, yet this organisation is not. The reason given is that the MOU is with the legal people and it is going to take some more time.
We are now facing placements in less than three weeks and you can understand these people who have families - it is approaching Christmas - and they do not want to be unemployed or, should I say, not in receipt of an income for six weeks prior to Christmas.
These people are trying to improve themselves, they are doing what the community and we, as governments, ask people to do; that is, educate themselves, get out there, get a job, and enjoy the Territory lifestyle. However, these people are going to be seriously disadvantaged if the Health department, or whoever is responsible, continues to drag their feet.
There are a number of questions that need to be asked, and I hope those listening will take these into consideration and get a move on so there are not a lot of people out there, Territorians, who are going to be suffering from extremely high anxiety levels.
The first question that probably needs to be asked is: what is the current status of the rewrite of these memoranda of understanding for training organisations to access acute care clinical placements in the Northern Territory? Another question that needs to be asked is: when will they be available? We have only just over two-and-a-half weeks before these placements are due to commence. What memoranda of understanding are organisations currently using while a new MOU is being rewritten?
I am aware that there is a training organisation that does have a MOU dated 2009, but was advised in May/June 2011 that they cannot have acute care placements until the new MOU is available, but there are other training organisations currently accessing acute clinical placements at RDH without the new memorandum of understanding. What is preventing this organisation - the CTC, which my constituents are enrolled with - from having equal access?
Another question that needs to be asked is: why has the rewrite taken so long? Could it suggest there are significant amendments required and, if that is the case, perhaps the existing MOU from 2009 which is currently allowing other training organisations to access acute clinical placements is placing NT Health at risk, maybe? Not to mention the patients and staff who come into contact with these students.
I would again point out that we have a nursing shortage in this country, yet NT Health appear to be dragging their feet with these people and, perhaps, delaying their graduation which would then allow these people to go into the workforce as fully-qualified enrolled nurses.
I further questioned the CEO and he informs me that at no stage was he, or has he, been advised that the current MOU which was signed in 2009 was, or is, invalid. The only way he found out there was an issue was when his organisation applied for acute clinical placements.
The Carer Training Centre students are scheduled for placement in less than two-and-a-half weeks, and they have applied for and been granted leave without pay for six weeks from their current employers. If this MOU is not in place, these students will be significantly financially disadvantaged and this will create hardship for them.
Families, and especially my constituents and their friends, are already facing hardships with increased cost of living, high rents, and a raft of other things that are costing these families. They cannot afford to lose six weeks pay.
As a matter of urgency, I ask those opposite to take note of the comments I have made tonight; deal with this matter immediately, and give equity to all those dedicated students who are fulfilling such a needed role when we are so desperately short of these types of people, not only as numbers in the workforce, but the type of dedicated people who choose to do this as a vocation; not so much for the money, but because they are dedicated to helping others in their community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to deal with this matter immediately and lower these people's anxiety levels.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016