2010-02-24
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Neville Perkins and Mr Abdul Khan, very keen followers of the parliament. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Darwin High School students accompanied by Ms Jane Farr. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to implement transitional provisions and consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation which are needed to fully implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme in the Northern Territory, and to maintain legislative functions that will remain the responsibility of the Northern Territory.
Those functions are: the regulation of three health professions that will not immediately be covered by the national scheme; the regulation of pharmacy business and ownership which is outside the scope of the national scheme; and functions of the Health Professional Review Tribunal for health professions covered under the national scheme and the Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act.
This bill focuses on addressing a range of legislative matters which will ensure the national scheme operates effectively and achieves its principal objective of protecting the public within the Northern Territory. The bill to adopt the national law to implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory was introduced in November 2009, and we will be considering it for passage by the Assembly in these sittings.
The national scheme is set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) which became the national law when it was passed into an act by the Queensland parliament, and gained Royal assent on 3 November 2009. The national scheme is to be fully implemented by all jurisdictions by 1 July 2010 as set out in the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, signed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 26 March 2008.
Each jurisdiction is at various stages of introducing legislation to adopt the national law and to introduce the necessary transitional provisions and consequential amendments. The Australian government is also progressing amendments to its legislation in a Bill C to support implementation of the national scheme. However, the Australian government will not need to adopt or apply the national law.
The National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy also commits jurisdictions to achieve key milestones in relation to the COAG agreement for the national scheme. To be eligible to receive its share of reward payments under the national partnership agreement, the Northern Territory must enact legislation to effect implementation of the national scheme by 1 July 2010.
This bill is consistent with the national partnership agreement and the COAG agreement to enable the national scheme to be fully implemented on 1 July 2010. The proposals in this bill have been through a thorough public consultation process in the Northern Territory and are supported by local stakeholders.
A preliminary regulation impact assessment has been completed by the Northern Territory Regulation Impact Committee. Based on the details of that analysis, a certificate for exemption from the requirements for a full regulation impact statement has been issued.
The national scheme will initially apply to 10 health professions, which are: the nine health professions registered in every state and territory - medical, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dental (dentists, dental prosthetics, dental therapists, dental hygienists), psychology, optometry, osteopathy and chiropractic; and podiatry (registered in every jurisdiction except the Northern Territory, where there are currently insufficient numbers to make registration viable outside a national scheme).
This bill will implement significant amendments to the Health Practitioners Act to remove references to these health professions, as they will now be covered by the national law from 1 July 2010. A large number of the amendments to the Health Practitioners Act are to remove terms relating to enrolled nurse, for example, where a provision applies to registration or enrolment. Registration will remain for three Northern Territory professions under the Health Practitioners Act, while the term ‘enrolment’ will no longer be relevant as it refers only to the nursing profession, and nursing will come under the national law.
Provisions will be retained within the Health Practitioners Act for regulation of the remaining health professions which will continue to be the responsibility of the Northern Territory; namely, Aboriginal Health Workers, occupational therapists and radiographers.
This bill proposes to repeal the Radiographers Act and transfer the continued regulation of radiographers to the Health Practitioners Act. This step will promote consistency amongst the health professions registered in the Northern Territory. This would synchronise registration cycles, implement best practice registration and complaints provisions for radiographers, and align their regulation with Aboriginal Health Workers and occupational therapists. A small number of provisions specific to radiographers would be transferred to the Health Practitioners Act. Local stakeholders, including the Radiographers Board and the Chief Health Officer, whose delegate is currently the mandated Chair of the Board, support the transfer.
The national law provides for four more health professions to be included in the national scheme from 1 July 2012. They are: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice (known as Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory); Chinese medicine; medical radiation practice (including radiographers); and occupational therapy. When these professions join the national scheme on 1 July 2012, the Northern Territory will not be responsible for the regulation of any health professions. Any other professions seeking regulation in the future will be subject to the national scheme.
A large number of consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation are proposed under the bill that are necessary to update terminology and references to professions that will be covered under the national law. These amendments have been discussed with representatives of the relevant agencies and will be further refined, where necessary. Essentially, these amendments change any reference in current Northern Territory legislation from the terms or definitions used in the Health Practitioners Act to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NT). This includes acts such as Health Practitioners Act, Evidence Act, Firearms Act, Health and Community Services Complaints Act, Interpretation Act, Meat Industries Act, Mental Health and Related Services Act, Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, Police Administration Act, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act, Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Act, and Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
This bill gives the Northern Territory the opportunity to participate in a major health workforce reform that is focused on providing quality health services and protecting the safety of the Northern Territory community and the Australian population. The Northern Territory is committed to upholding standards for health professions and protecting the safety and wellbeing of the community in the delivery of health services. The national scheme is a major step towards improving Australia’s health system. This bill references the national law and implements the necessary transitional provisions and consequential amendments to support full implementation of the national scheme in the Northern Territory by 1 July 2010.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the government’s bill is simply legislation designed to enable the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act of Queensland to apply to the Northern Territory. I will use this opportunity to speak to the provisions contained within the act.
When this legislation was first brought to my attention, I was supportive of the nationalisation of registration for health professionals. It made a lot of sense to streamline this right across the country. The nationalisation of registration is very welcomed, and will provide greater career portability and flexibility for Australia’s health workforce, enabling them to register with their respective national board and practice in any Australian jurisdiction.
The process will be beneficial to our Territory hospitals and health centres, reducing the red tape associated with recruiting and importing health workers from down south. Territory practitioners working out of health centres in border regions, and those providing emergency medical retrieval across state and territory borders, will also stand to benefit from this legislation.
Under the current system, practitioners are required to register in each state and territory they practice in and, according to the Australian Psychological Society, there is at least one practicing psychologist registered in each Australian jurisdiction who pays an annual registration fee in excess of $1500 and is required to meet the accreditation standards of all eight states and territories. I am sure this example is replicated in medicine, nursing, dentistry and other health professionals across the country.
With regard to the National Trauma Centre based at Royal Darwin Hospital, in the event of a national disaster or other prolonged emergencies such as the Bali bombings, doctors and nurses can be more readily sourced from other jurisdictions to provide specialist treatment to victims and relief for our local teams.
The other major change brought about by the inter-governmental agreement and this bill is the nationalisation of accreditation standards within health professions. On the surface, this is an important step forward in ensuring particular core skills are met at a standard consistent across all states and territories. This can only be an improvement on the sometimes vast differences that can be experienced between these jurisdictions across our states and territories. One example that springs to mind is the number of clinical hours required for nursing accreditation throughout Australia, ranging somewhere between 400 to 1800 hours.
The main concern raised by stakeholders in relation to the original legislation - which was known as Bill A - was the bureaucratisation, if you like, of the accreditation process. The original intention of the IGA and the text of the bill firmly entrenched the setting of professional accreditations standards with the Australia Health Workers Ministerial Council and their advisors, potentially allowing accreditation and training standards to be influenced and amended by political motivations. This was of great concern. The other was, with the current differences between the jurisdictions, the new bar would be set for professions which had vastly different requirements throughout the country.
To use a description from earlier, would the bar be sent at, say, 400 clinical hours or 1800? Would the political desire to get more professionals out in the workforce in a short space of time overpower the practical concerns of ensuring standards remain sufficiently high? The Country Liberals, while agreeing in principle with the national accreditation, did not support the original manifestation of this bill.
It is a positive move by the ministerial council that they have listened to the critics of the original model and have introduced amendments in Bill B to create more distance and independence between the political and professional components of this scheme, and for the publication on the board’s website of any direction given by the ministerial council to the board. Also, the ability for the national boards to develop and monitor accreditation standards through an accreditation committee of the board, or through the services of an external provider. The much more detail provision in Part 6 of the national law for the monitoring and assessment of programs of study, both in Australia and overseas, is a much needed improvement from Bill A.
I also welcome the decision to expand the professional boards to include one practitioner member from each large jurisdiction, and at least one representative from the three smaller jurisdictions. There is also a requirement for two community members and one member from a rural or regional area.
I make note, according to the website of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, of the 10 boards established, there were no Northern Territory appointments to the Osteopathy, Chiropractic or Podiatry Boards. I believe there is no Podiatry Board operating in the Northern Territory and, on the other two boards, the NT is represented by community members. It is unfortunate the site does not indicate which jurisdiction the community members come from, or which member is from a rural or regional area. The inclusion, in this bill, of at least one board member based in a regional or a rural area, again, is a positive inclusion for the Northern Territory. However, there is no definition in the Queensland bill, or the explanatory notes, as to what would comprise a regional or remote area. Maybe the minister could clarify this point, as regional or rural from a Canberra perspective could be Darwin, Cairns of even Shepparton. However, from a Darwin perspective, it could be Alice Springs, Gove, Bamaga or Broome.
The IGA set out the nationalisation of registration and accreditation of health professionals will operate in a transparent, accountable, efficient, and fair manner. An initial estimate put the cost to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments at close to $19.8m, with Commonwealth subsidies to continue for the scheme’s first two years. With nationally consistent standards and national registration, it is the intention of the IGA to put in place an environment where disbarred health workers are not able to exploit the lack of communication between states and register in other jurisdictions. Foreign-trained health workers will, likewise, be required to conform to nationally consistent standards, making all jurisdictions equally attractive to these professions and harder for under-qualified persons looking into Australia in jurisdictions which have set less rigorous standards for accreditation.
The legislation is to be reviewed in three years, but there is no indication there will be a coordinated review after this date. This is an important omission, as there will be at least two new national boards which will only begin operating in 2012. Most of the boards are yet to finalise the standards for their relevant professionals. It is hoped the new national standards aim for the higher of the current standards. It would be a wasted opportunity to allow Australia’s reputation of producing some of the best health professionals in the world slip away by setting standards that only average what is available now.
Madam Speaker, apart from some of those concerns flagged in my speech, the Country Liberals welcome this bill, and we will be supporting it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Greatorex. It is very important to note this process commenced in 2005 under a Liberal government. It is a very good example of political parties finding good legislation and proceeding and building on the previous government’s experience to deliver legislation which will now cover the whole of Australia.
I recall, with horror, the situation with Dr Patel in Queensland. One thing this legislation will prevent is a situation the same as Dr Patel. People like Dr Patel, if they are arrested in Queensland because of a problem, will then move to New South Wales or the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, sometimes information will not pass to the relevant authorities. As a result, people like Dr Patel can continue in other places the terrible work done in their home state.
I note the comments by the member for Greatorex. I will elaborate on some of the issues raised. First, this national scheme will help health professionals move around the country more easily, and will avoid duplication of registration fees. People who are registered in, say, Western Australia will be registered nationally; they do not have to register in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and New South Wales. It will reduce red tape and provide greater safeguards to the public by providing information on a national level, rather than people avoiding scrutiny by jumping states, and promote a more flexible, responsible, and sustainable health workforce. A typical example is the Northern Territory, where people would think twice before they came here.
One of the things I fought very hard for was Northern Territory representation – we are a small state; the big states tend to block all the big boards and, as a result, there are no vacancies left. I have to say I am very pleased the Territory has significant representation on some of the big boards, and also representation, through community members, to some of the small boards. I also insisted regional or remote does not mean the capital cities, a city 100 km, 200 km from the capital city, but real rural or remote. A real rural or remote area for me would be Gove, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs.
Our dental representative is Dr Mark Leedham, who is a practitioner; medical, Dr Charles Kilburn; nursing and midwifery, Ms Angela Brannelly; nursing and midwifery, Ms Heather Sjoberg, who is a community member; in optometry, Ms Judith Dikstein, a community member; in osteopathy, Ms Helen Egan, a community member; in pharmacy, Ms Bhavini Patel, practitioner member; in physiotherapy, Ms Philippa Tessman, practitioner member; and in psychology, Dr Shirley Grace, a practitioner member.
I understand this is complex legislation. Actually, the legislation which was introduced in Queensland is a big volume. The work was done by my department, not only to improve the legislation, but consulting with stakeholders and adopting their recommendations, which is commendable.
I believe unless we talk to the people who are affected by this legislation we are not going to have good legislation. We have done it; we understood some of the complex information brought to us. Many changes have taken place on a ministerial council level and at state level, and I am pleased this legislation has now been amended sufficiently to satisfy the needs of the stakeholders.
COAG committed $19.8m towards the establishment of the national scheme and, under the IGA, other resources of the scheme will comprise fees received for registration and accreditation functions, appropriate resources of the registration board, current Commonwealth, state and territory contribution for registration, accreditation, and related workforce functions. The parties have committed to meeting the initial cost of establishing the national scheme, but it is intended, in the longer term, this scheme will be self-funded within three years of commencement. It is the user-pays principle, which is very good.
Health practitioners are currently required to register to practise in the Northern Territory under the Health Practitioners Act. The administration of this legislation is supported by the Health Professions Licensing Authority funded by the Department of Health and Families. The NT health practitioner registration fees form part of the consolidated revenue. There is expected to be a consolidated revenue loss of $750 000 for the Territory from registrations - their money, paid by the practitioners into consolidated revenue. Otherwise, the money will be a direct transfer into the national scheme.
I am very pleased to see bipartisan support for this bill. It is important Australia, as a nation, meets the challenges of a health workforce and the health system, and find a way to do better business.
Madam Speaker, I have some amendments, and I would like to go through to a committee stage. The three amendments are insignificant, but they have to be considered. I will read some notes I have about these proposed amendments.
A number of amendments have been identified from the bill which will ensure proper application of the provisions and remove redundant definitions. The Parliamentary Counsel and Department of Health and Families recommend the following amendments to the bill.
An amendment is proposed to remove two definitions from clause 5 which are not required. The definition of ‘clerk of the court’ is redundant as it is not used in the legislation, and the definition of ‘responsible tribunal’ is defined in clause 6 of the bill.
An amendment to clause 7 is proposed to exclude specific provisions under the Information Act rather than exclude the whole act; specifically in section 9, Parts 3 to 8 of the act. The amendment will ensure the provision within the Information Act covering record management and archives will apply to records held in the Northern Territory under the national law. Section 9 of the Information Act states that the act will prevail where there is consistency with another law of the Territory. To avoid any doubt, section 9 is excluded from the rest of the bill, so the exclusion of Parts 3 to 8 may apply.
The excluded provisions covering freedom of information and privacy functions will be provided under the national law to ensure consistent application across Australia. This exclusion is consistent with other jurisdictions. Unlike most jurisdictions which have separate legislation dealing with these issues, the Northern Territory provisions are contained in the same legislation. Regulations under the national law have to be made by the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council and will cover such matters as freedom of information, privacy, and Ombudsman functions.
A clause has been inserted so the Administrator can make regulations if required; for example, if further provisions are required to ensure proper application of the national law in the Northern Territory. An expiry clause is proposed for Part 3 of the bill which provides consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act in support of adoption of the national law.
The second stage of this bill will make further significant consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act to support implementation of the national law.
Motion agreed to; bill to read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2009 (Serial 76) together with schedule of amendments No 32 circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.1 relating to clause 5(1) omitting the definition of a ‘clerk of the court’ and ‘responsible tribunal’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.1, relating to clause 7(a) which specifies section 9 and Parts 3 to 8 of the Information Act do not apply to the national law in the Northern Territory.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.3. The amendment proposes a new Part 2A and a new clause 7A to provide that the Administrator may make regulations under this act.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clause 11:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.4 which proposes a new clause 11 so that Part 3, consequential amendments, expires on the day after it commences.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clause 11 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motional agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table, in accordance with standing orders, a Remuneration Tribunal Determination report from the member for Brennan for travel between 12 and 17 January to Perth.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I table the council’s first report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is the first report on the first two months progress of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
The council was established as a sessional committee on 14 October 2009 and commenced public hearings in Darwin on 9 November 2009. During its first two months, the council conducted five public hearings, in addition to Darwin, in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, a site visit of SIHIP construction in Tennant Creek, and spoke to more than 50 witnesses.
Earlier this year, the council conducted another hearing in Darwin and travelled to Nguiu and Wadeye. The council plans to conduct further hearings in the Territory’s regional and remote areas this year. The findings of this year’s hearings will be the subject of later reports.
It is anticipated the CTC will bring out further reports throughout the year because the issues it is dealing with are ongoing. A Working Future, for example, has targets which will not be achieved until 2020. Also, because the CTC is self-referring, it is able to investigate issues which it sees as being of interest and concern to the government and Territorians. This has already occurred with the council meeting with the Power and Water Corporation, Department of Justice, and the Northern Territory Police.
Madam Speaker, it might be useful, before moving to the key findings set out in the report, to revisit the purposes behind the establishment of the council. These were to facilitate:
(a) greater levels of collaboration in the government for the Northern Territory;
(b) enhance parliamentary democracy by providing a strong role for members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the executive government, particularly on matters of common concern;
(c) expand involvement in important Northern Territory initiatives and projects;
(d) provide new avenues for Territorians to have input through the Legislative Assembly into the government of the Northern Territory; and
(e) provide a road map for tackling some specific issues currently facing the Territory.
While it is clear the council has only just commenced its work, it is already improving collaboration between members, enhancing democratic processes by expanding involvement of both members and other Territorians in examining the issues surrounding SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future.
This report is the first step in finding ways to tackle the specific issues highlighted in public hearings. The report includes 21 recommendations about ways to address the issues identified by the council during its first hearings.
I will first turn to talking about some of the information as reported to the council on SIHIP. Witnesses attended hearings representing all the alliances; that is, from New Future Alliance, Earth Connect Alliance, and Territory Alliance Partners. In addition, representatives from both the Northern Territory and Australian governments answered questions about SIHIP’s implementation, and representatives from a number of Aboriginal organisations - Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation, Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, and Tangentyere Council - put their perspectives to the council.
The council heard evidence about the differences in housing design, size and cost prior to and after the SIHIP review completed in August 2009. We were told that, while the average cost for new housing is $450 000, all appropriate building standards will be met. However, the council is not reassured this is, in fact, possible without the post-review houses delivered being smaller. If this is the case, there are ramifications for tenancy management and repairs and maintenance budgets which need to be acknowledged and planned for. More importantly, however, if houses are smaller than needed, what impact will that have on the very severe overcrowding of housing?
The council asked the alliances what work is undertaken in rebuilds and refurbishes. We were constantly told the pre-review contracts for refurbishments would undertake refurbishing a house to the value of $150 000, and post-review refurbishment will be targeting the functionality of houses to an average of $75 000. After further questioning of alliances about how much work can be undertaken for that level of spending, the council questioned whether SIHIP-refurbished houses will be capable of contributing to healthy living practices, and what their continuing maintenance requirements will be.
One Northern Territory government official noted completed SIHIP construction work will add about 3500 houses to government housing stock. The council questions what the ongoing funding implications of the additional housing responsibility for the Northern Territory government will be.
The appropriateness of the design and size of new housing, and the nature of the work undertaken in rebuilds and refurbishment, is pivotal to ensuring the best quality housing is delivered. The council also questioned if the refurbished houses, post-review, are up to the Territory Housing standard.
A commitment was made to the council that about 50 houses would be commenced by the end of December 2009; however, no evidence has been provided to council this occurred.
In the January 2010 update on SIHIP on the department’s website, I see the Department of Housing and Local Government and Regional Services said there are now 52 new houses completed or under way, and 154 refurbishments and rebuilds complete or under way. If SIHIP targets are going to be met there will need to be a continued accelerated of construction. The council will closely monitor progress in meeting the construction targets.
One of the other important issues that came to light through the initial hearings which is discussed in this report is the responsibility for providing housing-related infrastructure. The council heard most of the SIHIP building work to date has occurred on sites with existing essential services and land servicing headworks. One of the findings of the SIHIP review was that SIHIP would focus on housing. Costs associated with housing-related essential services infrastructure would be determined in the audit of municipal and essential services being undertaken as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.
This is one of the links between SIHIP and A Working Future which is associated with another national partnership agreement; this one on remote services delivery. In evidence to the council, the Under Treasurer said the Northern Territory government has increased housing-related essential services in infrastructure funding over the last five years, and this will continue with the implementation of A Working Future.
The combined effect of the SIHIP review decision and the implementation of A Working Future is the Northern Territory appears to have incurred considerable additional infrastructure responsibility. How much, and how it will be budgeted for, has not been answered.
I have highlighted a few of the many concerns with SIHIP the report provides more detail on. The council makes 11 recommendations in relation to SIHIP, which I will quickly paraphrase to give an idea of the way the council believes SIHIP can be improved.
First, there is a general feeling problems associated with SIHIP relate to the program being set up by the federal government and then foisted on the Northern Territory government which has come under criticism for the slowness of the program. The council believes the Northern Territory government is still the best positioned government to manage SIHIP. Its members, and the members of the Territory parliament, are in a far better position to know the Northern Territory’s remote areas than federal parliamentarians and ministers.
The council heard one of the effects of the SIHIP review was a change in funding for refurbishments and rebuilds. This means houses may only be partially repaired under the lower expenditure. Handing back a house in this condition is counterproductive, and there are doubts whether Territory Housing can take them over. If the houses are not compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act, who is responsible for them? The council, therefore, recommends SIHIP be allowed to roll out its refurbishments and rebuilds to the standards originally promised; importantly, SIHIP meets minimal Territory Housing standards; and the handover to new tenants be streamlined to minimise any delay in getting people into improved housing.
The council heard, while in Tennant Creek, only part of the $30m SIHIP project will be spent on housing reconstruction, and the balance, $13.5m, has been set aside for infrastructure. It has been noted, since the review, infrastructure is not part of the SIHIP funding but, in Tennant Creek, it continued to come from SIHIP funds.
With an estimated shortage of 280 houses, the council is recommending the decision on Tennant Creek be overturned, and the $13.5m set aside for infrastructure be used for the construction of new houses, and the infrastructure funding come from the appropriate national partnership agreement. The council is also recommending the review changes to infrastructure funding need to be looked at for the whole of the infrastructure program.
I have already mentioned there has been some slowness in getting additional information to the council. A number of recommendations are trying to address this as well as getting more information about SIHIP publicly available.
Knowing the cost of each house is vitally important to know if the program is fitting within budget, to check on wastage, and the containment of administration costs. The council is recommending the scope of infrastructure works for SIHIP be published, providing details of who will do what and when; that all new rebuilt or refurbished houses, when handed over to Territory Housing, have a publicly available final cost which includes an administrative component; that both governments provide the CTC with a detailed financial report of the SIHIP project every quarter; and an audit should be done by an independent auditor at the completion of the process to determine the usefulness of the alliance model, including an assessment of the profits returned by the alliance through the process.
An important part of SIHIP is providing employment and training for local Indigenous people, and SIHIP has a target of 20% Indigenous employment and training. While the council heard in some locations the 20% target has been exceeded, and understands in some locations it may be much higher, the council wants a complete breakdown of training and employment data for SIHIP to be made publicly available every six months.
The council is aware, while private home ownership is a longer-term goal closely linked to SIHIP, it is not specifically part of SIHIP. It is already known SIHIP will not solve the housing issues in the Territory’s remote communities. Home ownership needs to be promoted to the right avenues as a means of overcoming the housing shortfall. It is clear the council home ownership schemes need to be actively encouraged by the Northern Territory government, along with private financial institutions, especially in communities where SIHIP is presently operating.
I will now turn to concerns people have raised about local government reform and its implementation. During the period the report covers, the council heard from representatives for all but six of the 16 Territory local government bodies. The council heard that shires do not have enough money to undertake the core services we all expect local governments to deliver, such as roads, rubbish removal, and management, and to provide recreational facilities. All the shires the council have spoken to so far said they were reliant on government grants because they have almost a non-existent rate base. Most shires made the point that, if grant funding decreased, services would have to decrease accordingly.
In addition to inadequate funding, there is a range of continuing issues as a result of local government reform described by witnesses. They include: inherited debts from previous community government councils; poor condition of transferred assets; the cost of CouncilBiz and the IT system; inability to produce financial reports and technically being in breach of the accounting regulations; lack of clarity about which roads shires have responsibility for; and additional funding for roads.
Most shires said there was no indication of the level of debt they were expected to take on, and some shires’ full financial positions remain unclear because of the inherited debts. In the case of the assets of community government council the shire inherited, a number of transferred assets, such as older trucks and graders, need to be replaced. This affects not only a shire’s financial position, but also how much road maintenance and other related work it can realistically undertake.
A number of shires made the point that, with large populations of disadvantaged people living in communities, it is not possible to charge realistic cost-recovery rates which the ratepayers cannot afford to pay. The reality is shires have little ability to raise rates on Aboriginal trust land and, therefore, the rate base will remain small. The council is recommending legislation amendments to enable shires to increase their own revenue base, such as through service fees in remote Aboriginal communities where they provide services.
The council heard evidence from shires which suggests the government is out of contact with local government problems such as closure of childcare centres and changes to waste management. Councils have no control over planning, so they need to be actively involved in decision-making in their council area. The council is recommending the government establish a working relationship with shires and municipal councils based on the model of the Capital Cities Committee to improve the relationship between government and council.
It was agreed by the then Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and Housing that the IT system has not worked well and the timing of its implementation was not good. Some shire witnesses said they were hopeful about the results from the remediation process currently under way. The council will follow up the progress through mediation process and the shires’ ability to fulfil the requirements of accounting regulations. However, due to the problems with ShiresBiz, and shires under financial hardship, such costs need to be compensated. The council is recommending the Northern Territory government immediately increases the establishment funding that was provided for the new shires, taking into consideration the unexpected cost in ShiresBiz.
The level of change brought by local government reform, the role of shire’s employees on bodies like CouncilBiz, and the continuing financial difficulties - including some shires’ inability to fill accounting requirements - all contribute to increasing complexity in responsibilities of elected members. To help address this by increasing the knowledge and understanding of elected members of shires, council is recommending the government improve the available elected members’ training, particularly in the reformed Local Government Act, and their legal and financial responsibilities under the act.
The council heard from a number of witnesses that they believe one of the reasons the government wanted to pursue local government reform was to help access additional road funding, although the council has been told an audit is under way of roads, in a process of recognition of the two road links, and additional road funding is unclear. It is equally unclear what, if any, process there is in relation to transferring road responsibilities to shires. The council will seek briefings on the audit, and also how government is following up on additional road funding.
The council is making three recommendations on roads: the first is for the Northern Territory government to resolve the status of road corridors to growth towns through Aboriginal trust lands with appropriate land councils. This is an important precursor to any further effort on roads, and has an effect on both local governments and A Working Future regional services planning. Importantly, growth towns will not succeed if the issue of public access on public roads is not sorted out.
Second, the council is recommending the government finalise the handover of roads to shires by consulting the shires on proposed roads for handover, auditing the state of roads, and identifying all works needed before handing the roads over; upgrading roads to a satisfactory standard prior to handover; and identifying ongoing funding for these roads.
The council heard the shires feel they were promised there would be extra road funding similar to what happened at the Pit Lands. So far, no similar deal has happened for the Territory. The third roads recommendation, therefore, seeks to address this by recommending the government get an explanation from the Australia government why there has been no increase in road funding in the newly-incorporated shires, as there was for the Pitjantjatjara council.
In closing, Madam Speaker, during the council’s initial hearing, witnesses had described a range of issues this report makes recommendation on. There were initial hearings to gather information on SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future. This report identifies problems with how SIHIP has been rolled out in communities, the implementation of local government reform, and questions some parts of A Working Future.
One of the strengths of the council is its ability to travel and hear firsthand experience of all those affected by the implementation of government policies. The council is currently finalising the work program for the next few months, and is planning to visit as many regional and remote towns as possible. Further reports will provide feedback on those meetings, and consideration of continuing and emerging issues.
I place on the record my appreciation of the work of my fellow committee members, and my thanks to the secretariat staff who have worked with council since it commenced, and to Michelle and Robyn.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the report and its 21 recommendations. There is a dissenting report and the opposition members will be speaking to that, I am sure.
What the chairman has tabled today is a progress report of the work down by the Council of Territory Cooperation to December. It is important to remember the purpose of the Council of Territory Cooperation. We debated that in October in this Chamber when we established the Terms of Reference for the Council of Territory Cooperation. I choose to remind members of what those Terms of Reference are.
The CTC’s purpose is to facilitate: (a) greater levels of collaboration in the governance of Northern Territory; (b) enhance parliamentary democracy by providing a stronger role for members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the executive, particularly on matters of common concern; (c) expand involvement in important Northern Territory initiatives and projects; (d) provide new avenues for Territorians to have input through the Legislative Assembly into the governance of the Northern Territory; and (e) provide a road map for tackling specific issues currently facing the Northern Territory.
I believe we have done that. The proof is in the 21 recommendations the chairman has tabled today - 21 substantial recommendations which were worked out cooperatively. To that degree, I thank the opposition members for their conduct at private deliberations and public hearings. I believe, by and large, they were cooperative and I thank them for that. It is probably too much to hope that will extend to cooperative debate in the Chamber. However, that is the point of the Chamber; it is a bit of a bear pit.
We have a majority report and a dissenting report. The most striking thing about the dissenting report, to my mind, is it seems to forget, in part, the purpose of the Council of Territory Cooperation ...
Mr Elferink: The rule is if we agree with you, you cooperate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Well, it is a pretty outrageous assertion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you will have your opportunity.
Mr GUNNER: The greatest complaint seems to be there is not a Council of Territory opposition, but the member for Port Darwin will speak to that later, and he will have much to say, I am sure.
As I said in my remarks to the motion that created the Council of Territory Cooperation, I have often found working relationships between members on committees quite cordial. You get on very well with the members you work with on the committee. I enjoy working with the members for Goyder and Brennan in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; with the members for Sanderson and Brennan, again, on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee; and the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin on the Public Accounts Committee. You can work quite well with members on committees. It is possible for politicians from different parties to work together.
The Council of Territory Cooperation is an attempt to take on the best aspects of those committees where we do work well together, and pursue issues of significant interest to the Territory. I believe we have done that. I thank the members of the opposition for the work they have done on the committee.
Getting out on the ground and talking to the people doing the work - not talking to the ministers but talking to the people building the houses - has been a good result of the Council of Territory Cooperation. In that, it has been a success. We have been on the ground where we have had open and frank conversations with witnesses, and we have done that, by and large, in a cooperative manner. The chair needs to be commended for that. It was his passion that saw the council created, and his steady hand saw it function.
Our progress report looks at two of the significant issues we were charged with at the outset: the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, and local government reform. Our next progress report will look in detail at A Working Future and also cover some of the issues we self-referenced in February, such as Power and Water and the reporting of crime statistics.
In this report, we make 21 recommendations, starting with 11 recommendations on the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. Recommendation 1 is pretty straightforward. All members agreed the Territory government are the best placed and the best-informed government to run programs in the Territory such as SIHIP. That is a paraphrase of Recommendation 1. It goes into a little more detail than that but, that is, basically, what it says.
Recommendations 2 and 3 are of significance because they affect long-term asset management and budget management for the Territory. The council recommends SIHIP should be allowed to roll out refurbishments and rebuilds to the standards originally promised, and the council recommends the Northern Territory government work with the Australian government to ensure stock for SIHIP meets minimum Territory Housing standards. These are critical recommendations. Through the problems with refurbishments and rebuilds, some of the houses which form the base stock for SIHIP may not meet the standards of the Residential Tenancies Act. This could create an ongoing problem for Territory Housing and, obviously, the Territory government, due to ongoing repairs and maintenance.
Let us be clear, though, the houses which are being built are great. They passed the member for Nelson’s star picket test. He took a star picket round often and had a bit of a crack at the walls. The walls always passed the test. We want to build houses that are robust. The quality of the materials and the durability of the houses are meant to last 30 to 40 years and, to date, they have met our expectations, in doing the rounds - they survived the star picket test.
There has been some confusion amongst the council and the people interviewed about the differences between rebuilds and refurbishments on the ground. There is a clear written distinction between the two. The SIHIP review definitions are quoted in the report on page 13:
Essentially, there is a written definition within the report about refurbishments and rebuilds, but sometimes, when you talk to the builder on the ground, they will say this is not quite clear. The report goes into that in a little more detail. That, in itself, is not necessarily a problem - although you would like it to be clearer.
What is a concern, covered by recommendations 2 and 3, is that the quality of the refurbished houses end up meeting minimum Territory Housing standards. That is going to be, literally, a case-by-case basis where SIHIP is being rolled out. Alliances are working on a works plan based on stock in those places. In some of those places, there will be houses which are being refurbished where the final product, at the moment under the current refurbishment guidelines, is likely not to have interiors painted or the floors done. That is something we need to work on with the Commonwealth government. There are genuine expectations of people moving into those houses that that work will be done. The kitchen and the bathroom are going to be done. Those are the wet areas, the most important areas. We will have a functional house: a roof, a kitchen, a bathroom - sometimes two bathrooms. The kitchens and bathrooms are pretty schmick too, sometimes better than mine. These are the most important areas, and we are fixing them.
However, we need to work to find a solution that addresses those houses where the floors in the lounge might not get fixed, or the internal walls where there is inappropriate graffiti are painted. I believe that is an issue. There is an honest and deserved expectation from a tenant moving into a rebuilt or refurbished home that it is up to scratch and it meets the standard all Territory Housing tenants should expect. There has been some evidence from witnesses the houses may be left with internal graffiti - walls cleaned but not repainted - and that floors may be left as they are; pitted concrete floors which would be impossible to keep clean, rather than tiling or re-concreting, or another solution.
That is an issue; something we need to work out between the Commonwealth and Territory governments, so they go to quality of living and hygiene. Obviously, the most important things in many respects are the roof, kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. They are getting done, so there is going to be a functional house. However, I believe we need to have a very honest conversation with the Commonwealth about the standard of housing expected by Territory Housing tenants. We have a repairs and maintenance budget in the Territory. We have a good working relationship with the Commonwealth. We are capable of working this issue out; we need to work this issue out. I believe people who are moving into these houses under this new system of Territory Housing have a genuine expectation of a better, healthier way of life afterwards. That is why we have SIHIP.
We are building new houses in the bush because we are determined decent housing is a touchstone for good outcomes in education, in health, and in jobs. That is why, when a house is built, rebuilt, or refurbished, the time between it being completed and people moving in is as short as possible, because we have said housing is important, and we need to do it. We do not want houses sitting empty. There needs to be final checks done to ensure all the work has been done properly, and we want people in those houses as quickly as possible.
In Tennant Creek, we saw some evidence that it is taking two to three weeks for those final checks to be done. That was, obviously, very early in the process. We saw some evidence later that those checks were taking two or three days. We need to ensure, in that process which has been worked out between government and the alliance - something that happens everywhere SIHIP housing is being rolled out - there is about a two or three day final check time frame so people are living in the good housing as soon as is practical. That is recommendation 4:
I believe the chair spoke at length to recommendation 5.
Recommendation 6 is an interesting one. We took a great deal of evidence on infrastructure, and there seems to be some confusion about who does what, and when they will do it. It has been neatly summed up in recommendation 6:
That is pretty straightforward; it is building on work which is already happening. There is a reference in the report to that:
This was from joint media release from the two ministers.
Further, we heard from Ken Davies and, as paraphrased in the report:
We also have a quote from the Under Treasurer on page 18.
There are plans being worked on regarding who will pay for what, and when they will do it. I believe, for the certainty of the program over the next five years, that needs to be published so people are very clear about who is doing what, and it is predictable. There was some confusion amongst the alliance partners at different stages about who was paying for what infrastructure where, and whether it was going to be fenced - sometimes it was not, sometimes it was.
It has an impact on the alliances. One alliance we spoke to said some of the works they thought were going to be part of the SIHIP plan, Power and Water said they might be going to tender for them. There was some confusion, and that is something we need to clear up, and is possible to clear up. There is work happening right now on it. That needs to be published so people do know, over the course of the program, who is going to be doing what, when, and it marries up to the housing roll-out. Some of that confusion may extend from a lack of understanding of the original program, as covered in the report on page 5:
There has been a degree of confusion about where the SIHIP major construction was going to happen. It was forgotten by some that, during the process, the Territory government has an ongoing responsibility for the delivery of Indigenous essential services. Responsibility has grown over time as the population and services in the bush grew. Those points were picked up by the Under Treasurer in some of her comments to the committee on page 18 of the report:
We all recognise there will be substantial increase in Territory and Commonwealth spending in remote areas of the Northern Territory associated with this expansion. The bush is growing; we need to respond to that. We have a responsibility to provide essential services, which is something we need to budget for. That growth and demand of population and works is why there was a $20m Treasurer’s Advance towards the end of last financial year.
The fact is, in each community, a different approach can often be taken reflecting the needs of each community. That is something which is being negotiated between the Territory and Australian governments. We believe, as a council, after the evidence we have taken to date, this needs to be sorted and a work plan published which shows clearly who pays for what and when the work will happen. The same principle of simplicity extends for recommendation 7:
Transparency applies to recommendation 8:
There has been some debate about how much a house costs, or how much it should cost. The average budget cost is $450 000. We did hear houses in the beginning were more expensive. No worries; it is partly how averages work. However, to achieve that average, those costs are going to have to come down below $450 000. There is a chance there are going to be under-spends, and there are questions on how those under-spends will be reinvested. There will be some balancing between over-spends and under-spends but, hopefully, we are looking at a program which does deliver under-spends more often.
We had some concerns, as a council, because of the cost of houses in Tennant Creek reported as being $450 000, which is right on the average. If we are to achieve an average of $450 000 across the Territory, you would hope somewhere like Tennant Creek, on a main highway, would actually have cheaper prices. We need to have more evidence of what was reported by Amanda Cattermole, quoted on page 16:
We need to see some evidence. Obviously, we are at the very start of the project, costs where going to be higher, but we need to see some evidence those prices will track down; that we are going to meet the average of $450 000, and in main centres those prices are going to be cheaper. I believe the recommendations are accurate; I do believe the economies of scale will come into play. We heard testimonies from some witnesses along those lines; that that will happen. We are at the start of the project when costs will be at their highest before savings from efficiencies and established practice come into effect, but it is something that we do need to see.
To ease concerns and establish public benchmarks are easy to understand. We recommend that each finished house, when the keys are handed over, has a final cost, so we know how much that house cost, just as someone would get if they built the house themselves; a very easy to understand costing. I believe it will make a lot of sense to people if it is a price point that makes sense.
Recommendation 7 includes the publication of an administration component, recommendation 8 goes more to providing confidence that we are sticking to the 8% administration target. We believe a quarterly report provides a reporting mechanism that fits into established practice and is not overly onerous. This will allow for increased transparency in the tracking of the program as it rolls out. We also need to make an assessment at the end of the five years that will see how SIHIP has run along the alliance model; whether it has worked and whether that is the way to go again when we roll out programs - especially programs of this size and scope. This is summed up in recommendation 9:
Regarding ownership and tackling generational equity, recommendation 10 states:
That goes to tackling generational inequity; the capacity to have private ownership of houses on Aboriginal communities. The largest asset most parents pass on to their children or their grandchildren is their family home, which is an asset that grows and builds wealth. Private ownership is something which does need to be encouraged, as is having your own job.
SIHIP has a training and employment component. A target of 20% was set for Indigenous employment across the program and the alliances are encouraged to subcontract and use local companies wherever possible, placing a priority on the use of local Indigenous companies. Talking to Territory Alliance Partners, 60% of the people working on the Tiwi Islands are Tiwi people. All had some training of some kind, and a number of apprentices who adequately completed their training are working to complete their apprenticeships. That is from the report. It is great to see people on the tools. At Tiwi, we were talking to some of the people working on the rebuilds and the refurbishments, who worked on those houses when they were originally built in the 1980s. So, it has come full circle. It is great to see people on the tools. We saw it at Tennant Creek also. The member for Barkly and I thought the report captured it well when talking of Tennant Creek.
In talking with Julalikari about the reason they became involved in the project; Julalikari’s objectives in agreeing to leases for SIHIP work was employment and training for local Indigenous people:
So, we are getting people on tools, we see people working out there, and we are building a skilled workforce, which is important. There is, obviously, a training component to SIHIP, something that can be forgotten in debates around SIHIP, which is why we come to recommendation 11:
There are still a few things, as a council, we want to explore when it comes to SIHIP. This is a progress report; SIHIP is a five-year program. We will continue to inquire into its progress. We want to see, as I already talked about, the cost of the houses come down as we move out of the early stages of the project. We want to see the speed with which the houses are built quicken as workers get used to what they are doing, and the alliances refine their practices. We want to see training translated into jobs. We want to see how the transfer of assets into Territory Housing hands works, and the difference it makes. These are all things flagged in the report for follow-up.
The other major area we inquired into, and is featured in the progress report, is local government. It is important to remember the context in which local government reform happened. The need for reform did not come out of the blue; it was something which was talked about by a lot of members. Braham, Baldwin, and Coulter all talked about the need for local government reform. A former member of Arnhem, John Ah Kit, made a passionate case for local government reform in this House in our first term in government. I quote:
Mr Elferink: Oh, rubbish!
Mr GUNNER: I am quoting from John Ah Kit from earlier this term.
Mr Elferink: It was rubbish then, and it is rubbish now when you are quoting it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
It was a powerful speech. The member for Port Darwin obviously disagrees with it, and he can speak to that. I thought it was a powerful speech and, while focused on local government reform, it also outlined the need for other reforms. However, at the moment in the House we are talking about local government reforms.
He went on to say:
To paraphrase, the member went on to claim the legislation he was talking about was, basically, innovative and progressive; it allowed for some traditional decision-making structures and for potential stride towards self-determination. However, his conclusion was:
The point I want to emphasise is ‘have a similar capacity to that of the municipal councils’.
There was a clear need for reform, but this is a reform of a massive scale and there is always, in a transition of this size, the capacity to do things better. This has been recognised in our report, and our recommendations go to strengthening the shires and their ability to have the same autonomy, competency and respect as, for example, the Darwin City Council. The recommendations, in particular, that address that are Nos 12, 13, 14 and 15:
Recommendation 12
We need to find ways to broaden the revenue base of the shires, to improve their starting positions, their establishment positions, and the ability of elected members to know their responsibilities. Those three recommendations will create shires which, when they speak, should be able to speak with the authority accorded to the Lord Mayor of Darwin, the Mayors of Alice Springs, Palmerston, Litchfield and Katherine. We need to work with them on that same level.
There is a Capital Cities Committee that meets to discuss issues of common interest. That model works well, I believe. Some of the issues raised through that Capital Cities Committee have been in my electorate, and I have seen firsthand the cooperative manner in which they are dealt with is delivering, to date, good results. This model should be rolled out to the new shires, as our recommendations, led by the Minister for Local Government, so working relationships will be improved in the delivery of services and community development. Perhaps, even more importantly, it will build and establish a respect, and a new relationship with government. That is important during this time of transition when anxiety and stress still runs high, when people are still learning, in many ways, on the job. It is important we build our relationship better. I believe this model will do that.
The final recommendation I want to talk about is recommendation 21:
I believe we can all support that. We tabled the report today, at 10.30 am - 40 minutes ago. The government needs to make a considered response to this report. There are 21 substantial recommendations in it. In the original debate creating the Council of Territory Cooperation, one of the concerns was whether the government would respond to this report and treat it seriously. The test is in how they respond now to the recommendations put forward ...
Mr Elferink: I think the condition of the government bench is an indication on how seriously they take this.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GUNNER: At 10.30 am we placed the report on the table - 40 minutes ago. I am sure the government will take it seriously and they will respond in a considered way. The assumption from the opposition, obviously, is government is not going to respond. That is the comment they made in October when we created the council. I believe government will respond. The report is on the table. There are 21 substantial recommendations that need to be worked through, and that is why I support this report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just listened to the final comments from the member for Fannie Bay. The condition of the government benches could not be a stronger indication as to what the government actually thinks of this particular report ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of members, either individually or collectively, within this Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin …
Mr Bohlin: When did he say that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is right. I cannot refer to the fact that the government benches are empty. However, now he has called the point of order, I withdraw the fact that I have noticed the government benches are completely empty.
Dr Burns: They are not empty, member for Port Darwin - not empty.
Mr ELFERINK: You dill. Sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, I remind you reference to the presence or absence of members in this Chamber is not permitted under standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: I have just withdrawn it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Leader of Government Business for raising the issue I have had to withdraw.
The fact is the government remains in government because the member for Nelson started out telling Territorians the government was on notice. The vehicle by which he would put that government on notice was this vehicle, the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I start by making one observation: we have a council of Territory cooperation - it is called a parliament. To understand why that is a council of Territory cooperation, look what a parliament replaced historically, then you will understand a parliament is a place of cooperation.
It is also a place of disagreement. If the member for Nelson, or any other member in this House, thinks we should bind ourselves to the badge of cooperation by a fashion of unanimously standing up and singing the same song, then that person will be sadly mistaken. There will be members in this House who disagree with each other. It is not unreasonable for a group of people to form, and that there will be disagreements amongst that group of people.
However, the cooperation the member for Nelson had in mind - the municipal council model for Territory governance – was, essentially, what was called, in the 1960s, a love-in. When it comes to the hard core facts of running a society, or administering a community or a government, a love-in approach does not work, which is why we have a system already in place. Nevertheless, we have reproduced it, but not as a municipal structure as promised by the member for Nelson, but rather nothing more than a Public Accounts Committee on steroids, which is a far cry from the organ of governance we have.
You have to remember the reason this committee exists is because even the member for Nelson was so wavering in his support of this government’s capacity and competence he believed another organ needed to be introduced to act as a check and balance beyond the realm of this parliament.
Clearly, that could not occur under the auspices of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, so we have ended up with the Council of Territory Cooperation. At the outset, it was up to the Country Liberals to choose to join or not. We have probably been the most stridently critical of this council, but you have to recall that, whilst we have been the most stridently critical, we have been present. The reason is, as a Public Accounts Committee, or a variant of that form, there is some use for this particular organ, which is why the Country Liberals have chosen, and continue to choose, to be part of this particular organ. That, however, does not mean we are in some fashion suddenly absolved from self-criticism, which is what we must do. If you think this organ, which is a check and balance on government, is well organised, it is not.
I draw attention to the first page of the dissenting report. We have four staff to do, essentially, what a Cabinet must do if this organ is to achieve what the member for Nelson says it has to achieve - four staff. It is important to note three of the staff have responsibilities other than responsibilities to the Territory Council of Cooperation. We have a part-time staff on this organ of governance, which is meant to be a check and a balance on our system of governance which, by the member for Nelson’s own assessment, is an organ so close to collapse it needs to be propped up with the Territory Council of Cooperation.
We have not, as an institution and a council, a planning scheme on the establishment of Weddell. We are supposed to look at that. Because we are so poverty stricken in our way we respond, in support, leadership and guidance, we have not even reached those identified items in the original motion. Yes, we have taken on some self-referencing issues, but they have been single one-off issues we have dealt with. If this is meant to be a check and balance on government, surely we should be much more responsive than we have been. I urge government to make this committee much more responsive by resourcing it to the degree where it can do its job effectively. It currently cannot with three part-time staff and meeting irregularly.
We have to determine each meeting when out next meeting is. I am wondering, if the people of the Northern Territory listening to this debate would be satisfied, if they were able to run a ruler over the committee as it currently operates; that what they were promised when the committee was established, on any real assessment, is being achieved by the committee.
This is why there is a dissenting report. It is not because we particularly wanted a dissenting report in the Territory Council of Cooperation but, unfortunately, when we took critical comments about the structure of the committee and how it should operate into the committee, those comments were voted down.
The structure of the committee has already been dictated to the Country Liberals. The member for Nelson negotiated the structure and how the committee would operate, and then invited the Country Liberals to join. In a spirit of cooperation, I ask? Perhaps not! Then, when we decided to bring a report to the committee which substantially challenged the structure of the committee itself, the member for Nelson voted it down, so it can no longer find its way into the majority report. We were left with no choice but to submit a dissenting report.
It might be worth pointing out to honourable members, when we entered into the negotiation as to what should be in the majority report, the Country Liberals prepared a 30-page document with 25 recommendations, the ALP had a two-page e-mail, and the member for Nelson walked in with three sentences. In the spirit of cooperation, the Country Liberals supported the three sentences, and then went on with one suggestion to support all of the Australian Labor Party’s suggestions in relation to what should go into the majority of the report.
Conversely, of the 25 recommendations made by the Country Liberals, 19 were rejected, in spite of an assertion at the beginning of that meeting that they were generally good recommendations. Of the six which survived, two were amended, and one was dragged into the main body of the majority report. Of the 30 pages of observational material submitted for the Council of Territory Cooperation’s considerations, not one syllable survived the vetting process of the majority report.
This is the Council of Territory Cooperation and how it operates. It is starved of funds and it has problems with its leadership. I have written to the member for Nelson outlining the issues I have with the leadership of the committee. I critique it, not to destroy it, but to make it better and work in the way the member for Nelson promised Territorians it would work. That is why we are still there because, without that desire to improve the quality of what the committee does, by being honest and self-critical, there is no point continuing.
Nevertheless, the Country Liberals have not walked away from this. We could have walked away from this initially; we could walk away from it at any time. However, we continue to persevere because we still continue to believe there is something useful and worthwhile to be extracted from it, but only if it starts to take its job seriously - and I mean seriously - so that there are competent staff - and I am not saying the staff are not competent, but there is a body of staff dedicated to making it work, and then enforcing a system of investigation which is regular, methodical and understandable.
We made the outrageous recommendation in our submission that the Council of Territory Cooperation should meet once a week, to reflect Cabinet. Is that supported by the majority? No, Madam Speaker, it is not. The reason I am also concerned the committee does not operate properly is because it still does not understand its role at its core.
I will give you another example. In the beginning of November last year, I walked into the committee and suggested to the committee members: ‘Goodness gracious me! We should go and look at what is happening in child protection’. The response from the committee was: ‘Well, Christmas is coming and, then, after Christmas the January month holidays, so we really could not look at it until after the Christmas holidays’. I thought to myself: ‘You are kidding me, aren’t you?’ This committee is to be the organ of check and balance on government and, because of the Christmas holidays, we are not going to look at child protection - after reading the Deborah Melville Coronial? However, that is precisely what happened.
If we had been more responsive then we probably would have been able to alert government to a crisis in their own system. The Health Minister now acknowledges that crisis exists and, indeed, the previous minister for Child Protection ended up having to bring a separate inquiry forward, anyhow. We were in the committee arguing it should respond in an effective way before government did. That is how responsive we could have been - but we were not, because the Christmas break got in the way. If this is what we are going to do as a committee, then I will continue to be critical of it. We have to be more responsive.
The other thing we have been promised as a committee is a full response from public servants. Yet, the feeling I got from many public servants when we were interviewing them, was rather than fully briefing the committee, we were trying to extract information as though we were in the estimates process. The protection of government by public servants is a noble and honourable thing, but it is not what we were promised by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. What we were promised was a responsive, full, open, system of information flowing to us. Yet, I got the sense, at times, we were like dentists trying to extract a tooth from some of the public servants. I am concerned about that, not because I am critical of the public servants involved - loyalty to the government of the day is commendable and proper - but it is not what the committee was promised.
It is for those reasons I am critical of the committee. It is for those reasons I believe the committee could pull up its socks - and pull them up a long way. It is for those reasons we continue to participate in the committee. Having made those observations, Madam Speaker, I now turn my attention to other matters.
One of the areas we had to look at was SIHIP. I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Katherine, to deal with the many issues in SIHIP. Fortunately, the committee, in its majority report, made some reasonable observations.
In local government reform, the recommendations of the Country Liberals are quite straightforward. Whilst the member for Katherine will expand on this, I will make here some simple observations. The local government reform process has ground forward in the same subtle way a steam roller grinds over a gravel road. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has been caused and many people have been hurt along the way. We have heard from the member for Nelson today about how confused that local government reform process has been, is, and continues to be - not least of which was the computer system that was supposed to support local government, costing some $5m. It was fine except for one minor detail - it simply did not work. It remains a loadstone around the neck of many of the new shires.
There are two functions to the output group of local government in the Department of Housing and Local Government. Those functions are regulatory compliance and administrative support. It is not called that but that is, essentially, what the two functions are. It is the view of the Country Liberals the regulatory compliance can be done by an office or small statutory body, and the administrative support can actually be done by an organisation such as LGANT – the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. The rationale for the continued existence of the department of Local Government no longer exists. Yet, it consumes, if memory serves me, about $74m a year.
Whilst I know this will probably cause some consternation in some quarters, governance is not about maintaining a department for the sake of maintaining a department; governance is about an outcome at the other end for the people we are attempting to serve. If regulatory compliance can be done through a simple auditing system by a small statutory body, possibly attached to the minister’s office or some independent statutory body, then, that is fine. Surely, LGANT is better positioned to provide administrative support - so long as it is properly supported by the Northern Territory government - that it can do the administrative support required by its own membership? Can anybody actually explain to me the rationale for continuing to have a department of Local Government at a state level? I cannot see it.
We introduced that particular recommendation to the committee, and the response from the committee was: ‘No, cannot do that; will not make that recommendation’. So, another Country Liberals’ recommendation, in the spirit of cooperation, bites the dust. It is for that reason we find ourselves with a dissenting report.
In the time that is left to me, I wish to raise a couple of other issues which are not attended to in the majority report. In defence of the authors of the majority report, there is a reason they are not attended to; because it is not within the specific reporting period they have set for themselves. That is fine. They are also concerned the Hansard from those particular interviews has not been officially checked by the people who gave the evidence. That is also fine. However, in an effort to try to breathe some effectiveness or responsiveness into this committee, the Country Liberals have determined to step outside of that and actually make some recommendations to government, despite the existence of some arbitrary time frame, namely 31 December 2009.
We believe these are important issues which need to be drawn to the attention of government in a timely fashion; something the majority report does not do because of the fact we are concerned that some of the Hansard has not been checked. The Country Liberals are sufficiently confident with what they heard, and their own information, to be able to say we now feel comfortable enough to make these comments and observations despite the fact the Hansard has not been finally checked. I am not a great lover of process over outcomes.
It is of grave concern to me that, after several months, the Northern Territory government still does not know why the gas supply to it by NT Gas was cut off taking 14 000 customers off line. It does not have a clue – well, that is not true; it has some suppositions. Frankly, it has no real idea. If I were the Minister for Essential Services, I would be terrified to be in a situation where I lost 14 000 customers; my gas supply was shut off several months ago and I still do not know with any certainty why that occurred. However, because we want to slavishly appear to a specific time frame, we cannot report on that yet. I am sorry, it is too important. We must advise government through this process this is a matter of concern, and we draw attention to the people of the Northern Territory to this potentially calamitous problem.
We do not know why NT Gas hit the kill button on the gas supply to our power station in November last year. The reason it is important is, if we do not know what caused it the last time, how are we going to prevent it from happening again …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their indulgence.
Madam Speaker, we also touched on the issue of police statistics because the Council of Territory Cooperation was sufficiently concerned to get the police and the Department of Justice to sit down next to each other and explain the variances in their statistical arrangements.
It is difficult to understand how the police can arrive at a statistic of domestic violence representing 46% of all assaults, when the Department of Justice reaches, on the same data set, a result that 54% of all assaults are domestic-violence related. That means a full 8% variance between the two departments taken from the same data set. When you consider government policy is set using that sort of data, then, if the Police minister is relying on the Department of Justice figures, he will set the different parameters and different policies in place than if he were to rely on the Police department statistics. Yet, we consistently hear the Police minister quoting Department of Justice statistics to justify a police response. That is a concern when the variant is as great as 8%.
For that reason, we got them in, and it turns out one of the issues, of course, is there was a typo in the police annual report. Clearly, greater care must be taken in the preparation of police annual reports. It also appears the police crimes statistics include murder, rape, robbery, and other crimes of violence other than assaults, whereas the Department of Justice exclude murder, rape, and robbery from those statistics, which creates a statistical anomaly.
There are also issues as to when you extract this material off the system as to how the investigations have gone and how that material is dealt with at a later date, because investigating officers who fill in the computer systems at completion of their investigation will change what has actually been investigated and who has actually been charged. It concerns me those anomalies exist, and we urge a reconciliation between police and the Department of Justice in relation to statistics.
This, then, brings me to the final recommendation of the committee. Whilst we will be accused of playing politics and all that sort of thing, I will take members through the rationale of this final recommendation.
SIHIP, on which the member for Katherine will talk about at some length, was a debacle; to such a degree the federal government decided the Northern Territory government should no longer run SIHIP. Whilst they have lots of nice little platitudinal words about cooperative arrangements, the fact is the Northern Territory government was given the program to run, stuffed it up to a degree, and Macklin intervened. That is as simple as it occurred. As a result, you then had people like Amanda Cattermole being imposed on the Northern Territory government - I am sure she is a very professional public servant – as the Territory government’s silent intervention.
Who was the minister in charge of the delivery of SIHIP? The honourable member for Daly. Regarding the local government reform process, in our deliberations, we received, one time after another, a complaint, critique, a problem, issue, or point of difference, described by the people who gave us evidence. It is clear the local government reform process has caused so much uproar and upset in our community, as to have people driving around this House, in caravans, in the same way General Custer was surrounded by Indians at Little Big Horn in 1876. That much uproar! Who was the minister given command and control of the local government process? The honourable member for Daly was minister at that time.
One of the things we became aware of, when talking to Power and Water, is they still do not know why their gas supply was lost. I will not return to that particular issue other than to say it is of deep concern we still do not know. Who is the minister with the charge, carriage, command and control of that particular area of governance? The honourable member for Daly.
This minister is, ultimately, on any measure, the minister for calamitous outcomes. He continues to sit on the government ministry and hold his commission but, on any rational reading of the circumstances surrounding each of his ministries, we can only find one debacle melding into the next disaster, morphing into the next calamity. This man is to calamity what King Midas was to gold; everything he touches has led to poor outcomes. Not because he is engaged in any sort of vindictive ministry; I believe he is simply out of his depth.
However, this is not about the honourable member for Daly, or the member for Port Darwin, or any other member in this House. This is about governance outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory; those people who rely on effective local government service, who rely on electricity flowing through their copper wires when they throw a light switch, and who rely on SIHIP to deliver which, sadly, has fallen well short of original promises. Those are the people this debate is about, and should be about, and should always be about.
The problem is the minister remains in his chair and, for that reason, we are drawn by the evidence - not some political stunt, simply the evidence - the minister no longer should hold a ministerial title. It has been demonstrated time and time again it is beyond his capacity to do so effectively, and to the satisfaction of the people of the Northern Territory.
We see, in this, a minister who simply struggles to do his job, and it is time that minister moves on. Sadly, the arrangement between the member for Nelson and the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, precludes such a logical conclusion, so it does not find its way into the majority report.
It is for these reasons we had a dissenting report in the Council of Territory Cooperation’s first report. It is because we disagree. As I said at the outset, we disagree because we bring our logic to bear upon the arguments, and come to conclusions. Whilst I appreciate that may not suit some members, the fact is it is the truth. To have every single syllable of the report we constructed voted down by the majority is hardly within the spirit of cooperation. To have 19 of the 25 recommendations we put forward voted down, despite the acknowledgement at the beginning of the meeting that most of them were good recommendations, is hardly in the spirit of cooperation.
I do not believe, and will never believe, we can govern by loving. We must govern by the processes of logic and reason, and those processes should be applied without fear or favour. That is not reflected in the majority report.
Whilst we supported the recommendations made by the member for Nelson and the Australian Labor Party, in the spirit of cooperation, that spirit was not returned; partly because the member for Nelson is already trapped by the arrangement he has made with the government to keep them in power.
The problem I have, Madam Speaker, is this organ of check and balance against a government which was put on notice by the member for Nelson, has become nothing more than a committee humoured by government to keep the arrangement in place. I will look with very careful and close eyes at the response from government.
As I said at the outset, if you want to have a determination on how captured and enthralled the Chief Minister is by this new organ of government, I invite honourable members to look at the back of his chair.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the first report from the Council for Territory Cooperation. It has been interesting to listen to the member for Port Darwin stretching some of the truth, and a bit cute by half …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder whether the speaker would like to sit in consideration of her injury.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Arafura, would you like to sit?
Mr Elferink: We have no objection to that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: It is actually up to me, member for Port Darwin.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If you can see me over the top of the desk. If it starts hurting I will sit down, Madam Speaker, but I am fine for the moment. Thank you, member for Nelson and other members.
Ms Purick: You should not have kicked the dog.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I was not kicking the dog. Actually, I would like to kick some people in here, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Arafura, come to the point.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Listening to the member for Port Darwin and his stretching of the truth, there needs to be some clarity - or some reality checks. I was listening to him say 19 of the 25 CLP recommendations were voted down by the committee; that we did not want anything to with it.
The member for Port Darwin, very cutely, knows very well, regarding the 19 of those 25 recommendations, when I and the other Labor members of the committee looked at those recommendations, including the Chair of the CTC, we thought some of those recommendations were reasonable. Everyone on the committee had agreed the time line to report was December, and we would report on everything up to December. The member for Port Darwin knew that very well. The CLP members of the committee were always going to submit a dissenting report. Let us talk with honesty here in this debate about these issues. There was always going to be a dissenting report because of their obsession with the agreement which was in place between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. It is pure obsession - nothing more, nothing less - and they were always going to submit the dissenting report.
If they were saying they were going to come to the table and have full cooperation and work through the issues, which are important regarding local government. When we look at the issues of local government being the third tier of government, it is important. I believe all of us in this Chamber recognise that, yes, there have been issues with the shires. We can say we all know there are problems with the reforms. Being a member who holds a bush seat with a huge remote electorate, and who has two of those shires in my electorate, I know and understand there are issues, but they are not beyond repair and cannot be fixed.
I see my role on the CTC as working with other members of this parliament to put forward robust and important recommendations to government to look at how these shires can operate more effectively.
The other issue the member for Port Darwin touched on was NT Gas. I need to put on the record we had a fantastic meeting with Power and Water. They went through, in detail, about some of the issues and problems which had been encountered. Once again, the meeting with Power and Water happened outside of the scope of what this first report was going to be. Nevertheless, they will be issues which will come forward. There are members of the CTC who will bring forward those issues and report on the meeting we had with Power and Water.
We are also meeting with NT Gas, which is not due to happen until 3 March. The member for Port Darwin alluded to these issues, saying no one still knows why those issues happened, when we have not even completed that investigation or those meetings with NT Gas - the committee will be meeting with NT Gas in early March. I believe it is around 3 March we will be meeting with NT Gas to discuss some of the issues we have been keen to investigate and get on top of.
Regarding the recommendations in the committee’s report, if people think any of the recommendations are just glossing over or part of the deal between government and the member for Nelson, and are not recommendations that need the full attention by government - I was listening to the member for Nelson when he was delivering his report. Something all of us are concerned about is the issue of refurbishments. I have had a look at the Residential Tenancies Act and had a discussion with the Minister for Housing in relation to this. However, the issue of the Residential Tenancies Act is actually a red herring in all of this when you look at the broad picture, after the committee has gone around to these communities and looked at some of these houses. I take my role quite seriously, as a member for government, but I am also a member who is responsible and answerable to Aboriginal people in my electorate.
There are three areas in my electorate where there are going to be substantial housing projects. One is Maningrida, where the population is on par with the population at Wadeye. Gunbalanya is another community that has a population of 1200 people and, of course, we know the Tiwi Islands. As a member who holds a bush electorate where there is going to be three substantial housing projects, I am concerned about the refurbishment program. I believe the re-scoping of the refurbishment program by the Commonwealth government has created enormous issues on the ground in those communities, where the re-scoping of those houses has seen a diminished capacity of the communities, or the alliance builders, to be able to bring a lot of those houses up to standard. That is a huge concern, not just to me, as I know all members of government are concerned about this, particularly bush members who, at the end of the day, are answerable to our communities. Our communities expect us, as members, to deliver, and be honest and open and to work hard to ensure their interests are going to be protected and looked after. I believe the issue of the refurbishments has to be looked at, and addressed by both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments.
You can have the legal argument and interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act and what those standards are but, as a government, we have a responsibility as a landlord to ensure that - if we are going to tie people to a normalisation process and put in place tenancy agreements - there has to be a moral argument in that, if you are going to have one standard apply in the urban areas for how refurbished or rebuilt houses should be, or what those standards of houses for people who live in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs is, you apply that same standard to people out in the bush. You should not have two separate agreements or two levels of tenancies; one that suits the bush - out of sight, out of mind - and one for your urban centres. The issue of the refurbishments needs to be looked at quite seriously.
When I was going around having a look at the refurbishment, and talked to communities and the alliance partners, I also talked to people within the department. Someone I have known for a long time and certainly have a lot of trust in, is Peter Ryan, a man who has worked around the traps for 20-odd years and has a lot of knowledge and understanding. I remember first coming across Peter in the early 1990s when we were discussing housing designs and projects in Ngukurr and the Tiwi Islands, when there was some building going on there. In sitting down and talking to him not so long ago, it is like back to the future. The discussions we were having back then we are still having today.
We need to move beyond the politicking of who is responsible here and take some real responsibility. One thing I believe needs to start happening with our mob on the ground in the communities is a bit of honesty. People just need to tell our mob. There is a lot of confusion. Many people do not know just what they are getting in the housing program. Much of that communication needs to change, which is why the committee included recommendation 6 - that the scope of infrastructure work for SIHIP be published. There are many problems with people trying to ascertain what the real cost is, not just of the new houses, but of the refurbishments.
Recommendation 2 of the committee’s report, as the chairman said earlier in his speeches, is the refurbishments and rebuilds should be put to the standards originally promised. When you talk to people in the communities, there is a level of disappointment and confusion on the ground in some of those communities where it is happening because they were told one thing, and they are getting something else. That needs to change. Rather than the Commonwealth dictating the terms of this, I believe the Northern Territory government should ensure there is a change.
This brings me to the CLP. When they were talking about recommendations, many of the issues they brought were not recommendations as such; they were more broad statements. One thing all of us agreed on, along with the CLP, was the Northern Territory government is better placed to be doing this. The Northern Territory government should be the government driving these issues rather than a Commonwealth government sitting in Canberra, far removed from these issues in our communities.
The refurbishment is something which needs to be looked at. I believe it is sleeper. Whilst people keep saying no new houses have been built, which is perpetuated by people in here who say nothing is happening in communities, that is not true. Members of the committee who travelled to some of those communities prior to December saw there has been, and continues to be, activity in the communities. Are all the houses up? No, they are not. Could they be built faster? The people in the communities would like to see houses built much faster. However, we also know, for a number of reasons, those houses have not proceeded as fast as everyone wanted. Nevertheless, there are houses coming up in those communities. There are more houses than there ever has been, which a good thing, not a bad thing.
The council also looked at issues concerning local government, and A Working Future. We had one meeting with the Chief Minister’s Department. We need to continue to have further discussions with the department regarding to A Working Future and the growth towns. SIHIP is just one part of the picture when discussing growth towns. There are also issues regarding surveys, planning, and how those hub communities are going to work. If you look at a growth town in a region, how are those services going to work? If you look at the outstations, the homeland movement, are homeland residents to access those services in the hub community, or do those services go out to homelands? There are many issues which need to be addressed regarding A Working Future and the growth towns.
I look forward to the council having further discussions with the Department of the Chief Minister, and also Bob Beadman, who discussed his Coordinator-General’s report for his first six months. We will continue those discussions with Mr Beadman. There were, I believe, some fulsome discussions with him regarding issues and concerns members share, or do not share. I look forward to some of those discussions coming to fruition
I was not able to join the council in its meetings in Tennant Creek ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time of 10 minutes for the member for Arafura, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, member for Arafura, we will do that after Question Time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of electorate officers from Labor members’ electorates. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper – Council of Territory
Cooperation - Progress Report,
February 2010
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine who graciously moved I be given an extension of 10 minutes before lunch.
I fully support the report of the Council for Territory Cooperation and its recommendations. I believe, despite the dissenting reports from the CLP and the issues within that dissenting report, those members of the CLP know the level of cooperation of all of members of the committee in working together. It has been productive, we have looked at many issues, and it is a work in progress.
I believe the CLP shares the same concerns other members of the committee have in relation to this. We all want to work together to address this and ensure we can put substantial and workable recommendations to government so, at the end of the day, the end result is people in our remote communities are going to benefit from the housing and effective local government, and we can deal with some of the issues which have been prevalent for a long time in these communities.
These issues did not just happen. I have said before in this House, in 2001, these have been long-standing issues and we can only all work together to try to ensure the policies are there are making a difference and, if they are not making a difference, how we get the Northern Territory government, but also the Commonwealth, to look at these issues in a serious way.
In the time I have, one recommendation from the CLP was that the CTC should meet every week. I heard the member for Port Darwin talking about it. I have said to the member for Port Darwin, as a bush member sitting on that committee, I have an electorate which covers 220 000 km2. Holding a bush electorate, because I do not want to meet every week, does not mean I am not committed to the issues or what the CTC is looking at. I am very committed to it, but I am just as equally committed in what is my first and most important role; that is, the member for Arafura. It is that electorate I must serve, and serve effectively. However, I am also very conscious I will make as much time as I have and am able, to devote to this committee which I take quite seriously. However, I am not going to meet every week. I believe it is crazy we should have to forgo the commitments and responsibilities as elected members for our electorates for this. However, it does not mean the CTC suffers because we cannot meet weekly.
In the meetings we have had to date, we have been able to prove it has been effective. If you read the dissenting report, it is as if there has been no support from the other members of the committee, or meetings shifted for the committee itself or for the CLP members. There have been meetings which we shifted because members could not attend. There were meetings I have been caught up in and I have not been able to attend, and I have submitted apologies. All of us on the committee need to work together, rather than seeing this, because of the agreement - alluding to the agreement between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister - as the reason why nothing is being addressed.
We still have a long way to go. This is only the first of many progress reports to this parliament. The CTC still has a long way to go yet, in going back and questioning and talking to both Northern Territory and federal representatives. We still have a lot of investigation that needs to be done. Representatives of other government agencies need to come before the committee. This report is just the first of many progress reports, hopefully, we will be putting to this parliament in relation to these very important issues. As I said, we have not given enough investigation to A Working Future, and I am looking forward to this committee bringing before it government public servants who are chartered with the responsibility of A Working Future, so we can test and validate if that policy is actually making a difference on the ground in those communities. It is the first of many reports. It is an important progress report. It was a report that all members of the committee had agreed to up to the end of December. I know there are other issues we need to report on. They will certainly come after this report.
Before I sit down, I acknowledge the work of the secretariat, especially Jan Whitehead, who was the writer who pulled all this together, and persevered and was very patient with all the members of the committee in getting different versions of the report through, getting our comments and our feedback and fine-tuning the report. I acknowledge Jan’s work.
I also thank all of those shires, communities, and the departments that have come before the committee. It is a new concept and, despite people saying it has not been forthcoming, or the information we have had is not fulsome, I believe most of the information we have had has been. It has been a new process. It will get better. As the committee goes along, it will get better and will be more effective now we have gone through this process at bit more.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the CTC’s first report for February 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the first report of the CTC, and also to the dissenting report that has been produced by the member for Port Darwin and me in response to the failure of the CTC to adopt the contents of the submission by the Country Liberals into the main body of the report, and also not adopting the majority of recommendations which were contained therein. I am disappointed and a little surprised, I have to admit, that much more of the submissions from the Country Liberals were not accepted by the CTC. I will go on to explain why shortly.
I have listened to what has been said by the other members of the CTC. Much has been said about the operation of the CTC as a whole. A lot has been said about the pros and cons of the CTC. A fair amount has been said about the issues that have been examined by the CTC and the evidence that has been presented, and also the conclusions that have been drawn from receipt of that evidence. Today is not the opportunity to stand up here and parrot the contents of that report; it is there for all to read.
I believe one of the failings of the CTC is in respect to just how well the operation of the CTC is, why it exists, what it is supposed to do, and the failure of the understanding of that operation in the general public out there in punter land. I do not believe the CTC and its operation is all that well understood by the people of the Territory.
There has been a lot of press about the CTC. The member for Nelson has talked it up since day 1, and I believe he has portrayed it as some sort of utopian fix-all for all the crises that are enveloping the Labor government. He wanted it to virtually be an extension of Cabinet. He saw it as some vehicle by which the views, opinions, and good ideas that emanate from people on both sides of the House can be incorporated into the tactical and strategic direction of the government in making the NT a better place to live. Well, at least that was my interpretation.
At best, the member for Nelson’s ideas were well meaning, but the reality was that his naivety has led us to a point where this committee is proving itself to be a toothless tiger - although I would be happy to stand corrected if I see this government taking up the recommendations of the CTC, and even happier if the CTC were to start to include recommendations which actually had some bite, rather than taking the softly-softly approach embodied in the majority report tabled today.
In attempting to educate the people of the Northern Territory, I would like to create an analogy of the CTC so it might help people understand what it does. This is the view I have come to as time goes by. I do not mean to belittle the council, or the members on it; however, I am offering an alternative way of looking into the CTC’s operation so people who listen to these broadcasts or read the Parliamentary Record, might walk away with a better understanding of how the CTC works, and how it is shaping up.
First, I should qualify something - the analogy I use today mentions the Volvo car company. It is not a reflection on Volvo; it happened to be a name I drew out of a hat and used for illustration purposes only. It makes it easier for people to understand if I am talking about something they know. It is just an analogy.
Volvo has a car which was produced in 2001, and it is now almost nine years old. It is a car plagued with problems. It has systemic problems right across the board from the exhaust pipe to the radiator. Some are worse than others, although some of the parts of the car are working okay. Some of the car’s systems are performing so badly there is a bush mechanic - the bush mechanic I am referring to is the member for Nelson. He decides the way to fix this problem is to convene a committee of other bush mechanics to examine what needs to be done to fix some of the more serious problems with this car. The other bush mechanics, of course, are the members for Arafura, Macdonnell, Fannie Bay, Port Darwin and me.
In the interest of fairness, in the set-up of this committee of bush mechanics, two work for Volvo, to get their input; two of them work for another car company; and the other two work independently. One of the independent bush mechanics decides, at a very early stage of this committee, it is not going to work and her time is better spent elsewhere, so she follows her trade in her own region.
The bush mechanics’ committee is convened. The idea behind the committee is to hear from people who know about Volvos - people who know about the technical problems with the Volvo, people who fix the Volvo, people who drive the Volvo, and people from the Volvo company. All this is with a view to providing recommendations to the Volvo company about what went wrong with the car, who is responsible for it, and what needs to be done to fix the car.
The backdrop here is the company does not publicly acknowledge there are any problems with the car at all - that is the backdrop. The committee of bush mechanics start to examine the major problems with the Volvo. They have taken a few items, particularly bad operating items, out of this car, looked at them and, for simplicity, we have looked at the fuel injection, the automatic transmission, and the brakes. They are the major problems with the car. The bush mechanics get a range of people to tell them the problems with this car, how these problems came about and, in some cases, what needs to be done to fix the problems with the car.
The bush mechanics hear from people who drive the car, trade mechanics who repair it, and mechanics from the Volvo company itself. It also hears from some very specialised people who can tell you all the intricacies of the fuel injection system and the transmission. Some of this stuff is very technical, but there is an expectation the bush mechanics will understand it all - and they are clever people – and manage to pick up most of what is being said. With the limited technical capacity and knowledge, the bush mechanics examine all these people and get advice. However, it is not as simple as it seems.
Some of the mechanics sent by the Volvo company prove to be difficult. They evade questions, they are less than cooperative and fulsome in their answers, and they are obstructive in cases, trying to protect their employers. Others are more forthcoming, particularly those who drive, and those who can repair the car. They clearly articulate the problem, where the responsibility lies, and what needs to be done to fix the problems with the car. There are some very highly-qualified people who articulate both problems and solutions.
So, that all done, the bush mechanics have to put a report together to give to the company. But there is dissent amongst some of the bush mechanics; some want recommendations to the company to do more than others do. So, two reports are prepared: one under the hand of the majority of the bush mechanics committee, and the other one under the hand of the other bush mechanics who want recommendations to the company to go further than those contained in the majority report.
The problem with all this is the company does not have to actually listen to the bush mechanics if they do not want to, and they do not have to pay any heed to the reports they prepare. All of this, as I mentioned before, is against a backdrop of a car company that denies there are any problems at all.
That is where we are today. The CTC - with no disrespect - is a bunch of bush mechanics trying to tell a large car company what went wrong, who is responsible, and what needs to be done.
I have little faith in any assertions this committee will have any positive effect on the lives of Territorians. I read a quote in a recent newspaper article in the Northern Territory News where, I am sure it was the member for Johnston said - and I do not remember the exact quote - something along the lines of the government will look at the recommendations of the CTC. The member for Johnston articulated something similar in Question Time today. That is hardly a firm commitment from this government that it will take heed of, let alone adopt, any of the recommendations that flow from this committee.
If all the work that is going into this committee results only in a number of reports that gather dust on the shelf of the Chief Minister, then I will not be very happy and, I suspect, the people of the NT will be highly incensed. Sadly, except for, perhaps, a few of the more benign or innocuous recommendations that may be adopted by this government, that is exactly what I expect will happen.
The member for Port Darwin has already adequately detailed a critique of the establishment of the committee, so I do not intend to rehash what he has said. However, I just want to touch briefly on a matter relating to the non-compellability of ministers to appear before the CTC. This is another aspect of the operation of the CTC that makes it superfluous. Ministers of the government are, ultimately, responsible for the operation of their departments and, because they cannot be compelled to answer questions in the committee, we are lacking the depth of information in that layer - the next layer up which would make the operation of the CTC far more effective.
Not only that, but I would have thought ministers would have been all too keen to get themselves before the CTC to defend their positions and explain the reasoning behind some of the policy decisions around the issues the CTC is investigating. But, no, they hide behind the non-compellability provisions, and that makes the statements I hear from the Chief Minister regularly about them being an open and accountable government just laughable.
The member for Port Darwin said we have approached this committee with a true sense of cooperation, and that does stand. Any assertions made by any members of the committee that we have been out to scuttle this committee from the outset are patently false. All we are trying to do is make this committee one that actually works for Territorians; one that actually gets some results. We are prepared to work hard and commit the time and effort required for the operation of the committee. What we will not support is a committee that takes a half-hearted approach to its charter, and exists only as an organ to prop up the lame government, or to prop up someone’s ego ...
Mr Wood: That is a load of rubbish.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Did you take offence to that, member for Nelson?
Mr Wood: Let us stick with the subject we are dealing with. Do not …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Anyway, I have also been critical of this committee with respect to its expenditure - not critical of the amount of money that has been, or will be, spent in the running of this committee, but critical of the value for money this committee affords to the people of the Northern Territory.
Right now, if you look at Appendix C of the majority report, there is a report on expenditure that, as at 31 December 2009, stands at $33 000-odd. In the big scheme of things, it is not a lot of money, but this will jump significantly in subsequent reports with the travel this committee has, and is about to, undertake. Frankly, I would not be terribly upset if we were to spend $133 000 or $233 000, as long as this committee produces results for Territorians which gives them value for money. At the end of the day, if this committee counts for nought, then one single dollar spent is a dollar wasted on this committee.
I should touch on what has been achieved by this committee so far. We are certainly learning a lot. We have access to people we would not ordinarily have access to. We have been to places it is not common to visit. So, if the value of this committee is for educating the members on it, then it is achieving its goal. However, at this stage, that is the only real value I can see in the committee - I know it is still early days - unless the government really pulls a rabbit out of its hat and adopts what this committee recommends.
I want to touch on a few of the aspects of the investigations this committee has undertaken. First, on SIHIP. The first failure of SIHIP - and this is pretty well unanimously and broadly accepted across the Territory - was brought on by the raised expectations of both the federal and Territory governments. The reality of what is being delivered is a chasm apart from what was promised, and what was within the terms of the consultation taking place in the early days.
I refer to page 53 of the report - it is about the fourth or fifth paragraph – where its says:
I emphasise that - the federal takeover of the program because of the failure of the NT government to manage it properly:
Apart from the fact it has taken so long to get a house built under this program, that is probably one of the biggest issues arising out of SIHIP.
There was an expectation out there amongst the people that they would be receiving housing which was within the parameters of the early consultation they had. Now, we are finding those houses are being made much smaller. Now, we are finding what was a refurbishment before has been watered down to just to getting the light switches up and running, and making good the wet areas. In some places, what was reported as expenditure on a refurbishment of $150 000 has now been cut in half, down to $75 000. The details of an example of that are contained in page 55 of the report.
This is an issue in the dissenting report raised by the Country Liberals. The only reason it became part of the dissenting report was, I suspect, because of the fixation of the other members of the committee on ensuring we stuck to a time limit of 31 December. This information was received by the Council of Territory Corporation after 31 December. We thought it was worthy to be included in the report but, of course, that recommendation was voted down.
When we visited Nguiu, we viewed quite a few houses which were being refurbished under SIHIP. At the end of the day, what we were finding - and I point to a photograph in black and white which is not very clear, but I hope if there is a colour copy produced, it does show up a lot better. We were shown a house that was about to be refurbished. It was having its kitchen redone, the bathroom redone, and new cupboards being put in, in the bedrooms. However, because of the cutbacks - the scaling back of the scope of works to be carried out on these refurbishment - there were no new floor coverings going down on that floor. The photograph does not show it well, but it is concrete that was laid 30 or 40 years ago, using beach sand as a component part of the concrete. Since that time, that concrete floor has become eroded and pitted. It has been damaged by the use of tools inside the house, such as axes. I would feel uncomfortable walking barefooted on that floor, let alone having children crawl on that floor. That is a floor that is not going to be upgraded under SIHIP.
This government and the federal government, which has taken their hands off the tiller on this issue, are just letting this go ahead. This is an issue where the Northern Territory government has let the ball slip so far they have not bothered keeping the feds in the loop on this. They have not sent someone over there to say: ‘Well, show me the scope of work under a new refurbishment cost …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move the member to be afforded an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thank honourable members for indulging me the extra time.
Instead of the Northern Territory government going over there and saying: ‘Show me what $75 000 will buy’ - I do not think they bothered doing that because, surely to goodness, if someone in the government had been shown that floor was going to remain as part of a SIHIP house, they would have been absolutely mortified. I would not - well, I probably would - let my dog sleep on it, but I certainly would not let my children sleep on it.
In charge of SIHIP at that time in the Northern Territory, of course, was the good member for Daly. We will come back to that.
I move on to local government, because I am aware of the time. This was doomed to fail right at the start. I do not believe there has been any evidence received by the CTC that adequately explains or outlines the reasons why this arbitrary date of 1 July 2008 was the date when this new creature had to come into being. I seem to remember - and I again stand to be corrected if I am wrong - the member for Daly at some point saying it had to start sometime and starting at the beginning of the financial year was a good idea - or something like that. However, it was that arbitrary start date that caused so much of the consternation around reform, and set the scene for the failures of local government reform that have plagued us since that time.
Brought on by that was the IT system which was never tried in an operational sense. It was not suited for the purpose in the Northern Territory. Mr Des Kennedy said in evidence and at a CTC meeting in Katherine - and I quote from the report:
On top of that, the poor old shires, when they came into being, had no idea about their balance sheet …
Mr Giles: And still do not.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: And still – well, they are getting there slowly, but it has been a battle. Promises were made to the shires by the department of Local Government, and some of those promises were broken. There was a promise made to shires that the audited financials from the subsumed community government councils would be handed over to the new shires. This did not occur and, in fact, the new shires were handed nothing more than a mish-mash of unaudited accounts, and unacquitted grants. Moreover, I have some concerns unacquitted grant money may have had to be handed back to the funding bodies, adversely affecting the bottom line of some of those shires. This is a matter I believe will require further investigation by the CTC.
So bad was the accounting system, in evidence given in Katherine, the Roper Gulf Shire had submitted many late business activity statements and they were, in fact, fined by the Australian Taxation Office at one point for the late submission of a business activity statement.
The remainder of the report of dissent from the majority report is there for all to read. It does not contain anything which is untrue or fabricated. It contains words the remainder of the CTC did not want to have included in the main body of the report. I can only let people draw their own conclusions as to why that occurred.
The last point I want to make refers to the analogy I used before. I said the CTC was investigating matters around the fictional, imaginary car, of the brakes, the transmission and the fuel injection system. The head of the department looking after brakes, transmissions and the fuel injection system right from day 1 has been the member for Daly. The member for Daly has been the responsible minister for SIHIP, which was a debacle. He was the man at the helm of local government reform, which has resulted in untold millions of extra dollars in cost to Territorians. The same man, the member for Daly, is the front man for Power and Water. He does not know why 14 000 residents lost power, and how it might be prevented into the future.
The issue I have, as the member for Port Darwin said this morning, goes to whether the member for Daly has the capacity to do the job as a minister of the Crown in the Northern Territory with portfolio responsibilities which affect, so significantly, the lives of Territorians. It must be of grave concern to Territorians that every portfolio this minister gets his hands on seems to turn to mud.
The recommendation in the dissenting report to have this minister stripped of his portfolio responsibilities is nothing more than a call to prevent this minister from getting his hands on anything else - any other serious portfolio areas which affect the lives of Territorians - and turning it into mud. I am being kind when I say mud.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. How effective the CTC will be remains to be seen. I wait in anticipation. I express, again, my reservations about how effective this is going to be. I will certainly give it my cooperation, and I think I can speak for the member for Port Darwin as well in pledging his cooperation. You have seen, from the member for Port Darwin’s contribution earlier that, in the very spirit of cooperation, the members from this side of the House who are on the CTC, allowed the passage of each and every one of the recommendations which came from …
Mr Elferink: Supported.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Absolutely, we supported them. … that came from the Labor members, and also from the member for Nelson. We were not afforded the same level of cooperation. How seriously the word ‘cooperation’ and what that means is being taken by the other members of the committee, also remains to be seen. I guess we will have to reserve our judgment to see how this committee pans out over time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I wish to speak of a very auspicious occasion for the parliament of the Northern Territory; that is, the first report to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly by the Council for Territory Cooperation. I do not intend to speak at length; I have only just received a copy of the report. I give an absolute commitment to members on the Council of Territory Cooperation that I will read the report and the dissenting report
I can also say, categorically, my government will take the recommendations in this report very seriously. I look at these recommendations in the report with a view to implement these recommendations, wherever possible. We will run the recommendations through the full government and Cabinet process, where agencies with carriage of the particular recommendations will be asked to respond. Other agencies affected will be asked to comment. Treasury will certainly look at any costing implications in regard to those recommendations. Of course, Chief Ministers will have a whole-of-government view. I said when I was working this process through with the member for Nelson that my intention as Chief Minister is to take these recommendations in the spirit they are being put forward and, wherever possible, implement those recommendations. Where it is not possible to either implement them in full or in part, there will be a full explanation provided to the members on the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I thank all the members who participated on the council. I congratulate members because I believe, in the spirit in which I entered into the agreement that has seen the council come forward, this is about a new way of opening up the parliament to people of the Northern Territory, and providing an opportunity for parliamentarians across the Chamber to access a level of detail and information that was previously unavailable to members of parliament to help inform policy debate and debate on legislation. I believe, from the quick scan I have just had of the report, we have gone a long way towards doing that, because that has always been the aspiration.
I acknowledge that the members of the opposition who have been on this committee have worked diligently and, as I expected them to from the outset, have sought to use this as a vehicle to provide some political comment. The dissenting report, which I have read, is really just a politically motivated and spiteful attack on the government, and you expect that from the opposition. There is nothing really new in the opposition’s dissenting report. Oppositions always call for the head of the minister for this or that alleged sin - nothing new, nothing original; just part of the political process.
They said from the outset they went into this process with trepidation, but this is a political party opposite that, for all the years they were in government, certainly did everything they could to stop transparency and openness in government. For years, they rejected the establishment of a Public Accounts Committee; they refused to introduce freedom of information legislation; they opposed the introduction of a sensible register of members’ interest; they refused to introduce whistleblowers legislation; they opposed an independent Electoral Commission and, instead, ran it out of the Department of the Chief Minister; and opposed the establishment of a proper estimates process.
Everything we have done to open up the parliament and government to public scrutiny, when they were in government, they refused to do. It was only after we came to power in 2001 these fundamental elements of transparency and an open political system became law and practice in the Northern Territory.
This is another big step forward in transparency and accountability of government programs, policy, and expenditure. I have absolutely no doubt, and will say on the record today, I believe and commit to, on this side of the House, should we retain government at the next election, we will retain the Council of Territory Cooperation. I give that absolute commitment as we move to the next election, because I believe it, fundamentally, opens the doors and windows of this place and of government to the community, to the public. Yes, it is uncomfortable for the government of the day to lose control of the flow of information into the public arena. However, that certainly makes for a more robust, transparent, and accountable system. I am all for that. It will be interesting to see whether the opposition commits to maintaining this council if they come to government.
In addition to their form on transparency, the dissenting report highlights a very concerning trend for the CLP, particularly with the member for Port Darwin. It is evident, time and again, the CLP chooses to denigrate and rubbish the efforts of Territory public servants - in some cases naming them in the process. For me, a former public servant - I was not a senior public servant; I was a fairly high middle-ranking public servant - to see the ongoing attacks on public servants by members opposite, I find absolutely appalling. For better or for worse, our public servants do a great job in their responsibility to implement government programs of the day. Time and again, right back to 2001, the CLP have used this House to attack public servants, in various forms. It is to their eternal shame.
In one sweep, they intend to sack the public servants who work in the Local Government section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services - 64 people; bang, out the door, you are fired - in this report. We know they went to the last election saying they would sack 700 public servants. Well, that leaves 636 to go.
I also wish to condemn efforts by the member for Port Darwin to denigrate the Under Treasurer. This was brought to my attention. I found it absolutely reprehensible, as the member for Port Darwin, as the shadow Treasurer, has access, virtually whenever he wants, to briefings from Treasury officials about the state of the accounts. He would have had numerous briefings from the Under Treasurer over his time in parliament. For him to attack the Under Treasurer is nothing other than despicable. I have worked with the Under Treasurer since we came to government in 2001. I have found the Under Treasurer’s advice and professional capacity, at all times, to be absolutely without question. The Under Treasurer has not only served government well under my predecessor, under me, but also previous Country Liberal Party governments.
To assert in this dissenting report, in some way, the Under Treasurer had been seeking to avoid questions, and answers have been less than fulsome, is outrageous - absolutely outrageous. He should be ashamed of himself. The Under Treasurer is without peer; a person of enormous capacity, integrity, a professional of the highest order. To actually name the Under Treasurer in this report and point to what was a very brief exchange and to highlight that as somehow the Under Treasurer is trying to avoid the question is offensive. I urge the member for Port Darwin to not use coward’s castle in here to denigrate public servants. It certainly does not do his reputation any good at all.
I, as the Chief Minister, and my colleagues are in public life and we are fair game. Have a go at us, absolutely. I expect that, and that is the job you have to do as the shadow Treasurer and a member of parliament. However, do not go public servants, and attack them and their professional capacity, because they are not in public life. They do not put themselves forward in public life and they should not be the object of political attack by the member for Port Darwin. I am proud of the chief executives we have. I am proud of the staff who serve in each agency. They work hard, and they work very long hours. All of those senior public servants work in the interests of the Territory.
I am aware - and I have had this discussion with the member for Nelson - it has taken, on occasion, too long to get information which has been sought to the council. I have directed that information, when it is requested, has to be provided as quickly as possible. My door is always open to the member for Nelson. If he feels some agencies or departments are tardy in their response, then I will get to the bottom of it. We also have to remember some information may be very difficult and time-consuming to collate. If that is the case, it is going to take some time. I expect public servants to come to this council in the spirit it has been established; which is to provide an avenue for informed understanding of the roll-out of government programs and, if there are recommendations to improve those, to bring them forward for government consideration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also say this has been a genuine effort to open up the decision-making processes to broader advice by providing an avenue in a formal and structured way for the views of Independent members, the opposition members, and backbench members of government. This is not the first time this government has acted to change the normal way of governing.
We have established a subcommittee of Cabinet that drives the 2030 project. That subcommittee contains two people from outside the Cabinet process. It is designed to bring an outside voice into the way we govern. In developing Territory 2030, the government chose to have a process driven from the people up to government, a process the CLP criticised in this House. I believe this new way of looking at things is very important, and brings new perception and a new way of thinking into government.
The Council of Territory Cooperation is another element of this thinking. I believe this first report demonstrates we are justified in our thinking on this. At an initial look, I can see much I agree with and much which will require consultation, especially with the federal government who are the major partners in SIHIP. For example, looking at recommendation 15, the council recommends the Northern Territory government immediately improves the training programs for elected members. If these were an issue, the government would see that as a priority; local government would work best with well-informed and trained elected officials.
I suppose there has been a lot of debate in the body of this report, and in this House - and there will continue to be debate - about the roll-out of SIHIP’s program. However, when you stand back from the detail of the roll-out of that program, what we absolutely must not lose sight of is the commitment from the Australian and the Territory governments to improve the absolute dire state of Indigenous housing in remote communities through this program is unparalleled in the Territory’s history - $672m over five years, and $100m of that has come from the Territory government budget. It is unprecedented in its size and its scale to improve housing for Indigenous people. In a program of that size and scale, there are always going to be issues in detail. That is, in part, what this council is all about. We are determined, as a government, to make a significant difference.
SIHIP is part of a national partnership agreement which runs over 10 years, with over $1bn allocated to improving the housing stock in the Northern Territory in remote communities. This is an extraordinary commitment. It is certainly a long overdue commitment from governments. We will see, over the course of this year, a very significant improvement to thousands of houses across the Northern Territory.
In the repairs and maintenance side of SIHIP’s refurbishments program, when the review was conducted some months ago, a decision needed to be made with the budget which was allocated in the first instance; which was, given the scale of unsafe houses in the Northern Territory people were living in, what should the priority be? It was determined, across both governments, the priority had to be to make houses safe in the first instance, and to make them functional for families. Such has been the lack of maintenance and the lack of funding, the priority was we focus on safe and functional houses. We do not resile from that. For every house you bring to a habitable standard, would probably mean five or so houses you would not be able to make safe. We decided, in the interest of safety and functionality, that is where the priority is.
There is a long way to go. As my colleague, the Housing Minister said, this is a journey which is unprecedented in the Northern Territory; it has not being attempted before. Over $1bn has been allocated over 10 years to improve the housing stock in Indigenous communities. We know we probably need two to three times that amount of money. However, it is a significant step forward.
I take the recommendations on board. All of those regarding SIHIP will have to be negotiated with the federal government. They are the major funding partner; it is the government which has committed $572m to this program. It is jointly managed by the Australian and the Territory governments, and we will talk to the Australian government regarding the findings of this report.
As Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, thank you to all the members on this committee. Outside the politics and the personal attacks on public servants, I thank members of the opposition who have worked diligently on this committee. If we can take the politics and the personal attacks out, maybe the next report will be substantially more bipartisan than this one is.
All in all, it is certainly moving in the direction I was hoping it would go, and there is much information now on the public record which, previously, would not have been there. I am confident, when we analyse and run through the recommendations, government processes will be able to implement many of those recommendations.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to the report.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is my understanding, as arranged with the other side, the Chief Minister was to move an adjournment at the end of his comments.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 23 February 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had some outstanding time, I think.
Mr Elferink: Did you? In that case, I will happily sit down let you get on with it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have seven minutes remaining.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I outlined yesterday the importance of this statement and this is a forward looking government in our Climate Change Policy. I outlined the elements of this plan which is a very important plan. Once again, I commend the minister for what he has put forward.
I was very interested in the debate to listen to the member for Fong Lim about a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, following on from him brandishing his - well, it was actually a Labor Party election placard from the 2007 federal election – and the debate that has gone on about the way in which the member for Fong Lim, when he was in federal parliament, actually supported the act which, essentially, overturned Northern Territory legislation and forced a nuclear waste facility on the Northern Territory. It is obvious from the comments by the member for Fong Lim that he still supports such a facility coming to the Northern Territory, and he has turned into somewhat of a commentator on that particular issue.
It occurred to me I should have a look at some of the history of this particular issue. It was very informative for me to go back to the 2004 federal election where this was an issue. There were some categorical assurances given by the then federal minister, Hon Ian Campbell in August 2004. The election, as I recall, was on 9 October 2004, and Ian Campbell came up to the Northern Territory and was speaking to ABC radio on 30 August 2004, when he said:
This is in October 2004:
That was Senator Ian Campbell who, I believe, came to grief over a conversation he had with Brian Burke some time later.
The then member for Solomon was interviewed by Barry Nichols on Friday, 1 October – bearing in mind this is approximately a week before the election – and he said some very interesting things. Amongst others, he said:
That is what the member for Solomon said a week before the 2004 election. Then, on Julia Christensen’s program on 29 September 2004 - get this - he said:
He is squarely on the record assuring people a week out from the 2004 election that there was not going to be a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the Territory, it was going to be on an offshore island. It was not even going to be on any island off the Territory coastline – quite categorical. Yet, just over a year later, I believe in December 2005, there was debate in the federal parliament about this very issue. It was then the federal government introduced legislation to do exactly what the member for Fong Lim found so abhorrent a year before, a week out from the election: to overturn and override Territory legislation and situate a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim supported that legislation.
What does this tell us about the member for Fong Lim? It tells us he is unreliable; he changes from one position - poles apart. Twelve months before, he was a strident advocate for Territory rights; he was not going to sit around and watch anyone overturn or tread upon Territory rights. Yet, a year later, he is part of it, a moving force in it, and is advocating it. I do not really think we can really trust a word this bloke says. As he said himself, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What does he do? The proof is in the pudding.
There is another issue which the member for Fong Lim has never suitably addressed around an election time. That was in the 2007 federal election, about the radiation oncology unit. I was hearing strong rumours around that time the tender process had failed - at least the second time and, possibly, a third time - for the radiation oncology unit in the Northern Territory at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I well remember a media conference at the hospital, where current member for Fong Lim, the then member for Solomon, was asked about this issue. I watched him stumble over it, having heard these very strong rumours. I asked the question: ‘Was he aware, during the 2007 federal election, the tender process had failed?’ I have shown in this House many times the pamphlet the member for Fong Lim issued, where he said around the 2007 election he had actually delivered this radiation oncology unit.
The member for Fong Lim has a little form around elections, saying whatever he has to say to get elected ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow the honourable member to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the minister has already had an extension, have you?
Dr BURNS: No.
Members: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You did not have an extension? No.
Mr Elferink: Hang on. This is a point of order that has yet to be resolved, as I understood.
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, last night the minister asked to finish at 9 pm and, so, he is continued that time.
Mr Elferink: Yes, but if memory serves me - and I could be wrong - he was actually given an extension of time at that point.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he was not. That was the member for Arafura earlier today.
Dr BURNS: I do not recall that, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: Oh, okay, it could be the member for Arafura.
Dr BURNS: However, I digress …
Mr Elferink: Yes, you have.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is the minister’s time be extended by 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank members for the indulgence of giving me an extension of time. I will return to the substance of this debate, which is around climate change and this government’s Climate Change Policy.
In summary, I compliment the member for Brennan. He has been very active in this area; he obviously feels very deeply and is very committed to this area. Once again, I exhort the member for Brennan to keep up the good work in this area. You have a bit of convincing of some of your colleagues on the other side, but you are genuine in your support in having workable policies regarding climate change. I commend the member for that.
I commend the minister also, and the Chief Minister. This is a wide-ranging policy, which has targets and a strategy to move us forward. However, climate change is just not the responsibility of government, as I mentioned previously. All of us in our community need to look at our carbon footprint. It can actually have a positive effect on the bottom line of companies. I mentioned yesterday some companies and larger corporations in Australia are actually looking to reduce their energy consumption, their carbon footprint.
Last year, it was my privilege to launch a green program within the Tourism portfolio to support tourism operators to actually reduce their carbon footprint and become carbon neutral by purchasing offsets. There was a business in Alice Springs - a tour guiding business that takes people out bush throughout Central Australia - and the operator reported to me, since they had become carbon neutral, through a fully audited process, their business actually increased by, from memory, 40% or 50%. Their bookings had gone up by that amount. That really indicates within the tourism industry, consumers are very interested in this and they are looking at their own carbon footprint, particularly with a lot of our long-haul visitors who come from Europe. They are looking at the long jet plane trip out here, and they want to see there are offsets in their holiday.
There are positive moves with consumers and within the community. Government needs to play its part. I believe we are but there is much more we can do. As I said yesterday, I have no doubt climate change and increasing temperatures is a phenomenon; I believe it has been demonstrated. I believe the largest question relates to what degree it will affect our planet; to what degree will sea levels rise? That is a matter of debate. However, those who completely dismiss climate change and the warming of our planet over the last few centuries are burying their head in the sand a bit. What we need to do is have the realistic debate about where climate change is heading and what effects it will have on our planet.
I also said last night in debate it was important for us in the Northern Territory to recognise we are a small jurisdiction economically. We have not had the same sort of industrial development as has occurred in the southern states. Within any carbon change policy and any emissions trade policy, we need to have the capacity as the Northern Territory - and I will certainly fight for the capacity - for us to grow in a balanced way; looking at the environmental impacts, but also the benefits to the people right across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
We also talked, in this policy, a little about some of the green initiatives, particularly some of the solar projects in the remote parts of the Northern Territory. It was my privilege, as Power and Water minister, to see a number of those projects, and they are very impressive. That technology is growing at such a rapid rate, and there are many Northern Territory businesses which are at the cutting edge of that technology. I believe there are special industries which could grow here in the Northern Territory. The Alice Springs Solar City is a great project. It is relatively in its infancy, but it is a great project and deserves support from all.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, it has been my privilege to speak to this debate this evening. I commend the statement by the minister and I look forward to the offerings of other members of the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one of the things I truly love about the member for Johnston is, despite his attempts to play politics and the rhetoric he tries to run, his natural reasonableness occasionally returns, and he actually makes some very good comments. I do not mean that as an insult; I mean it as a compliment to the member for Johnston. Deep down, the scientist which lurks within still strains at the bit to get out and, every so often, you see that manifest itself. Today was one of those occasions. Once we had gotten past the tirade and the scripted lines and all those sorts of things, he then started arguing for a reasoned debate around climate change - absolutely. I could not agree more.
In fact, one of the things I then listened carefully to was his language. It was the return to the old scientific language of caution, care, and no absolute statements - which sets him apart from the man who sits to his immediate right. That is because that man, in dealing with this particular issue, will couch his terminology and phraseology in belief. I heard the Chief Minister say, on numerous occasions, ‘the members opposite do not believe in climate change’. The problem with that type of phraseology is it intones that this carries some religious component which, of course, as the member for Johnston well knows, is a different sphere of debate altogether.
One embraces the metaphysical, where the other embraces the physical. I believe this debate should remain well within the terms of the physical, without using heretical terms such as ‘climate change deniers’. You can almost hear the other word, ‘heretic’, implied in that phraseology. It places the two gentlemen in stark contrast to each other; and I prefer the offerings of the member for Johnston when he is not doing the scripted line stuff, because he then defaults to his natural state, which is a man of critical thinking when it comes to these sorts of issues.
To that end, I listened with interest at the end of his contribution. He asserts there are climate change deniers on this side of the House - and he can assert that all he wants. I describe myself as somebody who likes to critically think about the issues of climate change. I am attracted to restraint in the way we do things regarding our impact on the environment, not necessarily because climate change exists or not; I do not mind restraint in terms of contact. Restraint implies thoughtfulness, and thoughtfulness is something which is important. I also believe, if you want to be thoughtful about these issues, you take the necessary steps to express that thoughtfulness in some sort of physical way.
I wonder what sort of car the minister who introduced this drives? I know what sort of car I drive; the car supplied to me by the Legislative Assembly. It sometimes disappoints me, when I look amongst the ranks of my colleagues on both sides of the House, and do not see any more of that restraint. I believe it would be more useful and credible if members of the government - or whoever comes into this House claiming to be a climate change believer, for lack of better words, or someone who accepts climate change as a scientific phenomenon - would put that belief, that acceptance, into practical steps.
I drive a hybrid car because I believe a hybrid car is, in part, my contribution to this debate in a practical way. We do not use air-conditioners at my home all the time. Sometimes in the evening the kids get air-conditioning, and sometimes we use an air-conditioner in the bedroom but, in other parts of my home, air-conditioners are not used because I am mindful of the energy we use. That is not necessarily because I accept immediately everything asserted about carbon dioxide emissions. It is because I like, as a way of conduct, personal restraint. I believe it is an important thing to do on other levels.
Once again, the statement deals with the future of the Northern Territory, but it is interesting there is a proportional do-ability in the targets set. The Northern Territory Climate Change Policy is available on the Internet. It is interesting to go to some history here, because the Northern Territory government has had a climate change policy before, or a carbon reduction policy and, over two years running through the estimates process, they did not meet those targets. They have now decided to change the policy. They have a Climate Change Policy and an aspirational goal of 60% carbon reduction by 2050. An aspirational goal means the government believes the Territory should aim to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 2007 emissions. Bully for them, Madam Speaker. I cannot wait to see the Chief Minister, in the year 2050, talk about this goal he has achieved. The truth of the matter is the Chief Minister well knows he does not have to achieve those goals.
The question I then apply to the Climate Change Policy is: does the government make any commitments inside the time frame relating to their current term of office, which expires in the year 2012? It does, it does. There are some really good targets they have set themselves in the current cycle. Target 10 from the Climate Change Policy is that by the year 2012 all traffic lights in the Territory on government managed roads will be energy efficient. They are going to fix the traffic lights. We are going to be rescued from the great sea of melting ice which is about to wash into the southern ocean as the newly greening Antarctic environment sheds its ice and floods us all by this government’s Target 10, because all traffic lights on Territory government managed roads will be energy efficient. Wow, that is an aspirational target we can go for! That can be done within the current parliamentary cycle.
By 2011, they are going to develop a climate change adaptation action plan. They are not going to actually do it, just get the plan ready. ‘That is what we are going to do, we are going to have a plan. So, by 2011 we are going to have a plan’ - target 35.
As for other measurable things, like being carbon neutral, the target is 2018. All the big ticket stuff is outside of the current term and the next few terms of the Northern Territory government. That is no major surprise, because they failed to meet their targets the last time they released a climate change policy and said they were going to reduce carbon emissions. Do you know what the target they set was? Minus-1% - 1% less each year. Did they achieve that target? No, they produced more carbon. Does the department of Environment produce the most carbon of any department by a factor of eight, in the Northern Territory government? Yes. There is an issue here which deals with, on one hand, aspirational statements as to what is going to happen in the future and, then, we look at the quality of what they have done in the past. The quality of what they have done in the past does not bode well for a successful aspirational future.
I remember - it must have been 2001-02 - when the No 1 priority for this government was going to be the geothermal energy bill. It was then re-announced in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The No 1 priority for this government became legislation, finally, about eight years after that No 1 priority was identified by government. It is all very well for the Chief Minister to come in here and hold up pictures pointing to Uranus; the fact is, the Northern Territory government will obfuscate, muddy the waters, and run all types of arguments to point the finger at everyone else when, in actual fact, as the government of the day, and the government for nearly the past decade in the Northern Territory, the only people they should be truly looking to is themselves.
I heard the Chief Minister quote at length the European trading scheme as a yardstick, as an ETS scheme. However, anyone who has a cursory knowledge of the European trading scheme knows what an unmitigated disaster it was, simply because the carbon credits which were issued, were issued in such numbers it rendered the credits, essentially, worthless. They hyper-inflated the carbon credits within the first year of operation because of the political interference which undermined that particular scheme. So, for the Chief Minister to say the European carbon trading scheme was a great argument for having an ETS here in Australia, he had better go and have a look at the history of that scheme, because, it was hardly a scheme that covered itself in glory.
I also note in the action plan, which was part of the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy, there is going to be a plan for halving the carbon emissions for public service travel. Well, here is a suggestion for government: if you want to halve the emissions for public service travel, book them on Jetstar because there is only a 50% chance they will catch their flight. I would like to see this government also turn their attention to things such as Jetstar before they start talking about these aspirational plans. What about real issues facing Territorians today, such as the horrendous situation which is starting to form around air travel in and out of Darwin?
I also listened to the member for Johnston in one other area - and I believe he had not been briefed. It is my understanding that, today, the federal minister, Martin Ferguson, introduced a bill into federal parliament which is directly aimed at overriding Territory legislation.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister came into this place and tried, through bluster, bravado, volume and pointing to pictures of planets, to avoid the real issue which is happening here. He said the battle lines are drawn between the ALP and the CLP. Well, I have news for the Chief Minister. If he wants to plan those sorts of battlelines, he had better go and read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War once more because he is targeting the wrong enemy.
It is not entirely unlike watching the British High Command during the fall of Singapore; they pointed all the guns out to sea and were invaded from land. It is not the CLP which is the enemy in this instance; the enemy is going to be the federal government. There are two people in the boxing ring: Kevin Rudd and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Henderson. They are the people who are in the boxing ring and they are the two people who are going to be squaring off against each other. People in opposition, such as the Country Liberals or the federal opposition, are merely speculators to that game.
What I want to hear from the Chief Minister and the member for Johnston is an absolute commitment - in the words of the Chief Minister; he loves this term ‘absolute commitment’ - to spend the $1m running a anti-federal government campaign he spent the last time round. He used taxpayers’ money to do that, as he said it was worth doing that because it was all about protecting Territory rights. Well, here is his opportunity to do that all over again.
Let us protect Territory rights against what is happening in Canberra and the introduction of Martin Ferguson’s bill. I can tell you, this is an outright attack on the liberty of the Northern Territory. This was the reason the bill which turned into an act here in the Northern Territory was introduced in this parliament; to send a signal to Canberra that we would not stand for it. I heard the Chief Minister say: ‘We will not stand for it’. What are you going to do? What is the Chief Minister actually going to do? Outline a plan; tell us what the budget for the advertising is, in your not standing for it. Tell us what you are going to do behind the scenes. Who are you going to pick the phone and speak to? At the moment, it is almost like Peter Garrett is doing this to the Northern Territory.
It concerns me deeply that the government will allow their Labor Party allegiances to stand in the way of what they profess. What they profess is to stand up for Territorians – well, here is the clearest possible test you can have; there is now a bill before the House in Canberra. I want to hear that the Chief Minister is going to raise a campaign against the current sitting member for Solomon as a protest to what is going on in Canberra. That is all he has to do. Of course, it will not happen because, before his allegiance to Territorians, he will have another allegiance which he holds much more deeply; that is, the allegiance to his political party. I believe this Chief Minister, if he fails to stand up and be counted, and engage in an active campaign against Canberra, will be failing his duty to Territorians because of his other allegiance - his allegiance to his political party.
Madam Speaker, this is a straightforward test for government. I call on the Chief Minister and his government to stand up and be counted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Climate Change. There is a global challenge and we have taken decisive action with the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy.
I understand climatic change can be an emotional issue; that people accept it as gospel, and other people deny it. There are some people who are sceptics. Other people inquire about the science behind the climatic change. I agree with the people challenging the science. As a scientist myself, I would like to have some proof there is climatic change - not to confirm it, but I want to see the evidence behind it.
To be a sceptic and to deny it is a different story. A denial is a personal belief in a dogma - a dogma that says nothing is changing, nothing is happening, put your head in the sand, everything will be all right.
Climatic change has been taking place on this planet since this planet was formed. One way or another, climate on this planet has changed. Sometimes, it changed rapidly, sometimes it changed slowly. We have seen evidence of this climatic change through the fossils we find of different eras, through the fossils that are extinct because of some cataclysmic event that took place and triggered some significant changes in the planet. There are theories about a meteor crashing on earth, and the result of this collision was a significant change in the environment through the dust in the air and reduction in the sunlight and, as a result, possibly, dinosaurs became extinct.
We also saw climatic change take place even more recently in the 19th century when a volcano, Krakatoa, in the Indonesian Archipelago, with a massive explosion, spewed so much dust and ash into the atmosphere the air was blanketed by a layer of ash which prevented sun rays reaching the atmosphere, with significant results like cooling down the planet and creating some difficult conditions for plants and animals. We saw the climatic change when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines exploded in the 1990s. The emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere had a significant impact on the atmospheric temperature. If you read the book, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, by Tim Flannery, there are some stories and evidence of the climatic change which were even more recent.
After 11 September, the American government ordered all aeroplanes to be grounded until they found out what caused the terrorist attack. Scientists observed there was ash - what they called significant; for us it appears significant - which caused a few degrees Centigrade increase of the atmospheric temperature. They actually came to the conclusion, when the aeroplanes were flying, their exhausts had created a blanket effect in the atmosphere, preventing some of the solar radiation reaching the earth’s atmosphere and surface and, as a result, when this blanket disappeared, there was increased radiation reaching earth and the temperature of the earth and the atmosphere increased.
What we see now are some climatic changes that are taking place very quickly. What in the past would take eons, centuries, or thousands of years for changes to impact upon the environment, in the past few years we have seen a significant impact, mostly of an anthropogenic nature. We know very well that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere increased since we started burning coal during the Industrial Revolution. We know carbon dioxide increased since we started using fossil fuel extensively at the end of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. We also know now of the significant melting of the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic and, of course, we have scientists predicting the extinction of the glaciers in the Himalayas.
However, when certain inquiries were made and more scientific evidence was sought after, we found that was not true. That is why I say, as a person with a scientific background, I want to see more evidence about the climatic changes. I want to see a robust debate, but I am not going to close my eyes, dig my head into the sand, and say nothing is changing, everything will be fine, mate, do not worry, keep doing what we are doing.
What is really interesting is, a few years ago when I was the minister for the Environment, I attended a briefing by the CSIRO in Canberra. I have to admit, when I saw the CSIRO report, I nearly fell off my chair. At the time, there was a Coalition minister who laughed at the proposal that there was a possibility water would lap at the doorsteps of the houses in Cairns, until the CSIRO scientist said that was quite accurate; there will be a significant rise of the sea level that will affect low-lying areas.
There are other effects. For example, in the past 25 years we have seen a significant decrease in rainfall in the south-west of Western Australia. We know very well, because south-western Australian being an agricultural area, rain has been measured for the past 100 years. The reduction in rainfall in that particular region is recorded through the Meteorology department.
What else is very interesting is the fact that the climatic changes are stronger in the northern tropical region in Australia and other tropical areas. The rainfall will withdraw from east Queensland and will increase in Central Australia, the Barkly and Alice Springs regions. On the other hand, the strength of cyclones which will occur in the tropical north of Australia will increase significantly. I do not know about Queensland, but I recall very well when I was in Western Australia, living in Port Headland for three years, we did not see one cyclone. The cyclones used to come down across the Pilbara as a Category 2 or 3 maximum. Since I have been in Darwin for the past 17 or 18 years, the cyclone strength has increased and we see more Category 5 cyclones, which start in the Coral Sea, cross the Gulf of Carpentaria, get into the Northern Territory and degenerate into a tropical low, cross the Territory and strengthen again as cyclones as they go towards the Pilbara coast, and hit the Pilbara coastline. I do not know if it is a coincidence, or a sign that things are really changing.
It will be a significant challenge for us, particularly in the Northern Territory. The Territory is divided between two significant regions, the arid centre and the tropical north. Both areas are significantly impacted upon by the change in climate. It is not only the impact from the sea rising and inundating low-lying areas, it is also the significant impact it will have on human health. In Darwin, we have Leanyer swamp. Every time we have king tides, and every time we get rain, there are significant mosquito breeding areas we manage to control by spraying from helicopters using pesticides. If the frequency of king tides caused by increasing sea levels, and if rainfall increases, this will be a more frequent event in Darwin and other low-lying areas, and we will see a significant impact upon the human population.
On the other hand, drought in Central Australia will impact upon people living there. Lack of water will make many communities unliveable. There are already marginal areas, marginal lands, relying on groundwater, where the aquifer is recharged through rainfall. Any significant change in rainfall will see a significant change in the availability of groundwater which, in turn, will affect the central arid zone of Australia.
I only have to remind you of what is happening in Sahel, which is the region south of the Sahara. With the Sahara Desert advancing to the south, many people living in areas that had grass and savannahs which were green, who farmed their animals and grew their food, are now being pushed further south, creating not only desertification, but also impacting upon the population in the south of that area. All these refugees have to stay somewhere, be fed, and have access to water. We have seen this happening time and time again.
Our Northern Territory Climate Change Policy has been developed in consultation with Territorians. There is not much point in having a policy developed by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats tend to see things in a different way. What will come into account is how much it is going to cost, how quickly we can do it, and what the government can deliver in an election cycle - usually four years. This is going to be a long-term policy, not for four years, but for the next 10, 15, and 20 years. We have had contributions from environment and community groups, Indigenous groups, and of course, industry. As the Minister for Climate Change mentioned, there was significant input by people from all over the Territory, and the feedback received has been taken into consideration in developing the policy.
We have committed $34m to undertake priority actions outlined in the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy. With 40 targets and 118 actions, the policy will guide us to decisive action. By 2020, we want to establish carbon offsets to remove at least four million tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere through land management-based carbon offsets.
Many methods are tried around the world today. There is vegetation; do not clear land in a way which will increase emissions and have a serious impact on land. Also, new modern agriculture techniques, so you do not lose the topsoil, and you do not let carbon escape from the ground, or even incorporate carbon into the ground in order to bind the carbon into the ground rather than be emitted into the atmosphere.
We will work together with Territory landowners and investors to develop new carbon offset opportunities. We will assist land managers in participation as stakeholders, to develop government’s frameworks for sustainable participation in carbon offset management. We will work with the pastoral industry. We will attempt to find ways to reduce emissions from animals. There are significant emissions from animals because they are ruminants and the emissions are part of their digestive system and process. At the same time, we will attempt to reduce emissions in transporting these animals to the markets. Currently, the animals exported from Darwin to the markets in South-East Asia have the lowest emission per capita because they are transported by boat. We cannot say the same about other animals which are transported from the Territory down south by truck. By the simple formula of head of animals, distance and fuel consumed, it makes it easier and better to transport by boat, or even by train, than by truck.
We have to look at the mining industry. The mining industry can have an effect on climatic change – a negative effect or a positive effect. Of course, a negative effect would be through the operations. On the other hand, the positive effect is what we mine, and for what purpose. Natural gas is a fuel; when you burn it, you produce carbon dioxide. The difference between natural gas and carbon is the significantly less emissions using liquefied natural gas compared to carbon. If we can convert the Australian power stations to burn gas, we will have a significant reduction in the emissions of coal-fired power stations of Australia
Here in the Territory, most of our power stations are fuelled by LNG, by natural gas. However, there are a significant number of small communities that are powered by diesel which, of course, emits more greenhouse gases and has an impact on the environment and, hence, an impact on climatic change. We can use renewable energy such as solar panels but, until we actually reticulate gas to most of the big communities for their power stations, we will still continue to have the same problem. You can actually power the power station for 12 hours using sun but, when it is dark, you have to find another source of energy, and that source will be a diesel generator.
Uranium, for many years has been a dirty word in Australia and the western world. People associate uranium with nuclear energy, nuclear bombs and nuclear war. The Chernobyl accident, of course, did not help. Fortunately, Chernobyl was not due to any fault of the construction or the design of the nuclear power station; it was because the operators of the power station exceeded the safety parameters for the operation of the power station, bringing it to such a state they were unable to control it, and it resulted in the explosion in Chernobyl.
On the other hand, if you look at the scientific evidence of the emissions by uranium, or any other fuel, through the whole of life of the power station – that means from the moment you start mining it, to the moment you start disposing of it, and anything in between – you find the power station with less emissions are the hydro-electrics, followed by uranium, followed by solar energy, followed by wind energy, followed by natural gas and the last and most polluting are the coal-fired power stations.
The Northern Territory has significant bodies of uranium which currently are exported, providing 1% of uranium in the world, which helps significantly reduce emissions by power stations around the world. If you bear in mind India is considering building another 28 power stations, and China is proceeding to build 58 power stations, the impact and the effects uranium can have on climatic change in the Territory are significant. If these power stations were coal-fired power stations, the emissions would be tremendous.
The other thing we can do, as government, is promote green solutions for the public service, for the buildings we utilise by requesting four- or five-green status. We can achieve that by changing the way the buildings are designed. Most buildings are built to be constantly air-conditioned and illuminated by electric lights. Even if you look in this parliament, we are actually sitting in a bunker. The old buildings had big windows so you did not have to have artificial lighting inside those buildings. I am very pleased to have seen some new designs for office buildings which are surrounded by glass that is formulated to allow natural light to go in, but to reflect the light rays that produce heat, which then you have to combat by air-conditioning.
Air-conditioning is significant. With the new inventions in air-conditioning, even in our own houses, you can use air-conditioners that actually use less electricity than the old traditional style that can consume a lot of electricity when they fire up, and when they stop again.
We now have the white diodes we can us for some of the lights that produce exactly the same light as normal light, but consume about 10% of the energy. If the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Alice Springs can provide 50% of their energy by utilising solar panels on their roof, and using that electricity to power the lighting, the hot water system, and the air-conditioner, why can we not do that, say, in our hospitals and our public buildings?
Another question I put to my department was: why do we have to have V8 four-wheel drives moving one person, let us say, from here to 100 km away? Why can we not use smaller cars, and ask people when they travel, instead of each one having a car, to travel together if going in the same direction? My department has now initiated a change of fleet. Our fleet will not have the big gas guzzlers; they will actually utilise cars that have a smaller capacity, and also will not be using petrol but diesel, which is more economic.
Climatic change will affect us. The good thing is we can all have an effect on the climatic change by doing a few little things in our own houses, but also in our workplace. One of the things we are talking about for some of the big hospitals is why we cannot use co-generation? That means using the heat from power generation to either cool or heat water. There are examples where, in Europe, a lot of the air-conditioning takes place from co-generation.
Our government is also looking to find new sources of energy. Geothermal is a new form of energy. We have introduced legislation to allow exploration, and to allow the industry to exploit and export geothermal sources of energy. There are places in the world - Hawaii, some of the Greek islands, New Zealand - which are utilising for their power stations very hot steam that comes under high pressure from volcanic areas. This can be done here in geothermal areas. We have some of them in the Northern Territory - very hot rock we can use to inject water and take steam which can be used to power turbines. Now, geothermal has become very popular.
We have had 17 applications for exploration of geothermal energy in the Territory before lunch when we opened for applications. From 8 am to 12 noon, we received 17 applications from industry for the exploration of geothermal energy because it is clean, it is green and, of course, they get the carbon credits.
Another program we have is the solar cities. We supported the Australian government and Desert Knowledge Australia develop a solar demonstration facility for solar energy. You can see that in Alice Springs at Desert Knowledge. The Territory will remain a low land-clearing jurisdiction with the introduction of native vegetation legislation. That, combined with whatever it will take to reduce energy consumption, utilising natural gas for powering our power stations, finding new solutions for how to do business better and more clever, I believe, we can be an example for the rest of Australia, and the rest of the world.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to listen to the members speaking in this debate, and their personal anecdotes about climate change. We are talking within the lifetimes of the members of this House.
For me, it reflects on issues in living in north-western New South Wales, and seeing the Barwon River flow regularly - it was there every day - then, in the 1990s, crossing the Darling River at Willcannia and seeing it dry. It was dry like that for many years. I crossed the Hay Plain as a child and witnessed the environment, and then crossed a number of years later, once in the 1990s and in the new millennium, and saw it as a dust bowl. Also, there are the changes we have seen in the great Lake Eyre. We have to be very serious about what changes have happened through human habitation and industrial revolution.
There is no place for scepticism. The scientists will do their work and the research will continue. I am proud to be part of the Henderson government whose minister has brought this Climate Change Policy forward. It shows a government that is forward thinking, that is concerned and, I believe, shares some common ground with all members about care of our environment and environmental protection on the way forward.
Building the productivity and prosperity of the Northern Territory imposes challenges for public transport growth, land release, supply and demand, sustainable infrastructure, and adapting to climate change. Infrastructure is integral to our ongoing efforts to achieve sustainable development in the Territory, achieving economic growth and social advancement while, at the same, time protecting our environment. Increased energy consumption in the built environment is forecast as a result of the higher temperatures predicted with climate change.
That is one of the reasons why we have acted, implementing new energy-efficient measures for new building design. We want to reduce the economic costs of building energy in efficient homes for the future. Research has shown better designed commercial and residential buildings provide some of the most affordable forms of greenhouse gas abatement in the economy. Infrastructure planning, design, construction and operation need to be conducted in accordance with sustainability principles.
These principles will form the foundation of the Henderson government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy. Planning the facilities for the use of public transport, walking and cycling as viable transport options, will help ensure the Territory’s sustainability, liveability, and productivity.
Through the Department of Lands and Planning, we have a number of energy management programs and initiatives. The NT government’s Energy Smart Building Policy has the objective to achieve and maintain best practice energy management in NT government operations, and sets a 10% energy intensity reduction target for Northern Territory government agencies by 2010-11. The Northern Territory government Energy Efficiency Program is a funding mechanism to support the NT Energy Smart Building Policy and represents significant investment to address climate change. The Energy Smart Schools Program is aimed at achieving a Territory-wide approach to energy management and sustainability in government schools. These programs strengthen the Henderson government’s commitment to climate change.
The Territory 2030 strategy clearly articulates a vision for the new town of Weddell, including the intent it will be a world-class green city. As the Territory’s newest green city on a greenfield site, Weddell presents the Territory with the opportunity to design a city which will be a model for tropical cities and towns of the future, with environmentally sustainable homes and buildings, and first-class urban design. The development of a new, well-designed city is complex and will require the integration of many linked concepts, including: housing; affordability and social inclusion; access to education and health services; commercial and industrial infrastructure; land use frameworks and transport networks; communications; recreation facilities; lifestyle; and, public places and parklands. Environmentally sustainable design principles supporting climate change will underpin the development of Weddell.
Protecting our environment is everybody’s responsibility, and making our homes more efficient is one way we can all help reduce climate change. Climate change is one of the most important issues facing our community. That is why this government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% over the next five years. From May this year, all new homes constructed in the Territory are required to meet the 5-star energy efficiency rating. Reducing our carbon emissions and having more energy efficient homes is one way we can all work towards protecting our environment. It will also save Territorians money through reduced power bills into the future. The 5-star rating for new homes will require increased insulation for walls and roofs, increased shading, increased glazing, and more sensitive orientation of the building. Building a new home or renovating your existing home provides an opportunity to incorporate sustainable features which will reduce the energy resources your home needs.
New units will be required to meet the 3.5-star rating. Until now, units did not have to comply with the defined energy rating. This is because the Building Code did not deal with the unique Territory climate - tropical north and an arid centre. This is a significant move, and a challenge for our local development industry; however I am confident it is the right move for our future.
Many Territorians choose to live and invest in unit developments, for hundreds are built each year. As a government, we support these developments which provide for housing mix in our housing stock. I believe many Territorians will welcome government’s moves to improve the energy efficiency of new units.
Moves towards 5-star energy efficiency provisions in new houses have been part of the national housing landscape since 2005. The Territory delayed introducing five-star energy efficiency measures pending adjustments to the modelling tools to address the Territory’s climate, which includes Darwin and Alice Springs being assessed differently.
We have not made these changes without working closely with the housing industry. An industry reference group was set up to consult with the building industry, and it has advised government it is now appropriate to move to 5-star energy rating for new homes, and to adopt a 3.5-star energy rating for new units.
Relevant design and construction industry groups consulted during this process of adopting a 5-star energy efficiency rating included the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Association, architects, building designers, and building surveyors. Government will continue to consult with industry on energy efficiency requirements for commercial buildings. I am pleased to advise some builders are already building to, or exceeding, the five-star standard set by the Building Code. What we have done is raise the minimum standard. The Arnhemica office building in Parap is an excellent example of energy efficiency. Public information sessions will be held in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs next month which further adds to the education on this very important issue.
As stated by the Chief Minister, the Henderson government has allocated $4.5m in the 2009-10 budget, in partnership with the Rudd government’s Solar Cities Initiative, to develop a solar plan and upgrade the air-conditioning system for the Araluen Art Centre in Alice Springs. This multimillion dollar Alice Solar City Project will be the first of its kind in the Northern Territory, where air-conditioning and heating will be generated by solar energy. This project is an example of our commitment to address climate change. It will be the first solar cooling project of its kind and magnitude in the world. It is anticipated the completion date for this iconic project is July 2011. The use of solar energy should reduce electricity use at the Araluen Art Centre by about 50%, and gas use by 70%.
The transport sector is one of the fastest growing greenhouse emission sectors and, as such, provides significant opportunities for greenhouse gas reduction. I am for the culture of changing behaviour, and of developing public transport. Like the Henderson government, the Northern Territory public transport system puts in the hard yards for Territory families. Last year, our buses travelled over five million kilometres, made over 200 000 trips, and moved around 4.5 million Territorians to where they wanted to go. They make it easier and safer for people without cars to access services. They reduce the need for private vehicles through providing a choice of alternative travel modes and, by doing so, they reduce the adverse environmental and social impacts of transport on communities.
I am proud to be part of the Henderson government’s initiatives on public transport. In January last year, we became the first government in Australia to give free travel on all school and public bus services for seniors, pensioners, carers, and students. There has been a solid take-up from the public and we are significantly reducing traffic congestion, parking congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions. And it does not stop there. The Henderson government is improving and expanding our public transport services. We have introduced new Darwin bus services to Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and the convention centre. I was proud when the COOLmob applauded this government’s introduction of bus services to our iconic Mindil Beach Markets last year, reducing traffic and parking congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier this month, the Minister for Central Australia, Hon Karl Hampton, announced the start of $185 000 school bus service to Jay Creek. The uptake of school kids using the bus has been exceptional and, just yesterday I was informed 42 kids caught that bus to school. That is 42 kids who did not need cars to get to school - and 42 kids at school. That is a real result for the environment, our education sector, and those kids.
However, we want to go further. We are introducing cleaner and greener buses into our Darwin bus fleet. Euro 5 is a new standard to restrict the amount of harmful pollutants from commercial vehicles reducing exhaust gases. There are now five Euro 5 buses in the fleet and more will follow as the fleet is progressively replaced. These buses reduce nitrogen oxides by 42%.
Park and ride facilities in the rural area will also be established this year, and rural bus services expanded to provide our ever-increasing rural population with better access to our public bus services. This will deliver on another election commitment and will improve commuter and social transport options in the rural area, cut travel costs and congestion for more people, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. This year, rural bus services will be coordinated into the new orbital bus service which will provide for increases in service levels between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina. Again, more people on our buses means less cars on our roads, and results in a cleaner and a greener Territory.
The Henderson government is taking action to help the environment even further by providing free public transport to the Territory’s many major and special events. Last year, more than 70 000 people enjoyed the services this government has provided to these events, and we will again see free buses to many of our major events this year. This weekend, our buses will be carrying scores of excited fans to their favourite game of Rugby League.
Territory 2030 will see less impact on the environment through reduced reliance on private motor vehicles. Not only will we see more Territorians walking and cycling, but we will see more Territorians using public transport. The Henderson government will give even better public transport options to Territory families this year with the release of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy and the overarching 10-Year NT Transport Strategy for the Territory. These strategies will not only forge better links between our regions and centres, and deliver better education, health and social outcomes for all Territorians, but they will help the environment by giving Territory families alternatives to using their cars.
This is part of our plan to deal with the Territory’s booming population. This is what we stand for. These are the challenges we take on and this is the delivery that we effect for all Territorians. Not only is the Henderson government providing the safest and best public transport services in the Territory’s history, we are also providing the cleanest and the greenest.
Madam Deputy Speaker, climate change is real and, unlike the sceptics, this government is serious about the world we live in and will be leaving behind for future generations of Territorians.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for making this statement today. Climate change is a very important area. However, we do tend to drift, quite often, into areas of all talk and no action. I recognise the government is trying to do things in the area of climate change. I am not a climate change sceptic; I am sceptic of no action - on many things.
We have seen in this parliament rigorous debate by the government - not by outside, by the government - on whether or not the Country Liberals should be supporting the global financial crisis stimulus package the federal government put in place. We heard that debate and the accusations made by many on the other side, including the Chief Minister, attacking this party and us over our reluctance to talk to our Senator in the federal parliament in regard to supporting the stimulus package. It is important to know what the stimulus package has actually achieved. There are many areas where some things have gone well and some things have not.
In this area of climate change and some of the reactions to solving some of the problems or addressing some of those concerns regarding climate change, it is interesting to hear the commentary which has been going on for many weeks now about the insulation program. I am sure we are all up to date on that.
I would like to tell a little story about a bloke I would like to call Steve. Steve became an insulation installer in Alice Springs. I will refer to him as Steve, and will not give his full name. Steve had a Certificate III in General Construction for the purposes of carpentry from Charles Darwin University. Steve heard about the stimulus package when it was first announced and what would be occurring with the insulation program, with the $1600 rebate where, if people got insulation installed they could get $1600 back. Steve is an entrepreneur who thought this was a terrific opportunity to get into business for himself and have a go at it. Where I live, many people in Central Australia - and, I am sure the rest of the country - have been inundated with flyers in their letterboxes saying: ‘Come and get your insulation for free’. I have received many of those and many people in the electorate have taken them up.
Steve wanted to get into business, so he asked the federal government what he could do about it. They told him how to apply - you apply online; none of this rigorous application process that will test your skills to be able to do the job, your fitness for duty, your understanding of the electrical cabling works in roofs. Steve was given the go-ahead to do this work. I am referring to a story Steve, the person in question, has told me.
He was authorised to start work in July. He started work in July, having never installed insulation in a roof before. Steve was putting flyers into people’s letterboxes, advising they could have installation for free. He was doing that, undertaking those jobs, and sending the copy of the invoicing to the federal department to claim his $1600 back.
A question came to Steve, at some point. He was asked whether he had what they call a white card, and he responded: ‘Why?’ The federal government, through the department of Employment - which I will refer to as the federal government for this purpose - when he responded: ‘We do not have white cards in the Northern Territory’ and asked if it was going to cause him a problem in his business with the jobs he had done and had on his books to do. They said: ‘No, do not worry about it, just keep going. You will be right’. Steve had done the right thing by asking whether he needed to have more qualifications, and they said: ‘No, that is not the case’.
Anyhow, he went through a process of trying to obtain his white card so he could be authorised under the federal government program to continue installing insulation. He was fortunate enough, after five-and-a-half months of installing insulation, to receive his white card, based on his Certificate III in Construction for carpentry. That authorised him to get a white card to install the insulation. The purpose of me going through this story is to explain that, if you cannot run a program, how can you run climate change seriously? On 12 December 2009, Steve got his white card, which I have here, Madam Speaker.
He has gone through a lot of to and fro since that point in time, talking with the department of Environment asking if he can move to a position where he becomes certified. This certification request came in January, at a time when it started to get political mileage, to put it in that context. Things started to get hot in Canberra, so they said: ‘Right, you now have to get certification’. Steve said: ‘But we do not have an insulation certification program in the Northern Territory’ - which we do not. He lives in Alice Springs and there was absolutely nothing in Alice Springs in that regard. At the time, when people were falling off being installers of insulation, he was advised by the federal government to just keep going until they could investigate it.
Some time passed, until February, when we saw Mr Midnight Oil in a whole lot of trouble about this program, when they said: ‘You are really going to have to start being compliant with the electricity inspection requirements; to get an electrician there to check to see whether the inside of the roofs are live’. So, he has had to go down that process of undertaking those assessments, at the same time, fielding the request to get some sort of insulation qualifications.
What was happening at the federal level, when they were having the debate on climate change, is that the federal government was saying: ‘We are active on climate change. We are borrowing all this money, putting the country into years of debt, to fund insulation in people’s houses as part of the climate change initiative’ - which is not a bad climate change initiative; it is just how well you can run the program, how well you can run your department, and how well you can run your country.
However, it has reached the point now where Steve has been informed he will not be able to participate in this program any more because he has not been able to get that insulation certification because it is not run in the Northern Territory. I am not sure how many other people in the Northern Territory actually have that certification to continue this program. I am not aware of any, and I have done a fair bit of research. I am not aware of any - that is not saying that there are none. However, I am not aware that has actually occurred.
This poor bloke has gone out and leveraged himself to start a business, to run a program - as I understand, doing it as well as possible. He has told me he has installed a couple of foil insulations - the ones that were in contention a couple of weeks ago in the media. He had not, at that time when I spoke to him - probably a week-and-a-half ago - been contacted by the federal department of Environment asking him if he had installed any foil insulation. It was interesting to see, at the time when this was such a big issue, this bloke had not even been contacted to see what he had actually installed.
The point is, as of this morning, he had to go out of business, to lose his job because of the failures of the federal minister, Mr Peter Garrett, in running this program. It goes to the heart of how committed the federal government, and Labor is, and how committed Northern Territory Labor is, in addressing climate change. Clearly, this is a failure - and clearly a failure which has put people’s lives at risk in the Northern Territory, in Central Australia, in Alice Springs.
I have not spoken to him since the last time I spoke to him to find out how things are going with inspecting the insulation he has provided. I know he has given advice to the federal government to tell them of the houses he had put foil insulation in, but he had not heard back at that point. So, he has arranged himself for an electrician to go around there, at his cost, to inspect it to ensure he has actually done the job properly. He was having a hard time getting the federal government to respond, up to a week-and-a-half ago when I spoke to him.
It gets worse than that. There are many constituents in my electorate who have decided to go up into their roof and check out how the insulation was installed. People are going into their roofs, finding out only half or a third of the insulation was ever installed. This is a signal that further cements the problem with this insulation program.
I would like the government, rather than addressing one question in Question Time, to explain to the Territory parliament and Territorians how many people are at risk in the Northern Territory. How many people are at risk of their houses burning down in the Northern Territory? Have there been any? How many people in the Northern Territory have electrified roofs? This is all part of climate change policy, and the response to climate change policy. I really would like them to do that.
It shows if you can not run a simple insulation program, you cannot run the country. We have seen the same thing with SIHIP. Here is a whole slate of money designed to solve one particular problem in the Northern Territory - and what has the government done? They have completely stuffed it!
We heard one of the committee members from the Council of Territory Cooperation talking today about requesting more money from the federal government for SIHIP. How can he have $672m, build two houses, and be asking for more money? How can you do that? It gets worse! I would like the federal government to investigate how many people in the Territory - and this is not a witch hunt - have had claims against their house and a rebate paid for insulation installation, and the work has not been done. I am interested to know how many companies have been paid $1600 with no installation being installed in houses. I believe you will find that to be a hairy figure of claims going into the federal government; $1600 paid here there and everywhere, and no work being done. There are houses across the Northern Territory where people think they have compliant with the insulation system, and they are not because of a dodgy program.
It continues on climate change. We talk about remote communities, and it is easy and needed to campaign on the issue surrounding diesel power generation in remote communities. There was a program run by the federal government which received a large amount of media attention. It was a remote solar panel power generation program to replace diesel generators. The government, in its wisdom last year trying to save money, decided they would cancel that program. This was a program employing many people in the Northern Territory, not only replacing diesel electricity generation systems, or supplementing the electricity generation, but employing many people to do the maintenance on these systems. The federal government, in its wisdom, in its big climate change brow-beating or chest-beating approach, has cancelled it.
We now have communities who were on schedule to have their electricity systems replaced, which would have a positive impact on the environment, which cannot receive that program any longer because the government has tried to save money. However, it will throw money out the door everywhere. It will waste money on bad management of the insulation program; it will waste money on bad management of SIHIP. The member for Fannie Bay, in his role on the CTC, is now seeking more money from the federal government. That is in line with the conversation about funding being cut in half for house refurbishments because of bad management by the government.
There are examples right across the Northern Territory, of where this government is not actioning climate change initiatives. I am advised there is need for more power in areas around the Barkly to support economic development. The government will not make that investment into more power generation and economic development so business can grow in the Barkly region. There are, potentially, another 500 jobs which could grow in certain industries in the Barkly region. However, the government will not invest in power generation. The company looking at investing, with job creation and economic development in the Barkly, has offered to run a large solar panel project, which would be the second largest in the southern hemisphere, to assist primarily in power generation for their industry and, on a secondary level, as a tourism opportunity to see the second biggest solar panel project in the southern hemisphere.
The government will not support them in assisting or providing a base load of power for this industry to commence. Here we have an opportunity that looks at climate change, economic development, and job creation, but the government will not invest in that project. It just goes to show, once again, if you cannot manage a project, you cannot manage the Territory.
What we have seen with these two particular programs by the federal government - the insulation program which has now been cancelled and, today I understand, has had a $41m injection to try to protect people who are losing their jobs because Peter Garrett got it so wrong and the cancellation of the solar panel for remote communities project. We have opportunities to put more climate change supportive power generation models in areas such as the Barkly which will support industry development. We have stories such as the Chief Minister last year lambasting the hybrid Toyota Prius and similar cars for not being energy efficient enough, and deciding to take on much larger powered vehicle cars.
There are numerous examples in the Northern Territory where climate change is not a real concern. It is a real concern to the green political vote and how you attract the preference deals at election time, but it is not a significant enough deal on how you actually have fundamental changes in the Northern Territory to address climate change and support economic development and job growth.
This is an industry which should be a thriving industry but the government is not committed to that. Then we heard this afternoon - after much debate over the last couple of days, especially yesterday and last night, about this nuclear waste - some political beat-up on the member for Fong Lim and many on the Country Liberals side of politics, about how the government is going to stand up to these big bullies in the Labor Party - how they stood up to them in 2004 and in 2007, and they are going to stand up to them again. Then they attacked us.
We are not in the debate. We are on the periphery. People decided in 2007. It was put up for the popular decision and they decided. We have the member for Lingiari - someone who I ran against in a federal campaign - out there supporting not having a nuclear waste dump. We had the Senator for the Northern Territory, Trish Crossin, saying she did not support a nuclear waste dump. We had the now member for Solomon saying he did not support a nuclear waste dump. It is interesting to see these people, in their wiggling little room at the moment, because they are in a bind.
The Chief Minister, in Question Time today, was talking about how he would stand up for the Territory. He did not answer the question about whether he would put $1m towards the campaign against the federal government, the candidate for Solomon, the candidate for Lingiari, or the Senate Labor Party seat for the Northern Territory and what these people are doing. What did we see the Resources minister, Martin Ferguson, do this afternoon? He introduced legislation to repeal some of the Northern Territory legislation.
At the same time this was happening, we had this big debate going on about statehood. The Northern Territory government is spending money on a statehood campaign. A lot of people in the community are asking: ‘Will we ever achieve statehood?’ Not while we are in the mess we are in. People say: ‘We would never have had the intervention if we had statehood because the federal government could not overrule the Northern Territory government’. That would be a bad thing, I believe. However, putting that aside, the intervention has been a good measure in the Northern Territory. We will never move towards the position of statehood while the government continues to run the place as it is running it. If the government had actually done their job in the last 10 years we might be a state now and they might not be able to introduce this legislation to override Northern Territory legislation. That is where we are, Madam Speaker ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I note that, at 5.30 pm, I will be closing government business and bringing on general business.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, would you like me to conclude now, or continue my remarks at a later date?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you can continue until 5.30 pm.
Mr GILES: No worries, Madam Speaker.
We have this issue about a nuclear waste dump coming into the Territory, and the Chief Minister and his mob of cronies over there are trying to bring the Country Liberals into the debate. It has nothing to do with us. We can buy a box of popcorn and sit on the sideline and watch you two have a blue - the Territory government versus the federal government. It will be very interesting to see if the Territory government and the Chief Minister have to bring legislation into this House to support it. It will be very interesting. I would really like to see the Chief Minister back his convictions and start that campaign - funded by Territory Labor, not by the government - and campaign heavily against the candidates who are running for Labor in the Northern Territory, and tell them we do not want this nuclear waste dump …
Mr Tollner: The only way to stop it is to vote against Labor.
Mr GILES: That is right. The only way to stop the nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is to vote against Labor. These are the people who sold out the Territory. They stood up for them in 2004 and in 2007 but, in 2010, they will roll over and get tickled on the belly. This is the nuclear waste dump - something that runs deep through the heart of Labor. I know it does. It must be hurting. They must be listening, fielding calls from the Greens saying: ‘What are you going to do?’
The federal minister for Resources, Martin Ferguson, has just announced they are going to overturn or override legislation in the Northern Territory. Now, the Territory government, Territory Labor is stuck. It would be good to be on the outside of this just watching. Fortunately for the Country Liberals, we are. We are not in the game; we are out of the game. It is a fantastic opportunity.
Coming back to the Climate Change Policy ministerial statement, we support measures to reduce the impact of human activity on the climate. However, we do not think the Northern Territory government has the capacity to do that. They are all talk and no action - just the same as SIHIP, the pink batt program, the reluctance to change diesel-generated power systems in communities to solar, and in not condoning the federal government for cancelling the solar panel program. It is a failure. The pontificating by the Chief Minister about the nuclear waste facility is just further indication of the inept approach and the inability for the Northern Territory government to move forward on climate change.
I thank the member for Brennan for the hard work he has done on climate change, and the input he has had on calling on the Territory government to bring about this legislation, to move forward …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it now being 5.30 pm, I ask you to resume your seat. Under Standing Order 93 in respect of general business, the resumption of debate on this item of business so interrupted will be continued on the next sitting day. I call on general business.
Debate suspended.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, at the request of, and on behalf of, the member for Araluen, Ms Carney, I move the bill be now read a second time. I thank the Leader of Government Business and members for their indulgence in allowing this to occur. I am clearly not Ms Carney, and I present this bill on her behalf.
The bill seeks to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. Under existing legislation, the Children’s Commissioner can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - that is, children in the care of the CEO - or the implementation of recommendations arising from the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse report. The Children’s Commissioner does not have any ‘own motion’ investigative powers under the current act. The Care and Protection Children Act establishes a Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee. The primary role of this committee is to assist in the prevention and reduction of child deaths. The Children’s Commissioner, however, cannot instigate an investigation into information obtained through the committee’s duties unless it comes in the form of a complaint.
This bill expands the scope of the Children’s Commissioner’s functions to allow the commissioner to initiate an ‘own motion’ investigation into situations that involve children defined as protected under the act and children not in the care of the CEO. The commissioner’s functions also include the ability to investigate allegations of child abuse reported through either the department or the Northern Territory Police, if the person raising the allegation is not satisfied with the handling of the complaint. The commissioner will be able to investigate both the handling of the complaint and the allegations, regardless of whether the child involved is defined as protected. The commissioner will also be able to investigate matters referred to him by the Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee.
The purpose of these expanded powers is to strengthen the cooperation between these two bodies to better carry out their role and the objects of the act.
Madam Speaker, I table the attending explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
I have developed and introduced this bill as a result of comments made by the Northern Territory Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner in her annual report, and the Country Liberals’ concern over this government’s appalling apathy in the face of continual systemic failures in the Northern Territory’s health system.
There were three issues raised by the commissioner in her annual report that caused the Country Liberals, the opposition, and me great concern which I hope to address through the introduction and passing of this bill. The other is out of my out hands. I can only hope, by echoing the commissioner’s comments in this House, it will shame the government into acting.
First, the act does not allow the commissioner powers of ‘own motion’ investigation. Section 12(1)(a) of the act restricts the commissioner to investigating matters which are either referred to her by the Legislative Assembly, or through a formal complaints process.
Own motion investigations are an important tool in the arsenal of independent government watchdogs. It gives the bodies that hold government to account the freedom to commence investigations into matters which come to their attention, either ancillary to an actual complaint or when similar circumstances and failures have been identified over many complaints but are not the subject of the complaint in their own right, or for particularly sensitive matters when the identity of the complainant would be compromised, even with the confidentiality arrangements currently in this act or other acts. We need to protect the integrity of the complaints process, and allow the commissioner the discretion and freedom to carry out his functions.
Second, the commissioner has no power at all to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in reports. This is a specific amendment to the act called for by the commissioner in her 2008-09 Annual Report. On page 5 and 6, the commissioner referred to the report tabled in the Legislative Assembly in 2008 regarding the investigation into the assault of an infant on Ward 5B at Royal Darwin Hospital, the paediatric ward. In this report she was highly critical of the security arrangements in place at the time of the assault, and made several recommendations to rectify and strengthen security to protect our most vulnerable patients.
The commissioner stated she was satisfied CCTV cameras have been installed as per recommendations 5 and 6, and mediation has been entered into to negotiate compensation in line with recommendation 2. However, she made the point she is unable to investigate the implementation of agreed recommendations. She cannot confirm which of those recommendations have been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented. She continued:
The situation which has prompted this blunt and public request to the Health Minister is the ease by which two of the commissioner’s staff were able to gain access to the paediatric ward despite locked doors and entry control measures being installed in the entrance. I believe we all remember that. As described in her report, they were able to coattail in behind an authorised person. They were neither challenged for identification, nor for their purpose of visiting the paediatric ward. They not only entered the ward unchallenged, they were able to move freely about the ward, and exit without being questioned by staff.
This is exactly the type of unauthorised access escaping the notice of staff which led to the assault of an infant in March 2006, and that recommendations within the commissioner’s 2008 report were designed to prevent. To again quote the commissioner:
I cannot stand by and allow the continual degradation of the Territory’s health system to continue unchecked by this government. This is not the only report which has highlighted training and policy awareness inadequacy provided by Royal Darwin Hospital. These are administrative failures, and by no means reflect the quality, care, and dedication provided by the practising staff. We all know they do a brilliant job treating our families and loved ones, and they need to be supported by management and the government. They need the support from the Health Minister down so they can concentrate on the task of treating their patients.
I will now speak to the provisions of the bill, Madam Speaker. Clause 5 inserts a new section 21A, which enables the commissioner to instigate own motion investigations and other considerations if the commissioner decides to commence an own motion investigation.
Clause 6 amends section 48 to allow reference to the commissioner to investigate matters on own motion.
Clause 7 introduces two new sections to the act. New section 66A, is to cover recommendations contained within a report made under section 65, for action by a person who would not be classified as a provider under this act. Under this section, the commissioner is to notify any person this section applies to, in writing, of the recommendations and any actions which need to be taken in regard to those actions. The person has 45 days to respond to the commissioner about what steps have been taken in relation to these recommendations. The requested time frame can be extended by up to 15 days at the commissioner’s discretion.
The commissioner may make a report to the minister if, after a reasonable time, the commissioner is not satisfied as to the progress of the endorsed actions. The commissioner must take into consideration any comments made by that person. If the commissioner makes a report to the minister, the minister must table that report within three sitting days.
The new section 66B allows the commissioner to follow up the action taken by the provider or non-provider to address recommendations contained in a report provided to the minister and tabled under sections 66(8) and 66A(7). After six months of the minister receiving a report to be tabled under section 66(7) and 66A(6), the commissioner may request an account of what steps are being taken in relation to the recommendations, or reasons for not taking steps in relation to these recommendations.
The person responsible for the recommendations has 14 days to reply to the commissioner. On request, this can be extended up to 15 days at the discretion of the commissioner. If the commissioner is dissatisfied about either steps taken in relation to a recommendation or the reasons given for not taking any steps in relation to the recommendations, the commissioner may conduct further investigations into the relevant health and community service on own initiative and notify the minister of the decision to investigate further. After any further investigations as allowed by this proposed section, the commissioner may provide a report on the investigations to the minister on findings of that investigation, which the minister must table within three sitting days of receiving the report.
Clause 8 introduces a new section 108, Transitional Provisions, so the new section 21A will allow the commissioner to instigate own motion investigations into matters provided by a health or community services provider at any time up to two years before the commencement of section 21A.
I believe the provisions outlined above will improve the ability of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner to fulfil her functions under the act.
The final matter I wish to raise relates to comments made by the commissioner on page 5. In 2003, the minister appointed an independent review panel to report on operations of the act and to recommend any legislative changes to improve the functionality of the complaints process. Despite handing the report to the minister in 2004, the report has yet to be tabled in contravention of section 106(3) of the act. The commissioner highlighted not only the failure of the government to publish that report, but its failure to follow the reporting timetable required by legislation.
This government refuses, again and again, to listen to the cold hard facts as they pay lip service to the mantra of accountability and transparency. We see it time and time again.
The Country Liberals are committed to listening to the community and, when changes are needed to improve critical areas of government, it will take decisive action to implement those changes. This bill is the Country Liberals’, the opposition’s, and my commitment as shadow Health minister to not only hold the government to account for its failing health system, but to pave the way to deliver a health system that serves the needs of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
The bill I present seeks to amend the Police Administration Act and, in doing so, introduces into the act the provision for setting out how to deal with internal officer grievances. Before I head off into setting out the provisions of the amendment bill, I put on the record that we, on this side of the Chamber, are currently undertaking a substantial review into the disciplinary sections of the Police Administration Act, to which we will be releasing a discussion paper later this year.
In respect to the bill I am presenting, it specifically deals with the issue of police grievances. Grievances have been a policy mechanism within the force to allow officers to lodge complaints about a range of matters. The problem with these has been there are long time frames in which these matters can be dealt with. In fact, there are a number of officers at the moment who are not active or are on long-term sick leave as a result of their grievances not being dealt with. Whether or not officers are in the right or wrong in respect of their grievance, is not the matter we are here to deal with. What we are here to deal with is the matter of ensuring such matters are dealt with in a timely manner. Whether it be disciplinary matters or grievance matters, having people out of the force in an unknown capacity in respect to when these matter will be finalised for months and months and, at times years, is unacceptable by anyone’s standard.
As there are a number of these incidences, with some of these ending up in the media, it has given us the clear view the current policy mechanisms are simply not working. This is certainly the case when it appears the force is unwilling to deal with these matters. As such, we are moving for this provision to be provided in law.
Hence, we are inserting a new section 163 into the Police Administration Act. The new section 163 sets out that, if a member is aggrieved in accordance with general orders, then this matter must be dealt with as soon as possible, but certainly responded to within 14 days. The section also sets out the matter, in its entirety, must be dealt with within six months. This is well and truly a long enough time to deal with such matters, and for both the force and the officer to have such matters dealt with. We hope such matters would be dealt with well and truly within this time frame.
If matters are highly complex or there is information lacking, there is a provision for a once-off extension that must be sanctioned by the minister. This additional extension of time, of up to three months, has been made the responsibility of the minister. If such a matter is to require longer than six months, then they need to take some level of responsibility for the matter. They must, in the first instance, be aware such matters are outstanding within the police force for which they have ultimate responsibility. The bill sets out the minister must, in writing, set out whether they have or have not given an extension of time, and under what provision of the section this has been done.
The opposition will not accept a never-ending period for these matters not to be addressed. Matters in respect to serious issues in the force are to be dealt with, and we will not tolerate any level of bullying in any organisation, and any actions which are not open and accountable.
These things should not placed in the too-hard basket and be allowed to simmer and continue without resolution. We owe it to give clear direction in a clear policy format that matters must be dealt with, and done so in a timely manner. This bill sets out a clear change which will put in place a finite time line for such matters to be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Madam Speaker, we are again attempting to address the issues of removing the cost barriers of FOI applications. So much has been said by those opposite about undertaking this; however, nothing much has changed. I note last week, just as it looked as if I was about to introduce this bill, the government brought forward regulations which mean the provision of reports to MLAs, and other narrow circumstances, will be done without cost. This is not what the minister said she would do last time I brought forward amendments to the Information Act. More on that later.
Looking at bringing this bill forward, we have extended the ability for there to be charges waived and further powers to the Information Commissioner to waive charges when departments fail to meet or hinder the process of releasing information.
I will now turn to the bill itself. This bill seeks to amend the Information Act. Clause 3 introduces a new section 156(6A) to expand the circumstances the commissioner or public sector organisation may take into consideration when making a decision on a request to waive or reduce either the application or the processing fee, or both. This section will apply to holders of a pensioner concession card or other entitlement card issued by the Commonwealth; applications by non-profit organisations or individuals if payment of fees would cause the applicant financial hardship; if it is not economical for the public sector organisation to charge a fee; information being sought is of public interest; or the information has been provided after either a review or a complaint.
Clause 4 introduces a new section 156A. It introduces provisions to exempt MLAs from paying application or processing fees for an FOI application provided the total cost of that application does not exceed 3000 revenue units. Once the total cost exceeds 3000 revenue units, the public sector organisation may charge an application and processing fee. The total cost has been referred to as penalty units to keep the threshold in line with inflation.
In presenting my second reading speech, I wish to make passing comment on what was raised by those opposite and by the member for Nelson. In respect to the issue of charges for FOI applications, the member for Karama said, when I last presented a bill dealing with no cost for MLAs that:
The fact is we are still paying for our FOI applications, and whatever the above means for those opposite, it certainly does not mean MLAs are getting access to information without the barriers of cost. Not that long ago, the Leader of the Opposition was reminded of a $21 000 bill to pay, and a $1500 bill. The charges just continue. So, members for Nelson and Karama, I am not sure where the reality is for you in respect to not charging MLAs for information. However, within the Territory public service, the wounded bulls just keep on charging.
I also note, at the moment, the Opposition Leader is off to mediation with one department about not having provided information, and there being a prima facie case they should have. I also note the Health department has again begun refusing things. For instance, they have refused to provide health flashes for the last year, and have sent back a number of FOI requests without dealing with them after sitting on them for literally years and going through all stages of appeal. Now, they are off to the commissioner for another go.
The process of FOI put in place by this government is poorly resourced, and appears to be one that only wants to provide the information it wants to provide. A change is needed and, in particular, I believe a significant change, in respect to capturing of e-mails and the document handling system for government. However, I digress.
When I last presented a bill to make changes to the Information Act, the member for Nelson was concerned he did not have enough information in respect to the issues of the dominant purpose clause that was in the bill. In this instance, we have removed that clause from the bill. I will be pursuing this later and I forward to engaging the member for Nelson and the government in respect to the concerns they have.
The member for Nelson also raised not having enough time to consider the issues contained within the bill last time. To address that I say here, and I will in writing through you, Madam Speaker, to the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: I am here. I am listening.
Mr BOHLIN: … I am available to provide you with a briefing on this bill ahead of its consideration later this year.
The member for Nelson also raised that he looked forward to the government working and bringing forward a combined effort in respect to the bill. I remind the member for Nelson through you, Madam Speaker, the government still has not undertaken and released its required review into the Information Act, and maybe the member for Nelson could use his new-found influence on government to get that commitment.
The Country Liberals are not interested in sitting on our hands, and waiting for this government. We are interested in getting on with the job unlike, it would appear, those opposite. This bill has within its limitations on the amount of information which can be provided without cost - which was a concern the member for Nelson had raised outside the Chamber - in that people could ask for all sorts of information and have no regard to the cost on departments. While we on this side disagree, as there will be a political consequence of doing such a thing and the act has within it powers to prevent unreasonable requests, we have, as outlined above, put limitations on the amount which can be accessed without charge by MLAs.
In addition, there are further extensions of the ability for there to be reduced costs in the issuance of material from departments, and the Country Liberals believe this will further enhance our FOI laws.
I flag there is more reform required in making Territory FOI laws work as they should, and I will be bringing further changes forward in the future. However, this bill is incredibly reasonable, modest, and seeks to enhance the Territory’s FOI laws. I encourage all members to support it, in particular the two Independents, as to date the current Henderson Labor government appears unwilling to open up these laws. However, I look forward to being proved otherwise, and welcome their support also.
In closing, I believe the regulation put forward by the government is confusing, particularly as to what is covered by a government report, leaving too much to be unclear for those requesting and those processing these applications. Our bill is a simpler process.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly refer the following matter to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report:
Since coming to parliament, there have been reports at the beginning of parliamentary sittings each day. It was only last year they were scrapped as part of the reform of parliamentary procedures. I agreed to those changes at the time, as I thought the way reports were delivered by the government was unfair to both the opposition and the crossbenchers.
There was little or no warning as to what was in the reports, meaning those on this side of the House, especially the shadow minister, had no time to prepare a reasonable response to the report. This meant the government could use the reports as a free hit, knowing the other side would not be prepared. I believe I have sat through a few of those debates.
One of the classics was the previous member for Goyder when the Primary Industry minister made a report on the vine leaf rust. Most of us knew what it was because there was a quarantine area around Darwin which prevented grape vine leaves being removed from this area. Our good friend, the previous member for Goyder, spoke about how his weeds were really bad and you have to be careful with weeds. We had to whisper in his ear that he was on the wrong trail. So, instead of having an informed debate, we had a debate, unfortunately, where the shadow minister at that time was caught off guard and did not have time to prepare an adequate response.
It would be fair to say the reports were used as an opportunity for self-promotion of the government, and there was little chance for a well prepared alternative view to be given in response. It should be noted it also gave both sides of the House the chance to agree on some important matters. We should not lose sight of that. It was not only just about a debate. In the case of the vine leaf rust, if the government had not actually got rid of all the plants with that very serious disease, if it had got into southern grape vines it would have been a disaster. Obviously, the opposition, at that stage, would have said, ‘Well done’, because it was one of those bipartisan issues where both sides could say the government had made a good effort ensuring this did not spread south. It is not just about having a debate here, but also working together on some important issues.
I feel reports, in many cases, were beneficial and they allowed an update of current issues or gave an opportunity for announcement on government policy, or whatever. If there was an urgent statement to be made then the report was a chance to let the House know. It could have been something about cyclone preparedness, or something the public had to know about fairly quickly.
This motion simply reinstates the reports in a fairer and more open and transparent way. It requires the opposition and crossbenchers to be given one hour’s notice on the topic to be discussed in the mini-statements. It allows the shadow minister equal time to respond, and still allows a response from the crossbench and a from the government minister. It allows for a maximum of three mini-statements, but it could be the government, on some days, simply does not have anything to report - although, I find that hard to believe.
The idea of reports was good. I just felt it had been used by the government for its own benefit, without really believing in this side of parliament having equality when it came to responding. People see through these things when they are listening to parliament. If they know the government, all of a sudden, snapped a little trick question on the opposition, and they see the opposition is struggling, that might be politics but the ordinary person says it is not fair.
There needs to some fairness in this place at times, where we can have good debate. I would rather have a good debate than poor debate which is simply poor because we were a little tricky in promoting something the other side did not know. That will happen in parliament, of course. In Question Time; that is built into it. However, when we were dealing with reports, it was a chance to discuss some serious matters. It could be also discussing lighthearted matters. However, it did add something to parliament that is actually lacking at the present time.
If the opposition wanted to debate, you would either have to put up with a censure motion - which can be a bit over the top and theatrical sometimes - whereas a statement only comes so often and, sometimes, they can drag on for a couple of days and you do not get chances to debate some of those issues. The mini-statements fill a gap in relation to some current issues that would be worthwhile for at least some debate in parliament. From that debate, of course, then you can raise some other issues in Question Time, and in relation to some legislation which has been presented.
Madam Speaker, this motion does not ask members necessarily support the idea but, instead, it will go to the Standing Orders Committee for examination. I simply put forward some of my ideas. Other members might think it is a poor idea because it is a lot of work and they will have to start writing reports. Other people might be happy to see them go. However, if we can raise the level of debate, make the debate more sensible, and debate issues people find are current at present, even if it is only for a small time in the morning, that is good. If we allow the opposition to have one hour’s notice that makes it more open and transparent. It will allow the opposition to have at least equal time.
That is fair; we do it with statements. With statements, the shadow minister gets the same time as the minister. It is great if the Independents can have a bit of a crack, but the Chief Minister recognises we are crossbenchers. The three minutes gives an adequate time for the minister to respond to the comments which have been put forward.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I note the Opposition Leader will probably be speaking on this motion. Government will support the motion. The member for Nelson did flag, when these changes were brought about, it might be timely to review and change the whole issue of calling the mini-statements some time later. I understand some of the reservations the opposition and the Independents had about ministerial reports in the form they were in previously. I can understand that.
However, I say to the member for Nelson, as government ministers in Question Time, we could be asked about anything by opposition members. We do not have what the topic is going to be flagged at all. Sometimes we deduce certain things from the newspapers and statements made in the media, but the element of surprise is one important component of Question Time. That is why, as ministers, we study very hard and have great big books that thick to try to get across, at least, the major issues within our portfolios. Or, if a question is asked of us we do not know the answer to, I always try to say I do not know the answer, and try to get back to the member with the answer to the particular question, hopefully, by the end of Question Time.
From government’s point of view, the reports - as I will call them - were an opportunity to put positive or important matters before the parliament. Without having access to reports anymore, we find ourselves considering whether we need to raise these matters through a question or, indeed, during adjournment debate. I found myself, as minister, during an adjournment debate actually talking about things that formerly, I would have done within the report - something that might not warrant a question or a whole ministerial statement.
We recognise and accept it is an important component. We are certainly willing to engage in discussion with the Independent member for Nelson and the opposition on a format for this. I am not sure what position the opposition might have on this particular issue.
One issue I flag is what time of day the member might be thinking about having these reports. Government is quite open to having this discussion within the Standing Orders Committee. We are quite happy to support this motion and have the further discussions with the committee. We will be supporting the motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in a similar vein, the opposition has on the record a number of concerns about the use of this facility, as devised by government in the past, and found it of great concern. Now there is a revisitation of this particular practice introduced by the Labor government - a rethink, and a proposed reshaping of this vehicle about which we have had a lot of discussion - it needs to be properly weighed and assessed in the Standing Orders Committee. Therefore, we give that support.
The matters that were raised for many years with regard to this practice which had been instigated by the current government, still stand, in essence. I understand the modification which has been recommended by the Independent member for Nelson but, nonetheless, I believe there are some deeper considerations that need to be undertaken with regard to the purpose of the parliament, what is our core business, and the need for robust debate on substantial matters.
I have, perhaps as a conservative, an aversion to this element being allowed to proceed too quickly. That is why it must go through the Standing Orders Committee. As a former teacher, nearly every classroom starts the day while they are all trying to get their bearings with the morning news; what exciting things happened. Then, It adds that element of becoming a vehicle for showcasing certain initiatives of government; they get an extra media release forum or platform to be able to fly a few balloons, and we do not have Question Time until later in the day. From that flow a number of serious considerations, principally being the function of the parliament to serve the interests of the people rather than to serve the political process.
The right place, of course, is a Standing Orders Committee to do that deeper consideration of the whole structure of how we do our business, the real purpose of such an activities conducted in the parliament, and should or should not this particular practice be a part of our Standing Orders and operation within the parliament. The right place to go is, of course, Standing Orders Committee. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the motion has our support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank both speakers for their support of the motion. I take up the points the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. Yes, part of a debate around the time is whether these particular reports take place at the beginning of the days sittings purely to get more publicity. That is something, I can imagine, which will create some debate within the Standing Orders Committee.
I must admit, I imagine if any government of any calibre actually is in power, they will, of course, try to use the timing of statements to the best of their ability to get the most publicity. That is the way a lot of politics is done. I do take up your point. I am easy as to what time of a day such reports could occur. If we wanted to get away from that possibility which has been used as a means to get on the midday news, then it could be that we have it later in the evening.
The Standing Orders Committee, I imagine, would certainly look into it. It could go back and look at whether such a reporting system is done in other states and how it is also applied there.
Regardless of what time, or the length of time we speak about it, it gives it a little more room for some, possibly, minor debates, but it does add a little - I was going to say to the colour of the debate, but I did not really mean that. I mean more options for the debate, if you could put it that way. We tend to have great big debates on big subjects and, occasionally, there are smaller issues that need to be identified in parliament, need to be recorded in Hansard. From some of those small debates, of course, the bigger debates can occur. The idea of the mini-statement report at least being discussed within the Standing Orders Committee can raise all those issues the Leader of the Opposition raised.
The minister also raised a number of issues; how he spent time talking about matters you could probably say were purely policy issues from his department. He was using the adjournment debate for that. I believe that is a little sad. I must admit I would get annoyed with dorothy dixers too, because I often thought the subject of the question could be something for a ministerial report, or a ministerial statement. I believe there are some pluses and minuses in all this.
The Standing Orders Committee will certainly give it proper scrutiny. I believe by the time they look at the options, what the problems were in the pre-2010 system, and how it works in other states, the Standing Orders Committee will arrive at an intelligent decision, based on all of those things, to bring back to the House.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker I move that the Northern Territory government produces a specific and detailed budget paper setting out:
(a) all funding provided to departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs and where and when these funds where expended and on what; and
In August, during the no confidence motion against the Henderson government, I spoke to this Assembly about all of us working together to create a kind and more harmonious, more tolerant, and more accepting community in the Northern Territory. At the time, I said to the Assembly, and I quote directly from the Parliamentary Record:
Six months later this is still my hope; it always will be my hope. I do not see it as a far-flung vision, nor do I see it as an unachievable ambition as remote as the communities and the people we in this House represent. I know it is obtainable; it is within the grasp of all of us. It can be achieved in the lifetime of every one of us if we make it our common purpose, our focus, from today and into the future.
I know I speak for all members in this Assembly when I say what I outlined in August is the shared vision of all us here. To my former colleagues in the Labor Party, to the 11 members of the opposition Country Liberals, and to the Independent member for Nelson, I say I know your motivation for being here is to bring about change for the better, right across the Northern Territory. I know you would not have run the gauntlet of a life in public office if you did not believe you could make a difference to how the Northern Territory works, and endeavour to improve the lives of all Territorians.
Where we all differ is in the methodology we use to bring about change. Again, though I can generalise when I say something, we all agree change is desperately needed if we are going to steer the Territory into calmer waters after years of turmoil and turbulence. Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, want peace in their lives and, while government policies and government decisions cannot guarantee they will be achieved, they can at least provide a pathway to a safer, prosperous, and more secure future.
Territorians are a great bunch of people, who love living in the Northern Territory; we love the place we are born in and the place we grow up in. It is a unique place, and it is unique because of the different nationalities and the different people we have. There is much more about this place that sets us apart from the rest of the country; indeed, the rest of the world. In the Territory, I believe there is great respect for Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people. The roots of Aboriginal culture in the Northern Territory go back tens of thousands of years. They are a source of pride for all Australians, but that is not to say people do not have concerns about living here. One of the reasons is the gulf between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians and the social hardship caused by the significant divide.
It is very safe to say there is a genuine feeling among the wider community for the thousands of Aboriginal people who either choose, or who are forced, to sleep rough because of poverty or because they are a long way from their homes. It is also safe to say that, mixed up with the frustration and anger directed at Indigenous people who, for whatever reason, cross the line and break the law, there is also sympathy of the poverty and apparent hopelessness that appears to be ingrained in sections of the Indigenous community.
On the other hand, I believe there is also great resentment, confusion, and frustration that the vast sums of money apparently spent on Indigenous people is having no impact at all. There is no doubt that all layers of government - Territory and Commonwealth - spend money on Indigenous policy. The question is, how much?
The prevailing view is it is a lot; that the welfare arrangements for Indigenous people - notwithstanding the quarantining implemented as part of the federal intervention - are unfairly weighted against the non-Indigenous community. That belief is that money is splashed on Aboriginal people by governments for little or no outcome. It is this type of sentiment that prompted the insidious revolution in the state of Queensland that led to the rise of Pauline Hanson and the reactionary forces of the One Nation Party.
The picture I have just outlined is buttressed by a view in the community that, into the future, the situation affecting Indigenous people and the security and the welfare of non-Indigenous people can only become worse. However, never let it be forgotten that we in this Chamber are in singularly unique positions to bring about change. That is why we are all here.
My motion today involves the very important subject of Indigenous expenditure that I touched on a few moments ago, and the openness and the transparency of money spent implementing Indigenous policy right across the Northern Territory. ‘Openness’, ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ are buzz words of free government everywhere. In fact, upon reflection, if the Chamber will allow, I will retract the previous sentence. ‘Openness’, ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ are buzz words of free oppositions everywhere. Once in government, oppositions have a habit of rolling down the shutters and putting idealism into a file marked ‘U’ for Unnecessary Information.
In my motion, I seek a significant change in the way Indigenous revenues are expended in the Territory. Over recent years, there has been much debate about whether the Martin and Henderson Labor governments have spent monies allocated for Indigenous improvement in the areas for which they were intended. The argument transcends politics. Community leaders such as the former head of Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Barry Hansen, as well as Charles Darwin University academic and Labor Party advisor, Rolf Gerritsen, have spoken of their concerns that money allocated to Indigenous benefit is not being spent in the areas where it is targeted.
A Senate inquiry into the allocation of money was, at best, inconclusive. What it did confirm, though, was a change is required; a change that will take the politics out of Indigenous spending and will guarantee Aboriginal people are getting their share of Commonwealth and Territory revenues, and put a stop to this sniping and bickering in this Chamber and beyond over an issue that is crucial to all Territorians.
As it stands today, we simply do not know. The Henderson government says 52.4% of its budget is spent on implementing Indigenous policy - 52.4% of the budget on approximately 30% of the population. That bald figure, that statistic, only adds to the confusion and doubt and further begs the question: ‘Why are things so bad out there?’ It does nothing to expand on where the money came from and where, once it leaves the Treasurer’s coffers, the money actually goes.
Let us look for a moment at education. What proportion of money spent on education in the Northern Territory is actually spent on Indigenous people? How do we actually know for sure what the percentage is? Is the figure collated per Indigenous student or is it based on the school, the suburb, the town, or the community? How do we know? How do we actually know from the budget process whether that figure includes an Indigenous student at Moil Primary School or whether it includes a white student at Papunya?
What about in the area of Corrections? How much of that precise, very specific figure of 52.4% is spent on the Corrections process for Indigenous people? Let us not forget, in excess of 80% of the prison population is made up of Aboriginal Territorians.
My motion calls for an opening up of the budget process in a way that will have long-lasting benefits for Indigenous people and all Territorians. What I want to see is the publication of specific and detailed budget paper that set out: (a) all funding provided to the departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs and where, when and on what these sums are spent on; and (b) whether funding is derived from the Territory or from the Commonwealth, where each of these different funding areas are provided and expended, and what outcomes are achieved.
In my view, this would not require a significant shift from what already takes place during the budget process. These include, of course, the budget speech - probably one of the highlights of any Treasurer’s year - a document which is widely listened to and read across the Territory. Then we have one of the key Treasury documents, the Fiscal and Economic Outlook. It is this document that discusses the current and topical issue in public finance from the Territory’s perspective and analyses whether the financial data provided meets the Territory’s obligations under the uniform presentation framework as agreed between the governments. As all Treasury workers would know, it is a crucial document which talks about the money coming in and the money going out.
Third, of course, is the budget itself. It amounts to a department-by-department overview of programs, projects, and monetary allocations for the upcoming financial year. It is a key document that sets out what the government is committing to, as detailed information about agency budgets grouped by ministerial portfolios. It includes agency budgets, highlights appropriation amounts, output statements, and accrual financial statements for all agencies within the Northern Territory budget sector.
Additionally, there is the infrastructure program paper which lists the projects which have passed the government’s worthiness test. This is about government’s investment. This is an interesting paper to read because it tells not only what was done but, of course, what has not been done. There are many examples of infrastructure projects being passed over or revoted for other more important projects, particularly targeting voters in the northern suburbs around election time.
Other documents that support these key papers are the Budget Overview, the Northern Territory Economy Overview and, of course, the glossy brochure for the bush, the Regional Highlights document. I know for a fact many members in the Chamber and in the community take the time and make the effort to read these important documents, particularly the Northern Territory Economy, as a snapshot of where we are today and what is on the horizon. I commend Treasury staff who gather together the information for these publications.
In parallel with the Territory budget process, the Commonwealth follows soon after with its own budget papers, no doubt causing a few headaches for our Treasury officials as numbers are rejigged and new policies accounted for. Still, they prepare a series of papers and a range of reports on a variety of programs.
It is with this motion in mind I turn to the area of accounting for Indigenous expenditure. The Productivity Commission is now working on a Council of Australian Government’s 2007 commitment to report transparently on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians. The commission notes:
I am aware there have been commitments endorsed by COAG in Darwin last year to move forward with a national report on Indigenous expenditure, and that a steering group has been established to develop a reporting methodology to meet that goal. I look forward to reading, in coming years, a concise, collated report on Indigenous expenditure at a national level, and recognise the work which needs to be done to establish the necessary framework for collecting and reporting information on government expenditure on services to Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is not too early, therefore, for governments to start thinking about ways to facilitate this reporting process, and it is here the Northern Territory government can take the leading role.
In this motion, I put to the House it should be a requirement in the preparation of the budget papers that government prepares a separate paper that collates the proposed expenditure on all Indigenous-related program projects and infrastructure investments in the Northern Territory. In the same way the rural highlights or infrastructure spending is given its own space, its own book if you like, under my plan so would Indigenous spending. This budget paper would report in individual agency and individual programs, and identify individual Indigenous contribution components. At that line in my preamble above, it would be an important next step on the way to putting to bed the discussion in relation to whether Aboriginal people are receiving too large or too little a slice of the budget pie.
I believe everyone in this House, and many Territorians besides, understand the answer is no, but it would be excellent to have the entry data that would support that assertion. This motion is non-political and, obviously, non-binding on government. If it is supported by the Chamber, quite possibly it will have made a contribution only to debate and to filling up pages in the Parliamentary Record. Of course, it is my hope the rest of the Chamber shares my belief that Indigenous spending does warrant its own budgetary publication.
Earlier in the day, I heard the member for Arafura say in this House our communities expect us to be honest, to be answerable. She also said today, ‘I am also answerable to Aboriginal people in my electorate’. I say, with the greatest respect, to the member for Arafura and other honourable members in this House, that one way of improving accountability in our management of Indigenous policies is to open up the books for more rigorous public scrutiny.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my hope this motion will be accepted and, if not in time for the 2010-11 budget, this reform will be in place in time for 2011-12.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion. The Northern Territory government already monitors and reports on expenditure on services to Indigenous Territorians, and we will certainly continue to refine the way we do that.
Addressing Indigenous disadvantage certainly remains a key challenge for all governments right across Australia. We know taxpayers and the community generally want confidence that public funds are targeted, reach the ground, and make a difference. Public reporting of this expenditure is important. We are leading the way in setting a model. By no means do we say the model is perfect, but we do say that we, on this side of the House, have acknowledged there needs to be a beginning, a starting point.
Our Indigenous Expenditure Review is an independent audit that identifies Indigenous revenue and Indigenous-related expenditure across the Northern Territory budget. This methodology is assessed by the Auditor-General, and has been independently verified by reputable commentators such as Professor Ken Wiltshire and Saul Eslake. It is important to mention this regarding the process and methodology, because I am incredibly focused on wanting to ensure government processes about methodology are clear and succinct but, at the same time, recognise this is new area and new ground the Northern Territory has taken in wanting to ensure, under a Labor government, we can collect the data and ensure that data is out there in the community.
Most recently, the Council of Australian Governments has recognised the work we are doing in this area. In fact, it was COAG, on seeing the work being done here in the Northern Territory, which has directed all states to follow this lead. It is an important step nationally. All governments have now committed to a national scheme of reporting on Indigenous expenditure, nationally and by jurisdiction. I repeat, I am not saying the system we have is perfect - it is a work in progress, we can always improve and we must always improve - but we have set a bar high for the states to follow.
With other jurisdictions following our lead, we will be able to compare expenditure on Indigenous-related services in each state and territory. The Northern Territory is an active participant in developing this COAG national Indigenous expenditure report process. The methodology for this report is being developed across all governments with expert assistance from such groups as the Productivity Commission, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Importantly, the data collection for this report will involve the identification of Indigenous-specific expenditure by functional area, as well as the use of mainstream services by Indigenous people. These reports will provide for a robust and public analysis of Indigenous expenditure across all government services.
The most recent Northern Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review was conducted for the 2006-07 financial year. Nationally, it is only the second review ever undertaken. The first one was commissioned by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling. It is important to acknowledge this Indigenous Expenditure Review was undertaken before the Northern Territory government’s $286m Closing the Gap commitment and the significant increased Commonwealth funding under the emergency response. If we go back a couple of years, it was the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who had the vision to begin this process.
Despite not encompassing significant additional funding which is accelerating joint government work to support Indigenous Territorians, the review found 52% of our entire budget is spend on Indigenous-related services for 30% of our population. I certainly take on board the comments by the member for Macdonnell relating to that data collection. It is something we must continually be vigilant about. Examining the human service-related agencies of Health, Education and Training, Housing, Local Government, Sport, Police, and Justice, the audit found the proportion of Indigenous-related expenditure was 56.4%. In Health specifically, around 60% of the Health budget is spent on Indigenous-related health expenditure. Improving Indigenous health is a key challenge. This assessment was recently confirmed by the independent Australian Institution of Health and Wellbeing. This financial year, the government is expecting to spend approximately $2.18bn on services to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
Honourable members would know the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has also looked at levels of federal and Northern Territory government spending on Indigenous affairs and social services in the Northern Territory. A very spurious claim by CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion, that the Territory was underspending in Indigenous affairs was dismissed by the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry found no evidence of underspending in Indigenous affairs by this government. In fact, the Senate inquiry endorsed the significant progress we are making in Indigenous policy and service provision under Closing the Gap, and an increasing number of national partnership agreements with the Commonwealth. The Senate inquiry rebutted the claims the Territory government receives funding from the GST pool to enable it to address Indigenous remote infrastructure as not accurate.
We have heard in recent times the member for Braitling make claims about the Commonwealth Grants Commission, estimates for the cost of delivering services, and alleged underspending by the Northern Territory government. The Commonwealth Grants Commission submission to the Senate inquiry mentioned earlier made clear:
Given the Commonwealth Grants Commission does not make specific expenditure allocations, it is not possible to compare actual expenditure to allocations. The CLP is wrong; they disregarded the findings of the Senate inquiry and the advice of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Unlike members opposite, we are certainly not interested in that kind of political point scoring. I recognise the importance of this motion coming before the House so we can get to the heart of the matter, to work together in improving the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
Regarding Closing the Gap national partnerships, we recognise the enormous work required to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and that the Territory cannot do that alone. We have a small population, a small tax base, and the disadvantage in remote areas has been created by decades of neglect at both a federal and Northern Territory level. It will take significant investment and commitment to address - not just in dollars, but in human resources over a long period of time, and a continued commitment over that long period of time.
We are making progress in partnership with the Australian government. We have signed up with the National Agreements on Health Care, Education and Early Childhood, Skills and Workforce, Disability, Housing, Remote Service Delivery, and Indigenous Economic Participation, to name just a few specifically addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Under these agreements and our Closing the Gap program, $1.5bn will be spent directly on Indigenous-related programs over the next three years to 2012-13. These are very real and positive partnerships to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
In May last year, this government announced its key policy platform of A Working Future to address the infrastructure service gaps we inherited in our 20 growth towns. The member for Macdonnell was an incredible key part of that launch. I know, in conversations with her at the time, and subsequently, wanting to ensure these growth towns have substantial funding has always been a commitment and intent of the member for Macdonnell. I also know, in taking on this role, it is a road I now walk in making sure, with the growth of these towns, we have the data that is required to be able to see these towns grow - not in just the physical locations of these towns, but also in the public service, in the bureaucracy, in the Treasury, and in the data that is collected. There has to be a new way of thinking. There has to be an understanding the data collected is not just centred on Darwin city, Palmerston, or Alice Springs. We are needing very real and clear data with a methodology that adequately reflects the needs of the people in the regions, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal.
The roll-out of A Working Future is well under way across all Northern Territory government agencies, driven by a very dedicated Service Delivery Coordination Unit, the SDCU, and the work of the Independent Coordinator-General for Remote Service Delivery, Mr Bob Beadman. I understand the need to keep the management of this work focused and on track in delivering key improvements. Importantly, this work is helping to target and maximise benefits from our new investments.
We are well under way with our detailed analysis, town by town, of what funding is going where, and review of our investment strategies, to ensure we are getting the return on investment expected by taxpayers, town residents, and all the people who look to our growth towns for services. I point out this is ground-breaking; it is a new era, a new area. We are creating an improved delivery of service. The social fabric of the Northern Territory is changing and people know all of this is new, and it is always a continual work in progress. However, from the outset, our government is absolutely committed to making sure we get the basics and the process right; that we can at least keep working on the methodology of how we can deliver these services.
All of the Territory’s mainstream services are used by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians, and agencies do not deliver separate programs. In most cases, it would not be possible, or even practical or sensible, to separate the Indigenous component of Territory services. There are a couple of reasons for that. One example is Royal Darwin Hospital. Our key hospital provides services for the whole of the Northern Territory. Its budget this year is $245m, almost a quarter of the Health budget. We recognise, as well, the growing population across the Northern Territory. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown us that, in the Northern Territory, the Indigenous population will be almost half the population of the Northern Territory.
It is incumbent that those in leadership roles, and whoever is in government, is planning for that growth and recognising whatever we are growing has to be for all people and be based on equality and services any Australian citizen receives anywhere else in the country. It is a big goal, it is a bold goal, it is a big vision, but we are out there and we are doing it.
In speaking to the second part of the motion, I will outline the funding sources available to the Territory. There are three types of Territory revenue: the own source revenue, GST, and the tied payments. The Territory has complete discretion as to how it allocates own source revenue and GST funding. As members will acknowledge, the Territory has limited capacity for their own source revenue, with a small population and, as I said earlier, an even smaller tax base. The GST funding is a main contributor to the core services. The increase in GST funding we have seen has gone directly into improving core services. There is always going to be a question, and all members need to be vigilant about the GST. I certainly am, as the Minister for Indigenous Development, in the big plans I have to carry through in these areas.
Tied payments from the Commonwealth generally comprise between 15% and 20% of total revenue, and are already provided to agencies under separate appropriation, termed Commonwealth appropriation. Examples of these include, as we all know, include SIHIP and the Closing the Gap national partnership payments. Other national partnership agreements have been developed and agreed at COAG to support high-needs groups,
Regarding reporting on outcomes – which is a really important point the member for Macdonnell raised - of the delivery of the budget, I take that on board. It is something I am keen to see strengthened. I know the staff in Treasury work hard, and it is good to hear you commending them regarding the regional partnerships, which is important. It is very well for people to come in here and have a go at one another, but there is a significant amount of work which goes on in the background and I thank you for that commendation of Treasury staff. However, I would like to see, in the steps towards the delivery of the next budget, some of those points taken on, member for Macdonnell. I am sure we will have ongoing discussions over that.
There are additional reporting and monitoring requirements under the tied funding arrangements with the Commonwealth, including independent assessment of our progress by the COAG reporting council. The Territory is committed to supporting the accountability and reporting requirements embodied in the new national approach to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Budget papers and annual reports already provide a detailed breakdown of funding and expenditure by agencies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the motion on but, for the reasons stated, I cannot support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to know where to start. I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing on the motion. It is a very important motion, and one which will go a long way to helping solve some of the problems we have in the Northern Territory in relation to Indigenous affairs.
I listened to the member for Arnhem speak after the member for Macdonnell. I picked up two different things. The member for Macdonnell spoke with personal passion about things she really believes in. The member for Arnhem, I know, sees things differently than the way she speaks. However, it would be good to have a debate about some recognition of the reality of what is going on across the Territory.
What the member said about COAG and how the money comes in, and all this - we know that; we know how it works. However, it is not working on the ground. If anyone had their eyes open, they would recognise it is time for something to change so we can move forward with advancement. The Territory is filled with a litany of failures in Indigenous affairs - just filled with it. Often, I hear the member for Arafura. We are in different parties, but she, at times, talks about what she really thinks.
I wonder how much the three people I believe have the most interest in this area from the other side - the members for Arafura, Stuart, and Arnhem - actually get in and fight for change. This is a very positive motion the member for Macdonnell has brought on. This is something which could get us to a grounding where we could see where we actually are. We have offered before to have a bipartisan approach on these things, and it has been rejected by this government. I just wonder!
We have moved to a position in the Northern Territory where Labor has lost the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people right across the Territory. There is a terrible level of no hope and despair for such a large number of Indigenous Territorians - it is terrible. In 2007, when former federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, took a leadership position in the Territory seeking to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, there was hope. People the length and the breadth of the Northern Territory had an opinion about what Mal Brough was doing. Some thought it was over the top, many took a bit of a wait-and-see approach, and a large majority of Territorians applauded his conviction and his steely determination to take on what I see as the biggest challenge the Northern Territory faces.
While the views of Mal Brough were differing on how he approached it in many areas, including consultation, and on the measures and the language, there was no criticism at all about something that needed to be done – none – and there is not any criticism today in that similar regard. The view that the current position now, or in 2007, was situation normal is just not correct. It is not right and it is not what people believe.
In 2007, it was time for change; in 2010 it is time for change. Unfortunately, we are still in a predicament where Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are looking for leadership and for change on these issues. Parliament is supposed to be one place to provide that leadership. It is a vacuum. What occurred following the change of the federal government in 2007 was a releasing of the reins, removing leadership in Australia, signalling all the measures would be removed; that normality of dysfunction would be brought back for one and all. Federal Labor widely applauded it, rolled back the measures, rolled back the quarantine. This is what is discussed on the street.
After that 2007 election, we still find ourselves in a vacuum where no one is steering the ship, a position where Indigenous Territorians, many of whom are walking around aimlessly, wondering when the shires will be fixed, when houses will be built, when roads and bridges will be constructed so kids can get to school, when businesses will be developed, jobs will be created and, more importantly, children will be protected.
The vacuum of leadership is cementing the future for many - and it is not just Aboriginal Territorians who are affected. Let me state it is just vented frustration about what government does so wrong. Government does so much so wrong, and it is the result of a vacuum of leadership in the Northern Territory that brings about this venting of frustration.
The Northern Territory is a multicultural society, and it is strong in that. It is multicultural in terms of Indigenous and non-Indigenous for this specific conversation. We are tolerant, we are supportive, we love one another, and we are brothers and sisters, black and white. The history of culture in the Northern Territory is embraced, and there is cooperation in seeking a future of togetherness for a more conducive society that is proud of its history.
I would love to see the day when Indigenous language was taught in schools to everyone, not just Indigenous kids. It is a multicultural society where we all get along, and we all appreciate each other’s history. However, the predicament across the Territory is where some line has been crossed with many soft voters forming negative and unforgiving views towards the local Aboriginal population. That is a negative as a result of the lacklustre leadership of the Northern Territory government.
Before I go on, let me make it clear I am not generalising about all Aboriginal people; however, I am talking about specific concerns to a large demographic within that population. It is somewhat of an elephant in the room people are afraid to speak of for fear of persecution.
In my maiden speech, I spoke to parliament and declared I will be seeking action on Indigenous issues, and I intend to be heard, while the government will, no doubt, play dumb and target me. Through their networks and information delivery mechanisms, we are hearing that story. Their comments of: ‘Oh, you are not black enough to be called Indigenous’ and ‘You have not been in the Territory long enough to speak on these issues’, are absolutely ridiculous. If you have a passion about something, you speak about it. It is appalling the way the government treats people, including me, on these matters.
The member for Stuart said: ‘I was born and bred in the Territory’. That is probably part of his problem because, until you can go outside and see the way society should run and the way people should be treated - and the member for Arnhem said she has a bold goal and vision about how people should have equity in services. We all agree on that. That is not what is happening; it is just a bold vision or plan.
Many see Aboriginal affairs - both the progression of, and disadvantage of - as an out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue. Some people live and work in the environment of Indigenous affairs, but there are many people in the community for whom these issues sit on the periphery. For those who do sit on the periphery, they view the consequences of Aboriginal social and cultural dysfunctionality and disadvantage as impacting on them personally. They feel a sense of ownership. These people have an appreciation of the long-term damage this worsening problem circumventing Indigenous disadvantage is having on the very fabric of society, as all others issues are virtually subsumed by it.
You do not have to look too far for misery - whether you are in a remote community, a shopping centre in Alice Springs, a town camp in Katherine, or at the Parap shops. There has been much spoken about the situation of Family and Children’s Services in this Chamber. The debate is not only justified by the failures of this government, and the sad stories we read. On the streets, there is a particular note being written that there is genuine and heartfelt concern for the plight of Aboriginal children affected by this dysfunction. There is a great respect for Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people. There is genuine wont to see things improved.
Most people do not excuse the behaviour and broader social impact of the terrible dysfunction and hopelessness which grips many Aboriginal people - but not all. However, they understand it, and they want action. They appreciate the situation people are in. They do not like the law and order consequences or the dysfunction and the disadvantage that comes out of it, but they appreciate how it got to that point, and they want action. They are sick of seeing government throwing good money after bad.
Government has not only lost the hearts and minds of Indigenous Territorians, they have lost it from non-Indigenous Territorians. It is no wonder, because all we see is money going in but nothing getting done - good money after bad. There are no outcomes. We have heard the member for Arnhem, the minister, talking about the million dollar programs, the billion dollars here, but nothing is changing on the ground; that is what people care about.
We hear of children at risk, drunks on our streets, overcrowding and damaged housing. I could go on, but it is not going to serve a purpose for the argument to talk about the negatives. I walk on top of the fence. Not taking a perceived bash at the Aboriginal approach is one way to explain it. I take a position on the fence of understanding the issue, how it has reached that point, and some of the solutions; balancing the punitive with the social responses. The Country Liberals have been in the distance for a long time on these issues. It is not saying we failed over the last 27 years, as the government wants to say; we achieved much. We have been away and, now, we are back. No more are we back than on Indigenous affairs.
I must thank the party and the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition for his guidance on this issue, and for prioritising it through such an important point. However, we are not in government, and it is Labor which has lost the hearts and mind of Territorians on this heart-wrenching situation. It is a situation where there is now a climate of no respect and we wonder if we made this so – if government failures have encouraged and developed the situation of what is often classified as reverse racism. How did we make this happen? Was it us? How do we resolve it? By making more and more funding announcements, more and more programs, supporting an inflating industry that perpetuates misery and hate and, ultimately, the neglect of duty for the care and protection of children. What have we created by taking this approach? A situation, a development, a whole industry of waste that surrounds what can be classified as Aboriginal money; a whole industry just feeding off this disadvantage; an industry feeding off misery where everyone has a role, everyone is running around doing their job, trying to make improvements. All the while, the situation is just getting worse. The bridge at Palumpa is still not built - my point.
The situation is misunderstood by governments, both Territory and federal. These governments do not appreciate that every time they announce another program, more people will be brought to the Territory, people who will struggle to find a place to live because there are no houses which, effectively, is pushing rents higher through demand economics, and forces the most disadvantaged out of a tight housing market. They announce another program; people have to come to town to run that program. It puts pressure on the housing market and the people who have the least money to be able to afford to pay have to move out and they become homeless. This is the situation we find ourselves in. So, we see more homeless which, as we know, breeds alcoholism, antisocial behaviour, children not having a safe place to eat and sleep - misery, Madam Speaker, misery. That is what we are breeding.
What is this situation? It is a situation of inequality, what I would call economic inequality. Economic inequality where the average annual earnings of our most advantaged are far outstripping our most disadvantaged. The effects of income inequality is detailed in a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett titled The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better which specifies the complete breakdown in society and norms. I encourage the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Arafura to read the book. It will explain to you how spiralling income inequality, where there is a great disparity between the higher and the lower, spurs growth in mental illness. Health and social problems go out the window in the levels, obesity reigns, and education standards become poor. Teenage pregnancies go through the roof. Violence runs free on our streets. Breakdowns in community life and social relations occur. This inequality brings about the situation of environmental damage, harming social, economic, and cultural reform and progression.
That is the position where are in now. I do not have to go through those inequality levels for you to understand where these measures are in the Northern Territory. Teenage pregnancies, education - we have seen the NAPLAN results and I am not going to go into the social dysfunction. Government has the whole model so wrong. There is no leadership, no direction, and no action but money is coming out like a tap turned on. What is worse is children are still at risk. We are in dire straits. The saddest thing is that the poverty, the desperation, and the hopelessness appear to have become intergenerational. We fear Aboriginal youth and children are already destined for very limited opportunities in life, and will endure lives afflicted by poor health, poor education outcomes, and limited life expectancy. We have lost generations of Aboriginal people. I am worried we are about to lose another - the kids today - and that would be tragic.
Territorians are proud to be so, ever those who have not been here long. However, some of this pride is gone and, when looking forward to the next 10 to 20 years, people are not convinced it will get any better. In particular, they think rather than closing the gap, the gap will widen as another generation of kids are lost in poverty. The public will accept a hit in the hip pocket if it can be shown there is a way, a real plan, a mixture of hard and soft to turn the hopelessness that surrounds the current generation of Aboriginal children and youth into a better future than they have today.
Do you ever think we will win back the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory? Labor will not. The Country Liberal Party, more than anyone, must provide hope and opportunity for all children. The perplexing question for government is how to fix this problem - a problem they know, and the member for Arnhem knows, and would like to see fixed. It is one that is so large and so intrinsically linked to all facets of government across all portfolios, and appears too cumbersome for some and too immense for others. We must move towards clarifying where we are. No one knows what degree of input is going into Indigenous affairs, but we certainly see what the outcomes are.
I do not wish to stand here arguing about SIHIP, NAPLAN and prison numbers. I want to establish what the problem is. The key mechanism to achieve this outcome is to commence building a level of transparency to the degree of spending. This approach will allow the measurement of specific receipts from the Commonwealth designated to improve Indigenous outcomes and, then, parallel these figures with the level of inputs the Northern Territory government expends on specific program expenditure.
I am not talking about general business. General Business is about education for Territorians. It is about building and maintaining roads and providing health services such as emergency wards in hospitals. That is not targeting Indigenous-specific funding. All of these are areas of general business of government. Government should be providing what I call a basic level of services.
The process of this could be the development of a specific and detailed budget paper that supports this motion, setting out the details of all funding provided to Northern Territory government departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs, and how, where and when these funds are expended on what. They should clearly provide whether funding came from the Territory or from the Commonwealth and, for each of these different funding areas, how funding provided was expended, and what outcomes were achieved.
I received briefings from government departments on the direction things are heading. While the Country Liberals would take somewhat a different approach from a policy perspective, one thing we must do is tackle the matter with urgency and priority - something which is completely lacking from this government; there is no urgency and no priority. Leadership should drive this intent; leadership should drive urgency. Mal Brough took the bull by the horns head on. Whether you like all the elements of the previous emergency intervention or not, we had leadership and action.
This motion brought on by the member for Macdonnell is supported by the Country Liberals, and I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing this on. We provide the opportunity to work together with the Northern Territory government to move to a level of greater transparency. A specified and detailed budget paper would support greater accountability through the system of democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I hoped someone from the other side would speak because, if you heard the words which have been spoken, you would have some cause for a belief that what has been put on the table to discuss, would be responded to by those who have expressed views on this most significant of matters.
I am actually surprised I am speaking now, when I expected a member of the government to be engaging in this topic - particularly one of the Indigenous members. What I fear now is the case is this issue, once again, has been seen through a political prism: ‘It is only politics, after all, so we judge it accordingly and, therefore, do not speak to it’.
Politics is not going to solve any of these problems. I thought enough has been said in here which so clearly presented the challenge - with the words which have been put before us to contend with now - that we make a decision to get serious about the amount of money that is spent, and whether that spend results in noticeable and measurable difference. If we are clear about the money and what it is being spent on, and measure that against the outcome, then at least we can shift our attention to that point and bring about some change. They resist stating the core business is, in fact, being attended to without a full explanation which satisfies honourable members.
What is the core business? That is a question that has to be asked. What is the core business? If you see it through a political prism, it is quite plain it is to maintain your perception, your presence politically, within this arena.
However, if the core business is, in fact, to do as we are urged to do at the start of each parliament - to advance the true interests of all Territorians and, most notably, those who most need our help, If we approached it in that manner, then we would have a serious debate. The problem is still there. I find it very hard to believe my honourable colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, placed themselves in a position where they are not going to engage because, after all, this is political. I suspect that is the reason.
They must have this view that everything is, in fact, okay. Or perhaps they have pre-judged? They have seen us as though I have been in power for 26 years before the change of government in 2001. If you do the sums on that, I do not think I would actually be able to stand here today. I have been in government for 26 years, I am personally responsible, as all of us are here, for everything you think has gone wrong. Then you put yourself under this glorious light as being the ones who are going to fix everything, and you cannot trust us. It means I would have been in parliament for 36 years and personally responsible for everything. How dumb is that?
You talk about racism, discrimination, prejudice, and describe things to suit your own position. You are at the centre of it - your own ideology, justification, which are empty and shallow, making no difference at all to those who need the help. I have to say to you, this is my 11th year in this parliament. I have said, on more than five of those years when I am rising to speak on such matters, the same thing.
How is it that we cannot even come to having a meaningful discussion on this matter? We hope all the words that have been spoken this morning - I made a list of words, ‘we are committed’, ‘transformation’, ‘targeted’, ‘it is a bold policy’, ‘we are working hard, damn hard’. You talked about ‘embarking’ on something several times, about future forums, and about partnerships. Gobbledegook! That means nothing to those who need a response they can understand.
What sort of a response does a hungry person need? Food. What sort of response does a person who does not have a secure place to live? They need security; the family settled down. What about the school that is having some difficulty keeping a teacher there? They need a teacher there; they need to know that education is being valued. They need to know their modest contribution is actually being respected and it will grow. All these words have been spoken.
You cannot achieve a genuine partnership to achieve something by hoping it is going to happen to some place remote from here - because we are ‘working damn hard’ and we are engaging in some strategy or plan, or some forum is going to make a difference out there. Yet, right here, the community leaders cannot come together to decide on a common ground, cannot stand in the same place, cannot agree on something as basic as this.
We cannot even have a robust and honest debate about such matters without things being cast in a political context. There is prejudice clearly. You have painted the Country Liberals in a particular way, so it makes it a bit easier for you. You give yourself this veneer of respectability by all of these bureaucratic-type buzz words that are being sprouted on the other side. I hear the same kind of responses we have had when we were talking about protection of children.
How hard was it to bring a change of heart and mind? I hope that is the case; that we have seen an action from the government, because you had public pressure placed upon you. You had the blow torch to your belly, and then you adjusted your position. I will let you go, but you are saying this is the greatest thing that has ever happened, as though it was solely and completely your moral imperative to make this decision. We all know you were forced into it, dragged kicking and screaming. Why? It was the protection of children, after all, which was at stake here. Why was this so hard? Why, after all these years, is it we are just at this place? In a matter such as this, how is we still are having the same debates and the same begrudging deep resentful reluctance to be involved in serious business because you cannot take your ideology to anyone else?
You still think: ‘You were in power for 26 years’. I hope that does not happen because, if you are in power for 26 years, I reckon if you compare 26 for 26 - you think about that for a second, if you can escape from your own mind set; match the two. All the schools which were built, the railways. I was delayed twice coming from Palmerston this morning by a train. Where did that come from? All those schools; the ports. There were schools there; there were houses; there are houses there. It was hard then, and it is hard now, but one thing I have noticed …
Mr Giles: With a quarter of the budget.
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is right. One thing I have heard is it is not a money issue or a process issue; it is about your attitude. I have heard this, and it strikes a cord with me. An Aboriginal man said to me: ‘I am having real trouble. You mob’ - like I belong to some kind of tribe called the Country Liberals, but I happen to belong to the liberal conservative side. He said: ‘We used to fight with you mob, but we enjoyed having those arguments because, at the end of the argument, we were still standing together but we knew exactly what each other’s positions was, and we knew what to do from that point on. But, this new mob, we thought they were going to be real good and they were going to do all of this special stuff for us. They had told us that for a long time. But, the trouble is, the words are like they are with us, but their feet are a long way away from us. Their words are with us, but their feet are standing in a different spot. It is like they are ashamed of actually standing with us’.
It is confusing, and they do not know where they actually stand. That is a really hard thing for good, honest people who just want to know you are speaking the plain truth, and you are going to say ‘I disagree’, or ‘I agree’, or ‘This is as far as we can go’ – and you actually go that far, rather than gobbledygook that is designed to confuse even the more educated, let alone those having to grasp these ideas and this emotional stuff through culture and language: ‘What the hell is going on? I think I trust you, but I do not know. After 10 years, we are in a worse position’. However, you probably do not see that.
I believe we need to bring ourselves back to another place when we are dealing with this issue. I am not going to leave this. I have made a decision; I am staying around for some time, because I cannot leave while this is going to be presented before us and we just keep skating around it. I am going to stay and work on this. I have two pictures.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for showing and helping me understand some things, as a parliamentarian. I have appreciated some of the conversations I have had with different members of the Chamber. Member for Barkly, I have enjoyed some of the conversations we have had. I believe there is a place we could actually go to. I really appreciate the role the member for Braitling has played in our shadow Cabinet.
These matters are alive and well. You may judge us whichever way you want to judge us, but you had better get it right. There are things happening on our side; we are taking this seriously, we are not going to back away from this. I am not going to be put off by a discriminatory or prejudiced view which may suit those making the judgment. However, we are not moving from this spot.
There are two things I have seen which stay with me. One was when I was on the substance abuse committee with members of this parliament - some have left – where the member for Macdonnell led a delegation. We were at Nhulunbuy, in a room, and there was a group - all non-Indigenous, but they spoke in that bureaucratic language about programs, transformation, and partnerships. I do not think they used ‘stepwise’ but they were very much aware of problems. They were going to take strong action. They talked about implementing x, y and z. They were targeting, etcetera - all that kind of stuff. After we had asked them some questions they then wanted to take the opportunity to tell us of a really new approach they wanted to take. They started describing this theoretical framework that would allow them to engage in a new and innovative way with a social problem which was quite clear. I do not think programs fix anything; people do. We put our faith in programs and in money, but it is people who actually make change. I will get to that in a minute.
Anyway, they pumped this stuff up. It was just so complex, so big and broad, and their eyes lit up about ‘How good this would be if we received this money. You could get if from the feds, you could get it from the Territory government. You can go and lobby for us and we will get this money and run this program. This great air castle could be brought here to Nhulunbuy and it would make all this change to all these social problems’. To the credit of some of our members who had been together for some time and travelled all over the Territory, we smelt something.
What it was about was a program to keep those involved in this industry, in the industry. That is what it was about. How did we work that out? Because in a while you get to know people, and you can judge their motives if you read people, listen to them. I was starting to get a sense there was something funny going on. The question I asked was: ‘If you are serious about what we have seen and you really want to engage and walk in partnership, how much of your thinking, funding, and component preparation is devoted to the learning of the language or the culture so you could actually understand the people you want to help, and they understand you? How many here can speak any word of the language of the target group?’ Not one of them! Nor was there any consideration for any language or any cultural training, yet they wanted to impose some abstract concept that was going to bring about some kind of profound change, in language we scarcely understood. It was about the program which would make bugger-all difference, but would cost a heap. I withdraw, if that is offensive.
I contrast another picture I saw last year. I went to Brother Pye’s funeral and listened to the eulogies. What struck me, as the man was being wheeled to the back of the hearse, was there were tears of joy, celebration, and sadness. He was a man who had done so much, achieved so much, with the help of a few people. They did not even have sunscreen in those days. You would have been stinking hot out there in the sun, with no air-conditioning, out there in the backblocks building all kinds of things. They built something in the people. They physically built schools and bakeries and market gardens. With how much money? What is the difference?
I am stuck with that. What is the difference? What a wealthy country we are; that we think we will just shovel more money into it with the mistaken delusion the program is going to fix a political problem. Oh no, no, the problem is the stuff that is troubling the people in the northern suburbs. It is a political problem. So, more money: ‘Fair enough, we will spend more money and we will fix the problem’.
How is it that Brother Pye and the likes of Brother Pye and others, who have worked with nothing have done so much, and we with so much, have been able to achieve so little? That is what this motion is about: at least do an honest assessment. Perhaps members have come in now to engage in a debate; I hope that is the case.
This motion deserves support because the purpose of this is to get to a point where we match the money up to the quality of a program which is going to effect change. Then, we can get this analysis and be able to redirect and reshape the program. The program serves the need; the need needs to be addressed. We have some money; we have to ensure that money produces something. We must be an incredibly wealthy country if we do not even need to do a proper assessment, because the outcomes are not desirable, nor are they improving. You may think they are; I am convinced they are not. You need to do that assessment.
I do not know how you would resist this motion, but you have, obviously, by the indication of the one speaker from government. I have gained this impression you have found a nice secure little spot to stand and so no. Well, we are not going away. I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing on this motion. I have spoken in support alongside you on a number of occasions when you were with the government. Now you are an Independent, we look forward to doing much more of that.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the members for Blain and Braitling for understanding where this motion comes from; from a position of trying to help the most disadvantaged people in the Northern Territory - the people who have become an industry for the survival of lots of people now. The key factors of Aboriginal disadvantage now determine what kind of cars you have, how many houses you have, where you live, who your friends are, where your children go to school, and what kind of food you have on the table.
I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition and my parliamentary colleague and friend from a very long time - the member for Braitling. We go back to ATSIC times. He has shown his compassion. What he has seen in his tours of remote Aboriginal communities, where he lives in Alice Springs, and when he is travelling through to Tennant Creek has really played on his emotions, and made him realise this motion is a serious motion about transparency. It is about allowing a process to happen that is transparent to Indigenous people and Indigenous organisations, so they can see where their money is going. and what is happening to their money.
I want to reiterate on something the member for Braitling said. It is all very well to stand inside this House and say there are millions of dollars being put in to help; certain millions being put into education, and into child protection. The children out there have no safety. The children out there - Territory children - are still living in poverty. Our Territory children are still living in overcrowded houses. Children are living in the long grasses of Darwin.
There are people - not just Indigenous, but non-Indigenous - sitting outside the House of people - the very House we sit in and debate. With what we put inside the Northern Territory, you have a homeless, non-Indigenous man sitting outside every night to protest to this parliament that he has nowhere to go, has nowhere to sleep. It may be up to this House to give him a room inside parliament. After all, this is the House of people. We should be looking after these people.
I was disappointed that the Minister for Central Australia did not even debate this motion. Of course, I go back to the time when we were all in government - the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Indigenous Development and I - and how it was a real concern to the three of us while that the government was not spending money in the right areas. It is obvious you have quickly changed your minds, and now believe the government is putting the money in the right places, even though, you knew - and you still know today - from visiting your families and your people on the ground they are not putting in the money. You might be putting the money in the Top End, but it is not coming to the bottom end.
I will go back to using the analogy of the hose that I used to the Minister for Indigenous Development when she talked to me about this motion. The reason why I put this motion to the House tonight is, it is like when you take a hose to water a garden and it has a couple of kinks. There is no pressure coming out on the hose, therefore, the water is just trickling. In order to get the pressure up on the hose, you need to go back and take all the kinks out.
That is the very reason why this motion was put tonight. You keep saying you have put in 100% at the top, but people are still struggling with health, education, housing and child protection down the bottom - renal failure, 5% going there. It is about undoing the kinks in the middle. It is about discovering what all the arms of the NGOs are doing to deliver the appropriate service. That is all this motion was about.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the Country Liberals for supporting this motion and thank the members for Blain and Braitling.
Motion negatived.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
Madam Speaker, in moving this motion, I argue for the establishment of a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee. There can be no question regarding the value of such a committee. As the former Minister for Indigenous Policy, I can testify to how little is known about where the money is actually being spent, and how effectively it is being spent.
In 2009-10, the Northern Territory budget will involve the expenditure of over $4bn, including $1.5bn in Health; $808m in Education; $447m in Local Government and Housing; and $279m in Planning and Infrastructure portfolios. That is an enormous budget for a jurisdiction of a little over 200 000 people.
The reason the Territory budget is so substantial is because the federal government provides substantial funds for the Territory government to counter acute Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory. Exact figures escape me, but the Territory received around $300 000 more per person than New South Wales received from the federal government. As I said, that money is to counter acute Indigenous disadvantage.
The problem is, there is very little evidence of progress on the ground. The stream of federal money dries up before it reaches the communities for whom it is provided. The Commonwealth and Territory governments have, as far as practicable, a philosophy of providing universal access to health and education services across Australia and, in addition, the responsibility to deliver those public services into the regions.
Indigenous people make up approximately 30% of the Northern Territory population and are significantly over-represented by numbers in remote and rural communities in comparison to the urban settings such as Darwin or Alice Springs. That is why a significant proportion of the Northern Territory’s annual budget funding should be directed to meeting the needs of Indigenous people in remote areas in the Northern Territory. I can tell this House it does not happen and it should.
The Henderson government tries to hide that nasty little secret behind the findings of its Indigenous Expenditure Review. It claims the review shows the Northern Territory government spent 50% of its funding on Indigenous Territorians who make up 30% of the population and, hence, it is directing additional money it receives to Indigenous people. It does not mention the review includes the amount of money spent gaoling Aboriginals in its calculations. The federal government does not give the Territory government extra money to tackle Indigenous disadvantage by imprisoning them.
The money is for tackling the underlying causes which result in so many people ending up in prison. The money is provided for education, housing, health and infrastructure. The Henderson government insults Australian taxpayers when it claims it is putting the extra money to good use by locking up people who it neglects, by imprisoning people who it fails to provide with an education, a safe place to sleep, and a future stake in the Territory. Wander the leafy streets of the northern suburbs of Darwin and look at the huge amount of money being poured into underground power lines, then go to the remote communities where power may be on, or may not be.
Federal money given to ensure remote communities enjoy access to basic amenities is effectively being used to increase the property values of homeowners in the northern suburbs. That is pork-barrelling of the worst kind. It was SIHIP which finally drove me to leave the Henderson government in despair. I insisted on trying to get to the bottom of why millions of dollars were pouring out the door but no houses were built. Aside from a couple of honourable exceptions, my Cabinet colleagues did not give a damn about the flood of money being pocketed by the alliances; tens of millions of dollars earmarked for remote communities wasted.
Equally distressing was the government’s refusal to take the issue seriously. They did not bother to make any serious inquiries about why no houses were being built or where the money was going. The disgraceful misuse of taxpayers’ money to line the pockets of well-heeled consultants, when it was meant to be used to build houses in remote communities, is the perfect example of why we need this committee.
The fact that $50m was squandered before a single house was built shows the Henderson government cannot be trusted to deliver for Indigenous Territorians. If I had not walked from the government, that waste, the graft, and abuse of taxpayers’ money would have continued unchecked. Indeed, as I stand here today, only two new houses have been completed - two new houses. Now, there are grave concerns about the quality of homes to be built and the refurbishments to be done.
I am hearing of homes being built without verandahs; of four bedrooms becoming three bedrooms; duplexes replacing freestanding homes. In short, we are hearing of a massive squeeze to get to the promised targets. Can we truly stand here as politicians and allow half the work to be done to these houses? This is occurring despite the fact the infrastructure component of SIHIP has already been hived off. By the time SIHIP is finished, the bill will be into the billions.
That is why we need a permanent watchdog guarding Indigenous expenditure. It will have picked up the disgraceful misuse of money earlier in the process. If I could have demanded the alliance explain why no houses were being built, it would have protected the interests of Indigenous Territorians and taxpayers. Its very existence would have been a powerful incentive for the alliance to deliver value for money.
Let us not forget the Henderson government fought the public disclosure of facts about the SIHIP scandal all the way. It would not say how much money had been spent, it kept throwing out false dates when housing would be built, and it refused to admit the depth of the crisis. You can bet your bottom dollar there will be a lot more jumping up from that side to talk to this.
Now, we have all the indications of a repeat performance. I hear of refurbishments which fail to pass the basic needs of people who live in these homes. Natasha Robinson wrote in The Australian:
How disgraceful is that for $75 000 per house?
Such stories have that familiar ring; they make me despair. They also convince me of a need for a Territory Indigenous affairs expenditure review committee. While the Northern Territory government makes claims in regard to Indigenous expenditure, its own members and ex-members shed more telling light upon the situation. It is apparent the government rhetoric about money being spent on closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage is not reflected by the actuality of present allocations.
I have said before, Labor talks constantly about Aboriginal people but what it really is good at is spending Aboriginal money. There is money being spent - always money, rivers of money - but it never seems to reach the people on the ground. There is genuine and heartfelt concern in the community for the plight of Indigenous people, and a genuine want in the community to see things improve for them. That is why there are commitments at a Commonwealth level for additional resources, and the Territory government makes statements on delivering against disadvantage.
The community fears that Aboriginal youth and children are destined for very limited opportunities in life and to endure life inflicted by poor health, poor education, and limited life expectancy if additional resources are not provided. It is our responsibility, as members of this House, to ensure there are programs delivered on behalf of the community to address disadvantage.
I wonder, also, whether the funds are being committed to the Indigenous business development program. Has there been investment in Indigenous tourism operators? Can we expect more tourists coming to the Territory because we have the real content tourists want; that is, Aboriginal people? Do we have the training and education programs in place? Is the money being spent? Are the millions of dollars needed being delivered on the ground in schools, teachers, and training? The only way we can be sure is if we have the magnifying glass on those programs and those figures.
Do we have real investment in remote communities where there are opportunities for Indigenous people in the pastoral industry? Is there money for land and sea rangers? How can we care for country, if the country does not care for us? Where is the support for renewable energy technology? How do we make communities sustainable and viable if the money is not coming? Where are the police to keep us safe? Where is the investment in protection for women and children on the communities from violence?
While the minister and this government do not recognise it, there was something very amiss with government expenditure for capital investment. One of the things this government jumps up and down about is that people should buy their own homes and to lease their land for 99 years. It would be good if the Northern Territory government could pay the Tiwi Islanders what they owe for a couple of years. Apparently, you refused to pay the Tiwi Islanders.
In 2004 and 2005, three communities - Lajamanu, Groote and Wadeye - received half of all the money. With recurrent expenditure, the inequity has been even more disturbing. An in-depth analysis of funding received in East Arnhem Land and West Arnhem Land over 2004-05 and 2005-06 reveals East Arnhem Land was getting five times more per capita. A broad brush comparison between East Arnhem Land and the desert region showed a similar discrepancy.
That is why we need a permanent watch on how this government spends money on Indigenous affairs. This motion proposes that a new parliamentary committee be established. Its role will be to investigate, review and make reports to parliament on government spending on Indigenous programs, report on government’s rural and remote service delivery, and examine all infrastructure development in the regions.
It is proposed the committee will be made up of a selection of members of the Assembly, in particular Indigenous representatives from all sides of the Chamber. I call upon the members for Stuart, Arnhem, Arafura, and Braitling to join me on this committee. I ask them to think about the words they have been spoken in this House. The member for Stuart has said:
Yes, we do need to be delivering for our constituents.
The member for Arnhem has said:
Well, minister, support this call for a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee. Show your concern for the welfare for the youth is met by the commitment to ensure programs are delivered to Indigenous people. Join me in this committee.
The member for Braitling has said in this House of government:
Well, I ask that question of him, and call upon the member and the opposition to take real action and support this motion.
Member for Arafura, you have been a member of this government for a long time. You have been a backbencher and a minister, a strident speaker on Indigenous policy. I call on you to support this motion to bring Indigenous expenditure into the open for all to see. It is well known that the rural and remote members of Assembly have been consistently critical of application of government resources to urban electorates. This committee provides a review platform and an opportunity for the government to answer those concerns.
In a separate item before the Assembly I call for the Territory government to prepare a unique Indigenous expenditure budget paper. The role of the committee, the subject of this motion, will be to review that budget paper in the first instance and, then, on a regular basis to further inquire into the distribution and use of government resources. We need to achieve acknowledged benchmarks, in particular, for example, with regard to outcomes and the health and education portfolio areas. These achievements need to be measurable; such as community health and literacy and numeracy.
In common balance, the proposed committee would have the equivalent standing to the new review committee established at the Council for Territory Cooperation. The Indigenous expenditure subcommittee would be a working example of how a parliament should balance, in a jurisdiction as disadvantaged as the Territory, with the competing needs, the appropriation of funding, across the communities. Only fear of exposure of the truth would keep the government from supporting this committee.
I say to the Indigenous members of this parliament that fear has been used as an excuse to ignore the rights of our people many times before. It would be a travesty if we allowed fear of the truth to become the latest excuse for failing to fulfil our duty to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion. I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with:
Madam SPEAKER: You need to sign the amendment and have it circulated.
Mr WOOD: And have it printed, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have that done fairly quickly, please?
Mr WOOD: I understand much of what the member for Macdonnell is talking about. The issue of Indigenous spending has been the subject of quite a few reviews. We had the 2006-07 Indigenous Expenditure Review. There has also been a Senate inquiry. It concerns me, in debate, we can sometimes all become experts on figures. I certainly am not expert on figures.
The two motions have raised some serious issues. For me to get up and give an educated analysis of some of the figures which have been raised is quite difficult. However, I did go to the summary. This is the document which the Auditor-General looked at in 2006-07. It is subtitled the Auditor-General’s Report to the Under Treasurer on Indigenous Expenditure Review for 2006-07. It said:
I then go to the back of this document and I find there is a summary. It is only a short summary. It refers to a table 21, and it says:
Indigenous-related revenue declined by 1.5 percentage points between 2004-05 and 2006-07;
In the table, it also mentions Indigenous-related revenue in a percentage form. In 2004-05, Indigenous-related revenue was 45.9%; in 2006-07, it was 44.4%. Indigenous-related expenditure in 2004-05 was 50.1%; in 2006-07, it was 52.4%.
My reading of those figures, based on those matters I have read, from our Auditor-General, certainly gives you the impression there is actually nearly two-and-a-half times the amount of money spent on Indigenous issues compared to non-Indigenous expenditure and, in actual fact, we spent more money than we actually received on Indigenous-related issues.
The member for Macdonnell raised some issues about whether these figures would be a true indication of what is actually on the ground. That is not easy for people to judge. I am no expert when it comes to pulling the Indigenous Expenditure Review apart, especially if you look at who the people are who were on it. There are some pretty substantially qualified people who put this review together. The review was refereed by Professor Kenneth Wiltshire, JD Story Professor of Public Administration, University of Queensland Business School and former member of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and Mr Saul Eslake, Chief Economist ANZ. Northern Territory Treasury also held discussions with Commonwealth Grants Commission staff concerning the commission’s assessments. These are some pretty qualified people who have looked at this particular issue which we are discussing today.
Be that as it may, I believe there is an opportunity for us to try to clear up some of these issues once and for all. You will hear one side say it is not right, and the other side say it is. I could probably say all this points to the fact the government is spending all the money it gets.
However, in light of the fact we now have a Council of Territory Cooperation, there is an opportunity for people such as the Auditor-General, for instance, to be asked to come before that council and give us an understanding of how this review came to its conclusions.
We need to really hone down and see whether some of the - you might say - allegations the member for Macdonnell has made, have some basis in truth or they do not. One of the best ways to do that is to try to get neutral, non-political people to come to a bipartisan board where questions can be asked in relation to Indigenous spending in the Northern Territory.
It is an important issue; there is no doubt about it. Just as people can tell you a bad story on one side about Indigenous issues, I can tell you some good stories. I have to be a little biased; I lived at Daly River for a long time. Have a look at the housing at Daly River; it is fantastic. Nauiyu is a great place to live, but it has social issues like every other place. But housing? It has some of the best housing in the Territory. There is a big youth centre. It has good facilities; it has a good primary school. I think anyone …
Mr Elferink: How long have they been there, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: It has been there since I went there in 1971. It had the most modern houses of any Aboriginal community ...
Mr Elferink: So, they built them?
Mr WOOD: Hang on. They are basic houses, as far as I know, funded by the United Nations. Sir Paul Hasluck opened Daly River in about 1956. They have always been one of the leaders in housing ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, that is right, and we did nothing. From 1978 to 2001 we ate babies; that is what we did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr WOOD: Whose discussion is this?
I am saying there are some good stories, and there are some bad stories. I believe we have to keep things in balance. Not everything is bad.
When we are talking about Indigenous spending, do we include Royal Darwin Hospital? The Darwin hospital is for everyone. The road which goes to Darwin hospital is for everyone; Indigenous people use it. I would be feeling uncomfortable if we started to divide up roads according to how many Indigenous people used them and how many did not. I do not think we need to go down that path. You have to remember money spent, sometimes, is for all of us, whether we are black or white, because we all use the road. It is very difficult to debate those comparisons of whether that is money used for Indigenous Territorians or not.
There are some issues the member for Macdonnell has raised. I believe going down this path of using the Council of Territory Cooperation - the mechanics to that can be worked out inside the Council of Territory Cooperation. Whether it is a subcommittee, or whether it is a full committee - it might be a full committee wishes to do it. I do not want a committee based on race. In fact, I would have objected to this original motion based on item No 4; I do not think that is healthy. People in this parliament should not be basing their membership on their race, but on their ability, or as simply members of parliament. We are all concerned money is going in the right direction.
I have a friend who is now retired; I used to go to horticultural college with him. He did other things later in life, and one was to work as a consultant - if you can call it that - for the Commonwealth government. His job was to come to the Northern Territory and check Commonwealth grants. He would go to Batchelor College. They might have received a grant for something, and he would physically have to follow where that money went, who collected the wages, and what the outcome was. I sometimes believe that is how much we have to focus on some of these issues. Perhaps there is a particular focus the council could look at: where the money is going, and follow the money trail. There must be evidence where money is spent. Treasury would be on to people straightaway if they did not know where money was going.
Even though we are going to be dealing with technical terms when it comes to dealing with Treasury, surely, when you boil it all down, you know if the Commonwealth gave X amount of dollars for sporting and recreational facilities, let us see where that money went.
We know departments sometimes take the cream off it, the 10%. I have always had a concern about that. Maybe that is some of the issues we can debate. Schools might want a classroom worth $0.5m; they get $450 000 because the department has taken a slice of it. That may be an issue we can also look at. Is too much being taken off and not enough going to where it was meant to be delivered?
I believe they are the things the Council of Territory Cooperation can look at. My opinion is the first person to get in is the person who audited this expenditure review, the Auditor-General, and ask him his opinion and where the council should head. Again, that is only my opinion. The council might have other ideas when it comes before them.
It is an issue which has been around for some time. It is an issue which has been in the newspapers; which gets political. However, if it is about money, numbers, facts, surely we can get down to that. Money does not disappear unless it is for illegal purposes; money has a trail somewhere. The reason I have asked for this to be in the second quarter of this year is because that takes the pressure off Treasury. Treasury now will be getting ready for the budget and the Estimates Committee. It would free up Treasury people. In other words, they will have an opportunity to come before the Council of Territory Cooperation and be asked questions. It will give an opportunity for the council to look back 12 months, because those figures will then have been produced for the budget. It will also give an opportunity, each quarter, for the council to follow where money is actually going. When it has been given to the Territory by the Commonwealth, for instance, they can see where that money is going. That is the reason I have looked at that timetable because I thought that made the most sense.
How the structure of the council will work with this - whether it is a subcommittee or whether it gets people onto it, whatever - will be a matter for the council to decide.
I am putting it forward the amendment because I do not agree with the motion. One of those reasons was, basically as I said, item No 4. However, I believe this is an opportunity, at least, to allow the member for Macdonnell, who is a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation, to take up some of the issues of concern, to test the validity of some of the statements she has made, and to allow all of us to have input into that. I do not think it matters whether members are Indigenous or non-Indigenous. What we need to do is to see whether money is going to the right place. If it is not, then we should be asking why. If it is, we can tell people it is. If not enough of it is going, we can ask if too much being taken off for departmental purposes when it should be really going more into on-the-ground facilities out there in the communities.
The member for Macdonnell also said things such as Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land get five times more funding per capita - I think she said - than people in her area in the Centre. Whether that is true or not, I would not have a clue. Perhaps that is an area that can be tested.
Madam Speaker, what the member for Macdonnell has moved is a reasonable request that we track down where money is being spent. Council has the ability to do what she asks without going into an inquiry as such. She did mention it would, under her motion, be similar to the way the Council of Territory Cooperation operates. I believe the CTC could do it. I put forward that as a motion for support.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, to my astonishment, I find myself on my feet speaking about this issue tonight. The reason I am surprised is because of the sudden and somewhat surprising amendment to the motion the member for Nelson has introduced. Not surprising is the fact he wants to send it to the Territory council of cooperation, but more to the point, I had no notice of this amendment. Whilst we move amendments on the floor of the House from time to time, I have just taken the liberty of speaking to the member for Macdonnell who was equally as surprised by this amendment on the table ...
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding me!
Mr ELFERINK: I can only go on what she tells me, and that is what she just told me.
Ms Lawrie: Well, been outed then.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I will tell you why. Even if there has been some discussion between the members for Macdonnell and Nelson, the members on this side of the House, including the members of the Territory council of cooperation, have not been negotiated with …
Ms Lawrie: You said she was equally surprised.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a council of cooperation that he talks about. I tell you what is really going on here, Madam Speaker, and this is the part that does concern me. The effect of this motion – and by the way, this Territory council of cooperation does not need a reference from this House; it can choose to do this all by itself. So, what is the member for Nelson actually doing? I will tell you what I hope is not going on here, but I am starting to suspect the only real motivation I am seeing is the member for Nelson wants to have the motion amended to avoid one thing; that is, this going to a division in this House and forcing the members on that side of the House, particularly targeted by the member for Macdonnell, from having to vote and divide the House.
That is a proximity issue I am concerned about because the member for Nelson has not told me or the member for Katherine, as far as I am aware, or anyone else on this side of the House, that he was going to be introducing this particular amendment. He does not need to; this matter could be voted down and still he could have the Territory council of cooperation look at all of these issues. That is a matter for the Territory council of cooperation; it is self-referencing.
What this amendment will achieve is get rid of the motion the member for Macdonnell has moved in this House, which stands in its own right, and does not require amendment. It does not require a reference to the CTC. As a result of that motion, the members opposite - including the ministers who this motion is directed at - will not have to vote. That concerns me because what I get out of that is there no requirement for this amendment to occur, but it does have the effect, ultimately, of masking the very issue the member for Macdonnell is trying to highlight; that is, political trickery.
Clearly, there have been discussions between government and the member for Nelson on this. I pick up from the interjections from the Treasurer that she knew all about this amendment hitting the table. She clearly understood it, so they have been discussing it amongst themselves and with the member for Nelson …
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely. And the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: And the member for Macdonnell, so you say. I pick up on that interjection again. Clearly, I will take that as an admission that the member for Nelson has been discussing this with government.
The member for Macdonnell has informed me otherwise and, if I have misunderstood or she has said the wrong thing or whatever, so be it. Whatever! The fact is if they are talking to each other and this side of the House is not in the loop. We are not being incorporated into the loop.
This is one of the criticisms I have about the Territory council of cooperation; that its structure was predetermined. The fact the ministers were not compellable was predetermined. We were given an ultimate package which we had no input to, and it was either ‘like it or lump it, cooperate with us’. That is the very thing the member for Nelson says he despises, but he goes and does it anyhow. Now, we have an admission from the Treasurer that she has been talking to the member for Nelson ...
Ms Lawrie: Of course, I have.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Why is the member for Nelson not talking to us, and why are you not talking to us on issues that are going to the Territory council of cooperation? You do not take it seriously. You come in here and think what is available to you is nothing other than a cheap political stunt. That is how you see this council ...
Ms Lawrie: It was not your motion, and it is not achievable.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The point is we have to deal with an amendment - an amendment you had arranged with the member for Nelson and no one else. That is what this trickery is about. I believe the member for Nelson was sucked in. I believe this was suggested to the member for Nelson: ‘Here is a good idea; we will flick it off to the Territory council of cooperation’. The member for Nelson does not see what the government is actually trying to do; that is, prevent a division in this House because the people who are targeted by this particular motion, the people who are being singled out by the member for Macdonnell, are being used in such a fashion so they do not have to vote. The member for Nelson got sucked in.
That is the great irony of this whole exercise. He believes this is the council of cooperation. He is being smoothed and told it is all sweetness and light but, the fact is, on every opportunity, they will use the member for Nelson, with his approach, for their own ends to protect their own ministers. Every time an issue comes up in this House they do not like for public debate because it might embarrass one of them, they will just flick it off to the Territory council of cooperation because the member for Nelson is Mr Smoothy.
The fact is, if they are going to talk, and trying to expect the council of cooperation to work - and I heard the Chief Minister talking about the Territory council of cooperation and saying this is a great new era. Well, if this is how you do politics in the great new era, then you have not changed a thing. You are using the member for Nelson for your own ends ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, true. That is exactly true.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, this motion should stand in its own right. The member for Macdonnell may choose, in whatever way, to deal with this, but I believe the motion should stand unamended and the member for Nelson, if he wants the CTC to look at it, then bring it to the CTC and we will discuss it there.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, it is good to get to my feet, because that was a whole lot of rubbish by the member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: No, it was not. Are you going to divide on this?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Let me put on the record what is taking place here. Absolute disgrace. This is a very important motion that has come before the House, and …
Mr Elferink: Yes, and you are supporting an amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … we want to have an opportunity to speak to it and explain our thoughts on it.
There are two important points I need to emphasise in what I am about to say. The first one is it is about process - process that looks at how government works, at transparency, and at accountability. I commend the member for Macdonnell for bringing this motion to the House.
The second point I raise in my discussion is that our government is a government for all people, black and white, young and old. Our government, my colleagues, are here to represent each and every Territorian. We recognise, very much so, the disadvantage that faces Indigenous people across the Northern Territory. We recognise the high incarceration rate of Indigenous people in our gaols. We recognise the need to ensure our children are going to school. We recognise the need for more housing in the bush. We recognise the need for better infrastructure in roads and bridges. We know this, and each and every member in the Henderson Labor government works very hard to bring these issues to the forefront.
We also recognise we have decades of neglect, as I said in my response to the previous motion, of both federal and Territory governments in regard to Indigenous people across the Northern Territory and in remote regions. Not one member of this side of the House would shy away from wanting to improve the livelihood of Aboriginal people - not one member. They do not have to be black to have a concern for the people of the Territory who are disadvantaged. They do not have to be poor to have that concern. They do not have to be young; they do not have to be old. This parliament needs to recognise that the moment we focus on a race debate, thinking that only one race can sort out their own problems, then we have already given up on a future filled with hope for all of society.
What is important about this motion is we needed to find a way forward. It was important the member for Macdonnell brought this up. In my discussions with the member of Macdonnell, it was based on, how we progress this. I will tell you now, members for Macdonnell, Braitling, and Port Darwin, this side will not be divided on our race. We want to overcome these disadvantages, but we want to do it together.
When we go back to the process, as I touched on at the beginning, the process is about government bureaucracy, Treasury and methodology, and how we change the system within. That has to take place. It takes time. It is hidden; it is not in your face. However, it is in our face. We work with it every single day.
That process is one where we want to see the change in equity, fairness, and services. The methodology, and how Treasury uses that, is what we, on this side, have been voted in to work on. It is our role as ministers of this government to do our best to make those changes, and to improve the process. We can do that by being vigilant, by recognising there are flaws, by knowing we will not always get it right, but we keep on trying. We will do that; we are doing that. We are the first jurisdiction to have the Indigenous Expenditure Review. It is by no means perfect; however I can tell you we now have a blueprint, a formula, a method we can examine, build on, and improve. We have led the way. No other jurisdiction has even had any inkling, or made any steps towards that.
It was the previous Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who pushed for that Indigenous Expenditure Review. The Council of Australian Governments has insisted every jurisdiction go down the same path. We will be able to, within this process I speak of, compare, contrast, and compete, but that is going to happen at a level we cannot take out every day and explain to the community. However, each and every single one of us on this side who has a responsibility for an agency, a responsibility to improve the lives of people, know that fact. Do not for a minute forget it. That process is so important …
Ms Anderson: We do not forget it, you do. You have forgotten it that quick, just like lightning – flash!
Ms McCARTHY: Do you want to hear this, member for Macdonnell?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It is first about that process but, second, it is about recognising we need to work together not based on race. We will not be divided on this. We are working together on it.
Madam Speaker, it is good the member for Nelson brings forward this amendment so it can be taken to the Territory Council for Cooperation so it can be scrutinised by the members on the council; so that council can decide the shape in which it goes forward. Our government supports the amendment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this amendment on. I do not support the amendment, but I do appreciate you brought it on. The reason I do not support the amendment is because I do not have sufficient faith in the Council of Territory Cooperation to deal with this issue. I do not believe it allows the opportunities for more than the current members of the CTC to be able to participate in the oversight of the expenditure. I do not believe it allows for historical expertise to be a part of the review. However, I appreciate the intent of the amendment of the member for Nelson.
There are other ways this can be done, and placing extra work on the CTC will further bog it down. For those reasons, I will not be speaking about it, but I will speak about the motion when the motion comes up.
Madam SPEAKER: You only get one chance to speak.
Mr GILES: I will not be speaking on the amended motion?
Madam SPEAKER: No, since the amendment was moved, you can only speak on both items in the one period of time.
Mr GILES: A point of clarification, Madam Speaker. Once we vote on the amendment, do we come back to the original motion?
Madam SPEAKER: It depends if the amendment is accepted, then you just move the amended motion.
Mr GILES: If it is not, I get to speak?
Madam SPEAKER: No. There are two questions before the Chair and you are speaking to both the amendment and to the original motion.
Mr GILES: Thank you for the clarification Madam Speaker. I thought we were just speaking to the amendment, not to the amended motion we had not passed.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing the motion on in the first place. It is a very important motion which helps us get to the bottom of where Indigenous money is going in the Northern Territory. It will help us tabulate the funding that is coming in, the funding that is going out, and look at the outcomes we are receiving, the value for money on the outcomes actually being achieved, or the failures that are being achieved.
I understand today there has been much talk about travel I have previously done. One of the important things I learnt in the travel was the role of good governance and the committee structure through British parliament, in particular. I have further learnt more information about the committee roles and the federal parliament. I understand the scrutiny role the committee structure plays in parliaments, democracy and the democratic ideals. It is important this committee the member for Macdonnell proposes is not just set up for the sake of the committee, but has some teeth to scrutinise what is occurring in the Northern Territory in the parliamentary process. I really think this is a body that will have teeth, that will allow us to make improvements. Yes, we may be critical of government, its policies and programs and where it is going, but that can only benefit the Northern Territory as we seek to reform the directions we are heading, or discover the failures of why bridges are not being built in Palumpa, in the member for Daly’s electorate.
This is what it is all about. We know there are failures across the board, whether that is in SIHIP, child protection where 75% of the children are Indigenous, economic development, job creation, or alcoholic and substance abuse. There are problems everywhere. The way these things are treated in other jurisdictions – and this is where the Territory falls down if we do not have that oversight and scrutinising approach once it leaves this Chamber or after the government has followed its policy and program guidelines.
I have just pulled some information off the Internet about the House of Representatives in federal parliament where they have a Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That is not a political beast. I understand there are different politicians from different parties on that committee. There is Bob Debus from the Australian Labor Party, Andrew Laming from the Libs, and Kevin Andrews who is the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jodie Campbell from Labor, Kerry Rea, Kelvin Thomson, Chris Trevor, Jim Turnour from Labor, and Danna Vale from the Liberal Party. This is a committee set up to oversight or provide scrutiny on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, and it is a very important committee.
It is the same thing in the Senate. We have heard about Senate reports here. The Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities is another important committee in the federal parliament, this time in the Senate, that provides that oversight role, and looks into matters and provides recommendations. It is all for the benefit of good governance, good democracy, and setting the agenda for the way things go forward. We may not all like what comes out of these committees - whether it is the Senate or the House of Representatives. Sometimes, they have joint committees from both Houses of parliament.
However, it is important we test what we do and provide greater direction for the government. This is what I would consider is not bipartisan, but a part of working together to improve the outcomes on the subject matter at hand; this one being Indigenous affairs, of which we speak.
The membership of the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities is Senator Scullion from the Northern Territory, Senator Crossin from the Northern Territory, and Senators Adams, Johnston, Moore and Siewert from the Greens. It is an important process they play. We had a look in the parliament of South Australia, and they have an Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee - a separate committee in South Australia. In New South Wales, the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage inquiry was conducted by the Social Issues Committee. There are other committees set up in other jurisdictions. These things are around the country, but I will not go through them all.
A precedent has been set for committees to be set up as external bodies of parliament, but reporting to parliament to provide oversight and direction we should have. This is an opportunity, not really for government to abrogate responsibility, but to put things to committees to investigate the best way forward, or to review performance in something. In this case, look at the expenditure in the Northern Territory. These are things we should be embracing as a parliament, as we move forward into the future. It is difficult for a unicameral parliament to run that oversight. While I am not suggesting there should be two houses of parliament in the Northern Territory, especially given our population, I do think it is a prime time for us to move towards greater committee status, to look at what we actually do. Moving back into the political side of things, clearly, Labor has it wrong.
I see this committee as an opportunity, as I said, to extend the bipartisan approach of this parliament in looking at how we are getting things wrong. The member for Arnhem was standing on her platform, but the content of what she said - briefly just then but also in a previous motions and other times in this Chamber - has signified the government knows they do not have it right. That admission has been made. The member for Arafura, at times - and today in debate about the Territory council of cooperation - reflected that things were not always going right. The failures with SIHIP was one prime example.
This is an opportunity for us to all come together and work together to help Indigenous Territorians. While it may, at the outset, be an Indigenous Expenditure Review, this could be the platform by which we could drive reforms in this parliament into the future, and we should be taking this more seriously.
On the question about division on race, I am not sure if they divide on race in Labor. We do not in the Country Liberals; we are here for everybody. I understand there may be some concern about this committee being reflective of people who identify themselves as Indigenous in this Chamber.
At first when I saw that, I thought it may have been an issue. However, on reflection, and talking to a few people, I thought it was an opportunity for people who have been involved in this area for a long period of time and may, presumably, have a greater interest in this area and want reforms. However, more importantly, we will present a unified Indigenous coalition, trying to improve things in the Northern Territory. I saw that as an opportunity for us to drive forward, so I take offence - even though it is not my motion – at the comments of the member for Arnhem. This is an opportunity for us to work together and signal we mean business, and want improvements in this area.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion put forward by the member for Macdonnell. I thank the member for Nelson for his amendments. I will not support it for the reasons I have said; I do not want to overburden the CTC. I am not sure if the CTC will take this seriously with the balance of government members in the CTC. This is something we need to move forward on, sooner rather than later.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I invite defeat of my amendment. I thought this would bring the House together. I invite defeat of my amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You just need to withdraw the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw my amendment.
Mr Elferink: All right. We are back to the original motion. Right, next.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank those who spoke positively about the committee. I specifically commend the member for Braitling who has a holistic view as to why this committee should be set up. It was not a race-based committee; it was a committee of knowledgeable Indigenous people to talk about the issues of their own people. We are the people who go out to the communities, live inside the houses, see the kids being neglected, the alcohol abuse, the poor health, and the poor education outcomes. I thought, through that motion, it would be better served by the Indigenous members of this parliament from both sides.
You could see by the motion it had nothing to do with numbers, because the numbers were greater on the government side than it was on the side of the crossbenches and opposition. It was genuinely to look at what expenses were put in to remote Aboriginal communities and what the real outcomes were.
If you have a look at child protection, for example - we spoke at length last week on child protection. One of the questions we would like to ask the government in future - maybe at the next sittings or even tomorrow – is, if you are not dividing the Territory on culture and race, then why did you put nine Indigenous social workers or child protection workers out on nine communities? Who is creating positions based on culture and law? That is one of the questions that needs to be asked of this government in this Chamber. It is very serious, as the member for Braitling was saying, that this was a bipartisan committee to have a look at the real expenses going into remote Aboriginal communities with the poverty, the poor education. The government can talk about how much they are putting into education; we know for a fact they are not getting the results.
Just last week, the Chief Minister himself, questioned by the opposition on NAPLAN, said it is Indigenous people, little black kids, who are dragging the Territory down on NAPLAN testing. It is an absolute embarrassment for the Chief Minister to blame the poorest little kids in the communities he does not resource - and never has resourced, as an Education minister, the education system properly. I can see the member for Karama screwing up her little silly face as usual. I say to her: what about the poverty-stricken people in Karama; the homeless you deprive as a local member.
With this debate, Madam Speaker, I thought the committee was an interesting committee that could have helped the government lead the way. It would have led the way across the nation. It does not lead the way in fixing Aboriginal disadvantage across the nation; all it does is just rip off Aboriginal money.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is certainly interesting that this bill follows the two previous debates. It goes to the heart, I guess, of the differences between the government and opposition in the way we see opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. The government does not support the bill.
In July 2008, as a result of an appeal by the Territory from a full Federal Court of Australia decision, the High Court of Australia upheld the validity of the Fisheries Act but ruled that licences issued under that act did not authorise a person to enter waters over Aboriginal land. This decision is commonly know as the Blue Mud Bay decision, and affects approximately 80% of the Territory’s coastline.
As a result of this decision, all fishermen, whether commercial or recreational, must hold a land council permit to enter these waters. Temporary permits issued by each of the three relevant land councils are in place. This government is in negotiations with the three land councils and stakeholders in order to secure an agreement which will provide a permanent and seamless fisheries licensing system, applying in all Territory waters, whilst meeting Indigenous aspirations in relation to economic development and management of sea country. This bill is an amended version of a previous bill introduced prior to the hearing of the Territory’s appeal to the High Court, which was flawed and not passed.
The current amended bill purports to insert into the Aboriginal Land Act a new section which provides for a general exemption form holding a permit to enter and remain on waters situated between the low and high water mark over Aboriginal land. The Aboriginal Land Act provides for access to Aboriginal land and relevantly provides that, except in certain defined circumstances, persons shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land without a permit issued by a land council or the traditional owners for the area.
It is clear from the Blue Mud Bay decision there is no distinction between dry land and land covered by water within the boundaries of Aboriginal land. This bill proposes a general exemption may be granted in favour of the public generally, or a class of persons defined in the instrument, and may be subject to conditions to be issued by traditional owners or land councils. However, this proposed amendment would not apply to the non-tidal rivers overlying Aboriginal land, although the Blue Mud Bay decision applies equally to any waters over Aboriginal land. As such, the scope of this bill is inconsistent with the High Court decision.
In addition, and most importantly, the timing of this bill is poor given the fact this issue of access lies at the very heart of negotiations currently in progress. To pass this bill while negotiations are progressing would be insensitive, impolite and would damage the progress of these important negotiations. It may well be one of the outcomes of negotiations is the amendment of the Aboriginal Land Act. However, any amendments to deal with access should emerge as part of a whole negotiated package and should not be made on an ad hoc basis.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, is it not wonderful how we tie Aboriginal land permits with fisheries licences. Having read the original Federal Court decision and the subsequent appeal decision by the Full Bench of the Federal Court, I have not read the High Court’s decision because I know they upheld the Full Bench of the Federal Court. There is no doubt the validity of the operation of the Northern Territory’s Fisheries Act was an issue.
There are two separate issues operating here. We are talking about a permit and an ability to allow for the land councils to issue a permit to a class of people. I find it astonishing, considering the excellent approach so far taken by the Northern Land Council in relation to the intertidal zone over which they now have exclusive possession under the Land Rights Act.
I find it surprising government would be resisting this because all we are doing is offering them another option. We are not taking anything away. We are, by this bill, attempting to give something to the traditional owners; that is, a power they do not currently have. Would they be tempted to use this power? Well, it is interesting because, if you look at their current approach to the intertidal zone, it is - and I have been briefed from the land council on this issue - they are aware they have an obligation to ensure the permits are in force. That is what the Aboriginal Lands Act requires.
This obligation is being observed in the loosest possible fashion the land council can lawfully apply. If a person is approached by a person who has the right to demand the production of a permit, what they will accept is somebody who produces an application form and signs it and gives it to them. That was the briefing I was given – it would have been about 12 months ago - on how they are dealing with this. Consequently, they have, essentially, given a carte blanche access right to the intertidal zone over which they have exclusive possession.
What the land councils have demonstrated - and I am on the Parliamentary Record saying this even as recently as a month ago in Wadeye when I addressed the Northern Land Council and congratulated them for their approach to what they are doing in the intertidal zones. They now, as exclusive property owners, have the right to exclude everyone. They have chosen not to, but they are still stuck in this situation where they are still obliged, under legislation to, in some way, demand a permit, or expect a permit to be produced. The legislation anticipates a permit being issued to a person on that land, so they are deliberately reading it down in the most lax way they possibly can.
This amendment would enable the land council to simply deal with that issue they are currently dealing with in a much more straightforward fashion. We issue a permit to a class of people which could include up to the general public as a whole.
Why is that bad? They are in negotiations; this is going to get to that stage. It is interesting, in the two-and-a-half seconds the Treasurer was on her feet, she did not explain how it could affect negotiations. It has to be part of a holistic package, she said. Well, come in here and tell us where we are at. Describe the negotiations, tell us where you are going, tell us how much this is going to cost. Is that really what is being negotiated out here between government and the exclusive holders of the intertidal zone? Is it just down to money? If that is the case, why is this an offence to that process? To simply come in here and say: ‘It is an offence to the process, go away, we will get back to you later on; trust us, we are the government’ is exactly what has us in trouble so often.
I do not particularly trust this government because they do not have a particularly good track record of trustworthiness. As far as I am concerned, I have heard nothing from the Treasurer this evening in relation to this bill which, in any way, would change my mind but to support the bill. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, her defence of what she is doing was enfeebled to the point of being terminal.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): How disappointing, Madam Speaker, but certainly not surprising, that the Labor government and, I suspect the member for Nelson, have agreed they will not support this bill. After all, we and people in the Territory know what is going here. I urge all those who are listening to this broadcast and to those who read the Parliamentary Record of this place to take note of what is occurring in this House today.
A couple of weeks ago, the member for Nelson wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition and said in that letter, or very similar to this – they are not the exact words: ‘If I do not see merit in a bill I will vote against it or, if I see merit in a bill, I will abstain from voting’. He was, of course, referring to bills brought to this place by the opposition.
Today, we will see the manifestation of that approach to bills brought to the House by the opposition - and this is just the first one. It is the very first example of a bill - and I am quite sure, given the member for Nelson has not even bothered to comment on it - they will not support.
I should just go on to qualify the things I have just said. During the November sittings of parliament in Alice Springs, I had a conversation with the member for Nelson regarding this bill. Mind you, that was after a couple of other failed attempts to meet with him to discuss the bill in the months prior to the sittings. In any case, I gave the member for Nelson a briefing on this bill and asked him to support its passage through the House. I thought this was what normally occurred in this parliament and similar parliaments in Australia and across the world.
I guess this game is all about numbers, and I was counting the numbers, in effect, garnering support from the man who holds the balance of power in this House for legislation that takes a sensible approach to the issue of permits on Aboriginal land. It is sensible legislation. I know it is sensible legislation because many people have told me so - from lawyers, to those affected, to people on the street and, of course, the member for Nelson.
Let me go back a step or two, as it might be easier to run through this chronologically. To explain a little further, after my first conversation with the member for Nelson in Alice Springs, he advised me he had sought a briefing on my legislation from the government. Yes, he sought a briefing on my legislation from the government. How does that work? I had trouble getting to meet him prior to this because of his increased workload as a result of becoming this government’s new minister for everything. The member for Nelson sought a briefing from the government on legislation I was introducing.
On top of that, even before that briefing, the member for Nelson had already spoken to the government because - and I know this to be the case - he was already raising with me reservations about the passage of the legislation due to ongoing, so-called sensitive negotiations with land councils over Blue Mud Bay. Let me put that another way. The member for Nelson went to the government - or the government went to the member for Nelson, I am not sure which way it went - to find and agree on reasons not to vote for this legislation.
I asked to be included in the briefing the government was providing for the member of Nelson. I heard all about the reasons this legislation should not go ahead, and I put forward my case with respect to why it should. The end result was this: the member for Nelson said, during a subsequent conversation with me in Alice Springs, he could see what I was trying to do with this legislation and that it made sense and he would support it if the land council supported it. Two things have come out of that, and I will come back to that in a moment.
First, let us just recap what this legislation is all about. It is about giving a little certainty. It is about giving traditional owners and land councils additional tool under the Aboriginal Land Act of the NT. It does not derogate from, but adds to, the capacity of traditional owners and land councils to determine how they issue permits to enter Aboriginal land. Currently, Aboriginal land permits are issued to individuals. This bill adds to that division by providing the legislative means to issue permits to groups or classes of people.
At this point, let me go on record as saying I am grateful the land councils, particularly the NLC, have taken a very generous approach to issuing permits to individuals who would like to fish the waters affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision. I thank for them their good faith decision to allow amateur fishermen access to those waters. I hope they continue to do so.
Back to the legislation. It is innocuous legislation and, I would have thought, quite non-controversial. It does not bind anyone to do anything. I mentioned previously the legislation could have been a tool for TOs and land councils to issue permits to a particular class of people. There is no mandate contained therein to give permits to a class of people. It just would have sat there and been a new provision available for those TOs and land councils who wanted to use it to issue permits en masse - simple as that.
There are traditional owners out there who are becoming frustrated by the lack of urgency afforded to the Blue Mud Bay negotiations by this lame government. They sit and wait and wait and nothing happens. There are some progressive TOs out there who want to open up the economic potential of their piece of the Territory. They want to determine their own future, and this legislation may well have been something to embrace to that end, rather than being seen as something evil or ill-conceived, or whatever else the Treasurer wanted to call it.
I want to get back to the two issues that arise from the member of Nelson agreeing to support the legislation only if land councils supported it. First, unless the member for Nelson did not read this bill or understand it, it has thrown his entire position on this bill into the hands of the land councils. ‘I will support it if the land councils do’, is what he said. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I believe the member for Nelson did read and understand this bill. The reason I can comfortably say that is because he said to me he could see what I was trying to do with the legislation and it made sense.
The second point is, by premising his decision to support the bill or not based entirely upon the opinion of the land councils, the member for Nelson has successfully subjugated himself to the whims of the land councils. The member for Nelson has become a person who no longer thinks freely, or makes decisions on his own assessment of the merits of legislation.
In order to asses the support of this legislation by the land councils, I wrote to them. Sadly and rather disappointing actually, I have not had a response from any of the affected land councils. Consequently, I have been unable to provide the member for Nelson with a statement of support from the land councils he said he needed in order for him to support this bill.
How things change, Madam Speaker. Around three weeks ago, the member for Nelson wrote to the Opposition Leader declaring he would not support opposition legislation in this House. It is here we reach into the world of ‘what if’. I am quite comfortable in talking in ‘what ifs’ because it is only a matter of time before those ‘what ifs’ become cold, hard reality. What if the land councils had written back to me and declared their support for this bill? The question I have for the member for Nelson is: would you have supported this bill today, or would you have reneged on the undertaking you gave me in Alice Springs in November last year? Does the member for Nelson see the implications of what he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition those few weeks ago?
Right now, the member for Nelson can hide behind the fact I did not receive support from the land councils on this bill. His blanket refusal to support sensible legislation only on the basis it came from the opposition is an abrogation of his parliamentary responsibilities, and his responsibilities to his constituents; the very people who voted him into the position of being Independent, and deciding on a course of action in this House based on merit, and not some arrangement he has with the Chief Minister.
In this case, who would have been hurt by your decision not to support this bill? I suggest amateur fishermen would probably be the people who stood to gain something from the successful passage of this bill. I do not hide from the fact this bill was introduced with amateur fishermen in mind, although not exclusively, for there could well be other classes of people to which land councils or TOs might want to give blanket access to their lands. As previously mentioned, Aboriginal land permits are issued to individuals, and the land councils have an informal arrangement in place to facilitate the issuing of those permits. TOs can still issue permits to individuals as well, but what if - and I suggest there are groups of TOs out there who fall into this category – TOs want to allow access to all amateur fishermen? They still have to go through the cumbersome process of issuing individual permits.
This bill could have streamlined that cumbersome process and, at the same time, given a greater degree of certainty to amateur fishermen. The member for Nelson and government members have killed that idea quite successfully today.
This is an opposition which supports fishing in the Northern Territory, and we will continue to support the industry when we are called upon to govern this wonderful place. This is an opposition which also supports the empowerment of Aboriginal people and their right to determine their own future. This is an opposition which supports the notion that Aboriginal people should be given the tools to encourage and facilitate the vast range of economic development available to them.
Government members and the member for Nelson are apparently incapable of seeing past their noses, and I am sad to see fishermen in the NT, in particular, will have to wait for this tired, lazy and tardy government to complete its negotiations with land councils ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would allow this particular item under current debate …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. You know at 9 pm members are given an extra 10 minutes if they require it.
Mr ELFERINK: If it takes longer than 10 minutes, that is what I am arguing for, and I am …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have standing orders …
Mr ELFERINK: I am putting a motion to this House. You either deal with it by …
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave, Madam Speaker.
Leave not granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we are coming to 9 pm. Do you wish to continue until 9.10 pm, or up to 9.10 pm, or would you prefer it to go onto the next General Business day?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, I should be able to finish by 9.10 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, you may continue.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We have to wait for this tired, lazy and tardy government to complete its negotiations with land councils before we can change. The contrary position is the position of the Country Liberals; we are proactive and seeking solutions to the problems as we see them. This bill is an example of that. The question I have swirling in my mind is this: when the Blue Mud Bay negotiations are complete, is it only then this government will swing into action to introduce legislation which will allow for a freer and more streamlined approach to Aboriginal land permits?
In closing, I feel I need to raise two further points used by the member for Nelson in his letter to the Opposition Leader as justification for not supporting bills. First, he quoted our system of parliament, the Westminster system. The thing is, the Westminster system is not built around parties; this is something which has been added. The Westminster system is built on people being elected to parliament and, as such, these members represent their constituencies and vote accordingly. When we look back on the evolution of Australian parliament, this was built on people making laws, getting the support they needed, and laws being passed. What the member for Nelson has done is not extend support for the Westminster system but extended support for a partisan-based system which, ironically, he said he wanted to see change. I shall not dwell here as this is a matter for the member for Nelson, although I encourage him to take a look at what I am referring to. Should we not be striving for the best laws?
The second point I want to raise in these closing remarks was that of legislation needing to be costed and dealt with by departments before it comes into this place. Again, there are two issues here. First is the people who write our legislation, the Parliamentary Counsel, also write the government’s legislation and do so with the same level of diligence and integrity, regardless of whom it is for. Second, this bill does not have a financial implication on the government. It does not have a departmental implication, as government neither gains nor loses anything in the passage of this legislation. In fact, this bill simply gives land councils the option to grant groups permits. I know informally there are traditional owners and land councils out there who are interested in having this ability.
Thus, putting aside matters of integrity and people’s word, there is no basis on testing this bill against the member for Nelson’s stated position to the Leader of the Opposition to oppose this bill, other than a want to support the partisan position of those opposite and make life easier for the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson knows, in all good conscience, this bill is not about bringing down his agreement. This bill is about putting in place a law that could make fishing in the Territory much more certain and allow the traditional owners and land councils an extra option if they wish to pursue it.
Madam Speaker, I have not vilified the member for Nelson. Instead, I have operated in good faith and with integrity. I simply hope for the same from the member for Nelson, especially since he has indicated his support for this legislation previously. In opposing this bill, I assume he will be abstaining from voting on it. I hope, if he has listened to this debate he will reconsider his position.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: I have received a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Araluen. It is for the rest of today and tomorrow. It is signed by the two Whips.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Ms Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 11 Ayes and 11 Noes, under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the question is found in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we now move to the adjournment. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I condemn the attack on public servants which was contained within the CLP’s dissenting report to the Council of Territory Cooperation inquiry tabled earlier today. The Chief Minister spoke earlier of his disgust at the cowardly attack from the member for Port Darwin on the Under Treasurer, a public servant who has no right of reply …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have already ruled that word unparliamentary in the past. I ask you to do so again.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: The Chief Minister spoke earlier of his disgust at the attack from the member for Port Darwin on the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, a public servant who has no right of reply. As Treasurer, I also feel compelled to put on to the record …
Mr Elferink: There was no attack.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I actually commended her, if you read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, she is making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting! Member for Karama, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: As Treasurer, I also feel compelled to put on to the record my disgust at this slur, and completely reject the claims made by the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin suggested the Under Treasurer avoided answering questions, but his claim is absurd; it does not stack up. The extract from Hansard that he included in his report simply does not support his case. Quoting from his report:
He is admitting that he was implying something rather than asking something directly ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin is, essentially …
Members interjecting.
Madam Speaker: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin is, essentially, complaining that the Under Treasurer failed to read his mind. No one should be expected to read his weird mind. I believe any reasonable person reading the extract from Hansard will come to the conclusion the Under Treasurer was doing exactly the opposite of avoiding the question. She was doing her very best to answer questions …
Mr Elferink: Then why did I have to ask her three times?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: She was doing her very best to answer questions the member for Port Darwin has admitted were implied. His suggestion that, somehow, she was avoiding questions out of loyalty to the government is a slur on her professionalism ...
Mr Tollner: No one would be loyal to you mob, would they?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: Jennifer Prince has been in Treasury well before the election of a Labor government, and has served well governments of both political persuasions. She has served the Territory since 1979. She is widely recognised as an outstanding public servant, not just in the Northern Territory Public Service but Australia-wide. She is an outstanding leader of the Northern Territory Treasury. I know Treasury staff feel privileged to work under her.
Her expertise has proved extremely beneficial to our Territory over many years. Her expertise in public finance is crucial in our attempts to get the best deal out of Canberra we can. Her economics expertise has played an important role in the Territory having the strong economy we currently enjoy. Fair, frank, and fearless advice provided to governments of all persuasions is at the heart of the public service charter.
As Treasurer, I value the frank, fair, and fearless advice Jennifer Price, as Under Treasurer, provides me. She quite simply does not deserve to be on the receiving end of such a slur, especially when the member for Port Darwin knows she has no right of reply.
This was an attack on all public servants, especially those who appear before parliamentary committees. The message is clear: if the member for Port Darwin does not like the factual answers they provide, he will hide behind dissenting parliamentary reports to attack …
Mr Elferink: I said this on radio, in public outside of this House, months ago!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: He will hide behind …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: He will hide behind dissenting parliamentary reports to attack their credibility and professionalism. I call on the member for Port Darwin to publicly retract this slur. If he refuses to do so, I call on the Leader of the Opposition to do so on his behalf.
The Under Treasurer was not the only public servant under attack from the CLP in their dissenting report. Sixty-four public servants in the division of Local Government would be very concerned the CLP has suggested scrapping their division. We know the CLP went to the last election …
Mr Elferink: So we do not do anything in government because we might upset a public servant by redeploying them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr Elferink: I will have shortly, I hope.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: We know the CLP went to the last election promising to sack 800 public servants. He has form and the 64 public servants in Local Government may well know his intentions. This is not the first time the member for Port Darwin has attacked public servants. In September 2008, when talking about the Auditor-General’s report he said:
Further, in October 2008:
The member for Port Darwin’s intentions are very clear. He has no respect for public servants, he attacks their professionalism, and he wants to sack them. Shame! Retract your slur.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the friends and the family of the late Mr John Lloyd. I understand the member for Sanderson is going to do an adjournment speech on Mr Lloyd. I recognise his widow, Mrs Audrey Lloyd; her daughter, Gwyn Balch, and her husband, Steve Balch, a former member of the Legislative Assembly; and her brothers and their partners, John and Kae Lloyd; Morgan Lloyd and Colleen Francis; and Owen Lloyd and Belinda Small.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, recently the Territory lost one of its truly unsung pioneers. I speak of Clarence Richard Alma Lloyd, or John Lloyd as he was known to most.
John Lloyd was a husband to wife, Audrey, for 60 years. He is the father of four, grandfather of eight, and great-grandfather of eight. He was a father-in-law to the former member of this House, Stephen Balch.
John was born in London in 1923, and he lost his mother at a very early age. As was all too often the case in those days, he had to leave school at 14 and after several jobs he joined the British Army during World War II. He was involved in one of the most significant, dangerous, and world-changing events, the landing in Europe on D-Day. He went in shortly after the first troops as a radio operator/driver. Such was his skill and commitment, he was the only person in his regiment trained in double transposition cipher, which was a special wartime code only a few were trained to interpret. Morse code was a skill he retained throughout his life.
After the war, he returned home to England after approximately three years on active service in Europe and, soon after that in 1948, he emigrated to Australia where he lived in Adelaide. It was whilst in Adelaide that he met and married the love of his life, Audrey, who, having been a wartime nurse had also emigrated to Australia from the UK. A year later, in 1949, he took the opportunity of a post in the frontier Northern Territory to join the Northern Territory Administration as a public servant. At that stage, Darwin only had a population of around 3000. He spoke very fondly of those early days and the fun that could be had in a small outpost town.
Compared to today, conditions were primitive. His first house was a Sydney Williams hut in Larrakeyah. There were no mod cons there: a kerosene fridge, no fly screens, no fans, and no air-conditioning. One can only imagine how difficult it was to raise a family in those conditions, given the things we have at our disposal today.
Since his arrival in 1949, he witnessed every stage of Darwin’s evolution from that outpost wartime town, into the current modern city it is today. As a public servant, he gave long and distinguished service to the early Territory administration in his roles at the Northern Territory Finance Branch, the Northern Territory Lands Branch, particularly dealing with early lands administration. He also gave service to the early Territory Legislative Council and, subsequently, the Legislative Assembly. He took great pride in the fact his name was ‘on the permanent record’. Just if he was watching today we are about to make sure, for one last time, it again goes on the permanent record ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: John Lloyd was someone who gave much back to his community. In the late 1950s, he became a regular member of Darwin’s Christchurch congregation and, together with a small band of regulars, spent nearly every Saturday and many evenings after work over several years building the original church hall. This venue was used for annual balls, Midnight Mass and Sunday school services. It is my understanding Cyclone Tracy took that hall and what remains of Christchurch Cathedral in Smith Street now is the front of the building, with the rear of the cathedral and the old hall gone.
When the rectory in Katherine had to be connected to the town sewer, John was there digging the trench, and he also worked in the church in Batchelor. In the stone porch still standing in the front of Christchurch Cathedral in Smith Street, a stone John fitted to the wall to replace one which had worn away can still be seen to this day; a legacy to his hard work at that establishment.
He had a keen interest in history and genealogy, and he catalogued as many of the graves as he could in Darwin and the Katherine area for the genealogical society. His wife, Audrey, was very involved in many theatre productions with the early Cavenagh Theatre, and John, who was not one for the stage, was always busy behind the scenes building and painting sets and making sure things went well behind the scenes.
He was a regular at the Arafura Games, data entering results of events, and at the Darwin Rugby League where he created and managed the early database of players to track their registration status. He moved to Darwin River around 1981 to enjoy the rural lifestyle, and was a regular in the bushfire fighting efforts in the rural areas on numerous occasions.
He was a very proud returned soldier, but he detested war and never liked to speak of the action of war. He said, on many occasions, one of the greatest gifts he received was that his eldest son was never called up to go to the Vietnam war. John was a member of the Citizens Military Forces in the early days and used to join the march with great pride each Anzac Day.
John Lloyd was a man of great personal integrity and sense of duty. He was bound by principles; his word was his bond. He was an incredibly loyal and reliable man devoted to his family. He had an unshakable pride and love for his children. However, he was a modest man but with a huge heart and one of the most reliable, punctual, and giving men you would ever have the pleasure to meet.
He was a great storyteller and he loved many forms of music. But the bagpipes and Celtic music held a special place in his heart.
John, or Grandad, as he was affectionately known to his whole family, was a gentle, spiritual man who had a deep connection with his religion. He loved his status as the elder of his tribe and he often used to say: ‘Gee, it is great being old’.
He was such a man of contrast. While he would stand patiently outside a shop waiting for ages for his wife to finish shopping, he hated lining up for anything and detested filling in forms. Maybe this is derived from the tedium of lining up and filling in forms whilst in the military. He was such a gentle man who never had a bad word to say about anyone, and delighted in some of life’s simple pleasures such as being with his family. Every evening, he would sip a scotch and he always looked forward to a glass of nice red with his dinner when sitting around with family.
He loved the country of his birth, but from afar. He often said Australia and the Northern Territory, in particular, gave him much greater opportunity in life than he could ever have hoped for in England. However, whilst he was a staunch monarchist, he was fiercely proud of Australia and took great pride in being a Territorian.
It is from people like John Lloyd we get our ongoing values. He has been a role model for the three generations who followed him. The freedoms and the lifestyle we enjoy today are the result of John and other great citizens like him. He was an inspiration, not only to his family and friends, but to all of us. According to John, Darwin was, in 1949, a great place and, indeed, it is a great place today. But one can only imagine that if all of today’s citizens had the same qualities John Lloyd had, what an even greater place this city would have been today.
John was a quite achiever who never sought recognition or accolades for his efforts in his community work. His legacy will be the quiet leadership and inspiration he has given to us all.
I pay tribute to his family, as they were part of his journey and now contribute to our community in a similar way John did. To Mrs Audrey Lloyd and your family, your daughter Gwyn and her husband, Steve; sons and partners, John and Kae Lloyd, Morgan Lloyd and Colleen Francis, and Owen Lloyd and Belinda Small, and to grandsons, Robert Lloyd and Mark Balch, who are all here tonight, from me, on behalf of the community, please accept our condolences on your and the community’s loss. Vale, John Lloyd.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you our most sincere condolences of the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also pass on my condolences to the family, in particular Gwyn and Steve Balch. I have known Gwyn and Steve for many years, especially Steve with his work in the House and the Chamber in the past.
I now have several issues to deal with in this adjournment debate and, consequently, I will have to deal with those quickly. First is the Territory economic review. It is small wonder the Northern Territory Treasurer has come into this House trying to stir up a hornets’ nest, quite unnecessarily, around the Under Treasurer, when what she is trying to mask is this little gem on the Treasury website:
It goes on to say:
This is the Treasurer who told Territorians but two years ago on a Stateline interview that the required release of land in the Top End was not going to be more than 300 per annum. Clearly, even at that stage, she was wrong. Despite the opposition, as well as other parties, calling for the Treasurer to release more land, she failed to do so - and continued to fail to do so when, in that same interview, she said Bellamack would release 700 blocks in the next couple of years. Bellamack has only just, in the last few months, started releasing land.
This is an inflation rate which is driven by housing costs, which is caused by the poor decision-making of this government - and nothing else. The other inflationary driver in the overall housing category of 21% was electricity costs. This is before we factor in next year’s increases. Clearly, this government is entirely responsible for Darwin’s inflation rate which is now substantially over the national average.
To compound the pain for the residents of Darwin, in the same review average full-time weekly earnings in Darwin was $1211.50. The Australian national average was $1250.30. So, we are well behind the Australian average in average income; we live in the most expensive real estate in the country because of this government’s decision-making process. It is getting more expensive because this government still is not releasing land in a sufficiently comprehensive manner - compounded with increasing electricity prices.
All the Treasurer wants to do is whinge about the dissenting report from the CTC. Whilst we are addressing this issue, the first point I have to make is, if the Treasurer is so concerned about public servants in front of parliamentary committees, the answer is simple - she appears in front of the parliamentary committee, and I will deal with the Treasurer. But no, not once did she choose to come into the parliamentary committee and avail herself of an opportunity to explain the muck-up this particular Treasurer has made of the Territory budget year in, year out. We are carrying a $0.25bn deficit at the moment, and this Treasurer does not concern herself with it, to the point where she wants to defend her fiscal credibility. So, she sent in the Under Treasurer.
She also made a very salient and important point; that the Under Treasurer is a servant of the government. Absolutely, that is correct. She was actually, if memory serves me, appointed by the former government. She was the Under Treasurer under the former CLP government and she continues to be the Under Treasurer in this government - a good and loyal servant of the government.
I point out to honourable members the point I was trying to make in relation to those comments was it appears the Under Treasurer was doing what she is normally used to doing; that is, the process we see in estimates. When we ask questions in estimates, sometimes we have to ask the same question a few times to get answers out of people. Normally, we do that of politicians in committees. However, while politicians are busy hiding and they trot out their public servants - what? - we are not supposed to make observations about the answers we get? We are just supposed to blithely accept them?
I have always asserted - and continue to assert - in this House we must bring critical thinking to bear, even on what our senior bureaucrats tell us. It is through that process we can actually demonstrate we are in charge.
Madam Speaker, I will actually quote the exchange. This is after the Chief Minister promised a full and open approach in this committee. It was going to be different to estimates. In estimates, it is generally acknowledged you have to pull the information out, but this was going to be different. This information was going to be volunteered in the same way information is volunteered to ministers - or should be volunteered to ministers; it should be offered up.
That in mind, in that context, the exchange between the Treasurer and the committee as to where certain infrastructure funds were to be drawn from was a case in point. The issue I am talking about is having to draw information out of public servants for the committee:
The funds I was referring to was the fact that, all of a sudden, there was an off-budget spend announced in that committee by the Northern Territory government for infrastructure that had been passed over to the Northern Territory government as a result of a stuff-up in SIHIP. So, I say:
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Okay, by that stage, if the Under Treasurer is anywhere near as professional as I believe she is, and the Treasurer believes she is, she already would have known what the question was relating to. She would have known; that is what a professional does. The answer from Ms Prince was it was about an extra budget allocation.
Now, there is no doubt I am asking specifically about the Treasurer’s Advance. Answer:
Pause:
She asked the question. Finally, she said:
I went on to say in the dissenting report - and this is important:
Because she is a professional:
The Under Treasurer, in my assertion, was doing what normally occurs in these processes. I can tell you, if they think those sorts of answers are sufficient to run government, small wonder they are completely in the dark. The fact is it is commendable that public servants are loyal to the government of the day; they are the elected government. However, this is a brave new world in which we occupy this space. What I am trying to encourage the Chief Minister to do by these comments is not try to stir up a hornets’ nest about me attacking the Under Treasurer; I actually commend her for doing her job professionally. However, what I am trying to extract from the Chief Minister is his promise the information brought to the council of Territorians would be forthright and fully open, as though they were actually reporting to government what was going on.
Madam Speaker, that is where the Chief Minister has failed. This is not a failure of Jennifer Prince; it is not an attack on her. It is simply an attack on government for not having the guts to turn up and answer for themselves in front of that council.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, methinks the member for Port Darwin protests too much. He is digging himself out of the hole he dug himself. It was a disgusting slur on the Under Treasurer, and he should be condemned for those words.
My adjournment tonight is to give a report to the House in relation to my recent trip to Japan. It is an objective of the Henderson Labor government to grow the Territory’s economy. One of those major projects which the Henderson Labor government has been very successful with is the INPEX project. The previous Chief Minister and this Chief Minister actively went out and presented a case to the INPEX company to come to Darwin, and have been very closely working with them ever since that initial meeting.
We certainly are interested in major projects in the Territory. Members might have seen today in the Northern Territory News a story about INPEX seeking expressions of interest for up to $1bn worth of work on the gas project. Those expressions of interest have been posted on the NT Industry Capability Network website, and Sean Kildare, the general manager of INPEX in Darwin, is quoted in the story saying the $1bn worth of works is confirmation of the commitment INPEX has to the project, and the project coming to Darwin. It is an important milestone in the project. Everything is moving very much on track; however, there is a fair way to go with the project. We are still keeping a very close eye on it.
The government is speaking to INPEX on how best to ensure Territory businesses get the most out of this project and can take full advantage, and how private individuals can take full advantage of this project. Planning around those opportunities is ongoing, and I look forward to reporting back to the House on that.
I will discuss the trip itself. I travelled to Tokyo, Japan, with George Roussos, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr Kevin Peters, General Manager of the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. Whilst I was in Japan, I had a few objectives. One was introducing myself; have that personal relationship with our key business partners. That personal relationship is an important aspect of doing business in Asia.
Whilst I was there meeting with those key players, pushing not only the INPEX project but also other projects and opportunities which exist in the Northern Territory. We have quite a number of offshore projects with Japan but, obviously, there are some onshore projects we would like to see them participate in. Whilst with the various companies, I was stressing the importance of the industry participation plan we have signed with INPEX which obliges their subcontractors and contractors to use local industry, and abide by all those facets of the industry participation plan. I was also there to build on the relationship set by previous ministers, and certainly by the Chief Minister.
Whilst in Tokyo, I met with the president of JGC, the Japan Gas Corporation. They are a huge contractor. The consortium they are with builds something like 70% of the world’s LNG plants. It is absolutely incredible. There were some 3000 people in the building that work for JGC. I met with Mr Yaegashi, the president, and his senior staff. At the moment, they are the onshore feed contractor, and they provided a very good presentation. They certainly are aware of the interest we have in the success of the project, about the IPP, and our strong push that local business gets a decent share of this project.
I met with Mr Jimmy Ijima, the President of ConocoPhillips, and his senior staff. Again, we were looking at opportunities for expanding ConocoPhillips’ involvement in the Northern Territory. It was good to hear his wealth of knowledge about LNG across not only Asia, but the world, about the market and what opportunities exist. Jimmy Ijima is a good friend of the Northern Territory, and I am sure that friendship will continue.
I met with INPEX, and I was delighted to be able to meet some of the most senior people in the organisation. Mr Kuroda is the president of INPEX. I also met his most senior staff member in Australia, Saya Ito, the managing director, and also Mr Okada, who is commonly known as ‘Mr Darwin’ because he was the gentleman within INPEX who presented Darwin as the most logical place to bring the gas project to Australia.
That was a very good meeting. INPEX is, hopefully, a very good friend of the Northern Territory and we look forward to that relationship continuing.
I met the Vice-Minister of the Department of Economy Trade and Industry (METI), was Vice-Minister Takahashi. He has been recently appointed with a new government. I pressed home with Mr Takahashi that we want to do more business with Japan. We want to expand the projects they have in the Northern Territory. They are looking at a range of security over energy supplies, not only with LNG, but uranium, precious and rare earths and other projects like that. I extended an invitation for Vice-Minister Takahashi to come to the Northern Territory and meet with the Resources department and other departments here to look at other opportunities. METI is a 25% shareholder in INPEX so they are linked to that project as well.
Also I met with Teddy Takeuchi, a journalist from Asahi Shimbun, which is the second largest newspaper in Japan with some six million readers daily. He is coming out to Australia; he will be out here next week. He is bringing another journalist to the Northern Territory. They will be doing a four-page feature on Australia, and we are hoping that it will be quite a mention of the Northern Territory. Teddy has a close relationship with Australia as his wife is Australian. We look forward to his and his colleague’s visit to Australia.
I met with the Australian Embassy staff, the Deputy Ambassador, Dr Brendan Hammer and also Derek Brown who is the Counsellor for Resources and Industry. It was great to be able to talk to them about the opportunities that exist. One thing that left me with the stark image I had coming away from Tokyo was everyone was saying when they think of Australia, they think of the Northern Territory because we are up there, we are in the face of industry, we are in the face of all the resources sector, we are presenting our case to come and do business. That was great to see. That was reiterated by Courtney Buller, the Austrade’s Investment Commissioner. She was saying exactly the same thing: the Northern Territory is punching way above its weight and is up there trying to do business.
I took the opportunity to go to the Tokyo Electric Power Cooperation. They actually take Darwin LNG gas. I had a tour of the facility, which is massive. Our generation capacity in the Northern Territory is 400 MW. Their generation capacity in Tokyo is 62 000 MW, so it is absolutely incredible.
I thank George Roussos. He now has a good insight, and he knows the people to meet when they come over here. Thanks to George and Kevin for accompanying me on this trip. I look forward to the various people I met coming here to the Northern Territory, and to us being able to sell more opportunities, to do more business, to grow this economy, to create jobs, and create a greater lifestyle here for Territorians.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I compliment the Litchfield Football Club which is a soccer club - in particular, the parents and girls involved in the Girls Under 13 team who are trying out to be included in the Northern Territory team going to compete in the Australian championships in Canberra in April this year.
The girls and their families are very busy fundraising. If they are successful and selected - and I hope they are – the trip will cost approximately $1500 per girl. Then, there is the cost of the supporting family members who need to travel with the team. The girls have been running sausage sizzles and, only this past weekend, they raised nearly $1000 towards the travel with a couple of events. One of the sizzles was held at the Coolalinga shops. On Sunday morning, I helped cook and serve sausages. In total, about 300 sausages were sold, which was quite extraordinary. They have also been running a raffle and guess the number of lollies in a jar as ways to further increase their fundraising.
I extend my congratulations to the following girls for their initial selection: Emma Boeck, Charlie Malady, Kaitlyn Sawrey, Maley Grose, Peta Harman and Dana McAlear. I congratulate also all the parents who are helping Mary Boeck and the club to support all the girls and their families to travel to Canberra. I applaud the club, as they also have a senior women’s team in the competition. While I have never played soccer before, I am tempted to join them on training days to see if I can mirror the famous Ple.
I also congratulate Dimity Jessup from the rural area who has recently been appointed to the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, which is a great achievement. Being a member of the round table will provide Dimity and the other members an opportunity to provide government with advice and insight into current youth issues, and to assist in the development of youth policies, programs and services. Some of the other matters the Youth Round Table will look at could include drink-driving, public entertainment, empowering youth, peer pressure, and youth mental health issues.
I am sure Dimity will take to the table the issues confronting youth in the rural area, including issues such as public transport, lack of a safe community swimming centre, lack of recreational activities, and supporting youth in the transition from primary school to middle school, which is a difficult time for youth aged, sometimes, only 11 years old. I wish Dimity well in her appointment, and hope she achieves much success and brings a lot of benefits to youth in the rural area.
I congratulate the following students in the rural area on the achievements they have attained recently. These achievements demonstrate the dedication and commitment these students have given to their studies and community service. They are role models, and I am sure they will continue to do well at school and in all of the activities they are involved in - whether it is school work, sport, citizenship, or community activities.
Congratulations to Bronte Pearson from Bees Creek Primary School on receipt of the Administrator’s Medal for the Best Territory Junior Scholar. Congratulations to Ashlee Modra from Taminmin College on receipt of the NT Board of Studies Vocational Education and Training Award. Congratulations to Stevie-Rose Stoll from Taminmin College on the receipt of the Group Training NT Most Outstanding School-based Apprenticeship or Trainee. Stevie-Rose also picked up the Australian Computer Society ICT Award for her studies and work in graphic design.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, congratulations to all the students, and also to the junior soccer players.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the achievements of a couple of Year 12 students from my region. Cassie Williams, daughter of Greg and Vicki, achieved the top mark of Nhulunbuy High School for 2009 and, for that, in January I was pleased to present Cassie with a School Dux Award to recognise her achievements. I wish Cassie all the best with her gap year before venturing to Brisbane in 2011 to take up studies for a degree in biotechnology.
Just last week, I learned that Yilki Guyula from Yirrkala CEC, was not only the top Year 12 student at her school, but she was also recognised as the Territory’s top Year 12 Indigenous student from a remote school. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the special reception held here in Parliament House which our Education minister attended, along with Mark Sweet from Telstra, where Yilki was named of the recipient of the Telstra Remote Indigenous Award. As local member, I look forward to attending a special graduation ceremony planned soon at Yirrkala Community Education College, where I can also present Yilki with an award.
I spoke with Yilki’s mother, Nalwarri Ngurruwuthun, on the morning I received the news. She is, understandably, proud of her daughter’s achievements and, in turn, Yilki acknowledged her mother - a former principal of Yirrkala CEC, principal of Yirrkala Homeland School and, now, senior cultural advisor with Yirrkala Homeland School. She acknowledged her as her role model. It is a wonderful story.
In turn, I hope, as this government commits and invests at record levels in remote schools and in Indigenous education and Indigenous children, that Yilki will be a role model for other children at Yirrkala and encourage others to complete their schooling.
I go back to Nhulunbuy High School, and also acknowledge Dominic Bulters and Sophie Liley as the very worthy recipients of the 2009 Citizenship Awards which I sponsor each year at the school. Unfortunately, I was unable to present these awards as I chose to travel instead to attend, for the first time, the end-of-year presentation night for Shepherdson College at Elcho Island, which clashed with the Nhulunbuy High School presentation night.
My evening at Elcho was certainly memorable. It was evening full of colour, dance, song, and happy and proud students, with equally happy and proud families. Highlights of the evening included the screening a couple of wonderful films. One, which whilst humorous, dealt with serious subject of bullying, and the second dealt with a dream-like story about a lippa lippa or a canoe, and told the story in English with Yolngu Matha subtitles. The work on both films was done by students - the acting, directing, scripting, editing, and translating - with the support of teachers and tutors. They were very impressive pieces of multimedia work. The other highlight of the evening was the staff of Shepherdson College dancing up a storm with their rendition of the late Michael Jackson’s Thriller.
On Friday, 29 January, I attended the annual Group Training Awards night held in Nhulunbuy. Congratulations to all apprentices and trainees who were recognised for completion of various stages of their apprenticeships, as well as those singled out for outstanding performance. I place on the Parliamentary Record the names of the following apprentices and trainees who did receive an award for outstanding performance. Basically, the apprentices in the region in and around Nhulunbuy are divided into two groups. We have those who are classed as the Rio Tinto Alcan apprentices and trainees, and those who are the township apprentices and trainees - with Rio Tinto Alcan, obviously, being the largest employer in the region.
For Rio Tinto Alcan: Stage 1 acknowledgement was given to Senad Jahic in Certificate III in Engineering Mechanical; Stage 2 Outstanding Award was presented to Jake Mapstone, who is at Certificate III level in Engineering Mechanical; Stage 3 recognition was given to Christopher Lynch, who had just completed his Certificate III in Mechanical Engineering; Stage 4 recognition was given to Adam Dobson, at level Certificate III in Electrotechnology; and Trainee of the Year for Rio Tinto Alcan was Tyron Maher, having completed Certificate III in Business.
The Town Apprentice of the Year went to Luke Tabone at Certificate III level in his Automotive Heavy Vehicle apprenticeship. Town Trainee of the Year was Zoe Shepherd in her Certificate III in Business. School-based Trainee of the Year was Myphemial Bond, having completed Certificate III in Business. Indigenous Trainee of the Tear was Solomon Renata at Certificate II in Engineering.
Town Mentor of the Year was Pat Brazel from Laynhapuy Homelands; and the Rio Tinto Alcan Mentor the Year was Paul Creek from the Metal Fabrication Shop.
I have attended many of these awards evenings over the years and have to say that I was really pleased to see more Indigenous trainees than in previous years, supported by employers like YBE (2) Pty Ltd, Deltareef, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Laynhapuy Homelands. Employers working with organisations such as Group Training Northern Territory have a vital role to play in providing training opportunities and career pathways for our young people, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous. Females continue to be under-represented in the trades, but congratulations to those young women such as Emma Mitchell and Cecelia Bulters, who are working successfully in their chosen trade in the electrical area.
I also acknowledge and offer thanks to Paul McConnell from Group Training Northern Territory in Darwin, who was an excellent MC for the evening, as well as Sally Woodhill, the East Arnhem Group Training Northern Territory Manager, along with Robyn Ironside and Rachel Mortimer from the Nhulunbuy Group Training Northern Territory office for organising such a successful evening, and also to Rio Tinto Alcan for their continued generosity in hosting this event for all apprentices, their families and host employers.
On a sad note, I place on the public record my condolences on the passing of one of my constituents, Mr Tom Renton. In an effort to give a bit of a snapshot of Tom’s life, I read from Nhulubuy’s local paper, The Arafura Times, which in July of last year published an article about Tom on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Tom Renton was born in 1924 in Cairns.
Tom’s state of health had declined in recent months, such that he was relocated from Nhulunbuy with his wife, Fe, to the Darwin Hospice and Palliative Care Unit in early January. I know how hard Fe worked to nurse Tom at home, and that she did so with much love and devotion. I was really pleased to have been able to visit Tom and Fe twice in the last couple of weeks, but it was sad to see him quite literally fade away. Indeed, this was heartbreaking for Fe to watch, who was by Tom’s side day and night. I know Fe took great comfort in the knowledge that in his final weeks, Tom was in the very best of care, with highly professional and caring staff looking after him, and in surroundings which were peaceful and comfortable.
Tom slipped away in the early hours of Wednesday morning last week. I have yet to hear when the funeral is, but I know it was the intention that Tom be buried in Gove, a place that he loved and lived in for so many years. Fe, my thoughts - and I know the thoughts of the many people in Nhulunbuy who knew Tom - are with you at this very sad time. Vale Tom Renton.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about one of my very best friends, Brian Ah Mat. Brian Ah Mat is well known to many people in this Chamber. I know he is a very good friend of both the members for Stuart and Braitling. Also, the member for Drysdale is associated with and knows Brian Ah Mat quite well.
To all of those who know him know he is a champion character, a dead set true Territorian, a good footie player, good sportsman, bit of a drinker and a partier, fine family man - rather large family. I have lost count of the number of children he has – 9, 12, 14, 18, I do not know. Maybe the member for Stuart can give us a more information on that. He has a range of children all over the Territory, much loved by all of them; keeps in touch with all of them, and cares for them greatly.
Brian Ah Mat played football for Pioneers, I believe, in Alice Springs, was a St Mary’s champion here in Darwin, and was a basketball legend. Up until only a few months ago, he was the highest point scorer in a single game in the history of Darwin basketball.
About a month ago, Brian had a fall at Cyril Rioli’s daughter’s birthday party, I believe it was. He slipped on the steps and fell and split his head open – a rather terrible fall - and he was rushed into hospital with a very serious head injury. He had been a coma for something like three weeks. Doctors took rather large chunks of skull off his head, took a piece of his brain out that had been mashed up. About two weeks ago, he came out of the coma and he seems to be on the road to recovery; it is too early to tell yet. There is no doubt about it, whatever way it goes, Brian is going to be in the hospital for several more months.
Obviously, his family is having the worries of losing a husband, a father, an uncle - all myriad of families associated with Brian right across the Territory are losing sleep with worry about the guy. His immediate family are, obviously, having trouble paying the bills and doing the day-to-day things. Some of his very good friends got together, and I am very fortunate to have been involved in some of the discussions.
A Brian Ah Mat Appeal is being launched by a few of his friends. It is being hosted by Michael Long, the AFL great and one of the Territory’s favourite sons - also a best friend of Brian - and Adrian Moscheni, another AFL great who played SANFL. Adrian Moscheni and Michael Long have got together to launch this Brian Ah Mat Appeal to help his immediate family get over this initial hurdle.
Obviously, there are problems not knowing what his physical condition is, as to whether he will be entitled to any insurance. However, life goes on, things need to be paid and, for that reason, a few of the lads got together and decided to help out.
Because Brian is such a popular person around the Territory, there is a range of organisations which have become involved. The Northern Territory AFL, the St Mary’s Football Club, the Darwin Basketball Association, the airport management crew where he worked - he was a groundsman at the airport, Karen Sheldon Catering, and the Foster’s Group are all chipping in to assist with this appeal.
What exactly is happening is that, in the next three games of the AFL final series, there is a range of efforts being put in to raise money to assist Brian. There is a corporate box up next to the TIO box. I understand the cost to enter that is $50 and there is a maximum of 110 people who can get in there. That will include some alcohol and soft drinks and a little finger food for anybody who wants to go to any one of the next three final games. Additionally, people can donate money at the gate of the football, or they can do it through their basketball association, or through the airport crew.
Many people are pulling together to do this. This is quite a big thing for the AFL, as well, and nobody knows how much money will be raised. A decision has been made that, if they raise excess funds, then a fund will be started, in any event, from which to assist people in the future such as football players or people closely associated with the AFL or the like who do come to some sort of grief, as Brian has done, so we can help them through those troubled times.
I thought it worthy to inform the House of this event. As I said , he is much-loved person by so many Territorians. I have to say completely apolitical too. He gets on very well with me, as I know he gets on very well with the members for Stuart, Braitling, and Drysdale, and a range of other people. We like him because he is a top bloke.
It would be great if people listening to this broadcast can spread the word - chip in just a little here and there for a wonderful cause to help out a wonderful bloke’s family in a time of great need for them. It is a great initiative, particularly by Michael Long and Adrian Moscheni, to come through with this, launch this appeal on and kick start what I think will be fantastic fund for the future to assist people in times of need when they particularly need help and some financial support just to get them over those initial problems.
I encourage everyone to get out to the AFL anyhow. It promises to be a great final series. Good on the AFL, good on the people involved, and let us all pray that Brian makes a safe and speedy recovery.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing the Brian Ah Mat Appeal to the notice of the Assembly. For me, Brian is one of those lovable larrikins. He goes out and has a great time and is a top bloke. I actually played with Brian Ah Mat in Alice Springs in 1987 or 1988 when I first came back from Adelaide in my first year at Pioneers. He is a great footballer and a great all-round bloke. I encourage everyone who hears about the appeal to get on board. I thank the AFLNT, Michael Long, and Adrian Moscheni for the initiative. It is a great initiative and, as the member for Fong Lim said, it is there to help Brian and his family with the immediate needs he has. It is also to help those footballers further down the track who are looking for support and help as well. All round, it is a great initiative and I thank the member Fong Lim for bringing it to the House.
I also say thank you tonight to the many people who worked tirelessly and assisted efforts during the recent flooding in Central Australia. Most of the communities in the Alice Springs district received more than three times their average rainfall in the space of 48 hours. In particular, the Arlparra or Utopia district was particularly hard hit by the floods. Sadly, two people lost their lives in the floodwaters of the Sandover. I extend my condolences, as the local member, to those family members, particularly to the Jones family who I know quite well. Some time ago, I had a lot to do with them. I pass my condolences on to those families and the friends of the two men who, sadly, lost their lives in the floods.
In relation to the flood, the Sandover River rose quickly. If you have ever been out that way, it is just amazing to think of that river in full flood; it such a huge river - so wide - and it does not very often become flooded. It would have been an amazing to be there and see an amazing amount of water.
With the Sandover River rising so quickly, seven outstations were isolated. All credit to the Emergency Service people who got the emergency drops of food and medical supplies out there very quickly, particularly for the two outstations that were very isolated. Those supplies were delivered by chopper; a great outcome and a great effort by the Emergency Services people. Five other outstations had food ferried across the river at the safe crossings.
I thank staff from the Utopia clinic, in particular, Ricky Tilmouth and his organisation from the shire office, and also the community members across the homelands for their great efforts during such a difficult time.
In Wilora, in my electorate of Stuart as well, there were 10 houses in the community that were badly flooded during the same floods. In two of the houses, the water was a metre deep. The occupants were moved to houses on higher ground, along with the aged-care facility, with the assistance of the Ti Tree Police and Emergency Services. All houses have had the required maintenance, and residents have returned to their homes. It was a good opportunity for me to get out there not long after the floods and visit the community of Wilora - or Stirling as it is also known. The police report all the houses have had the required maintenance and residents have returned to their homes.
During my visit, the residents were very keen, particularly the ladies at the women’s centre, to show me the many photos they took of the floods. Inspecting the houses, it is hard to imagine - even flying over Wilora this week to Darwin, to see the amount of water still sitting there - the flow that must have been going through that small community because there were fences just pushed over like matchsticks - an amazing amount of water. To all the residents at Wilora, Stirling, in my electorate, well done. It was a difficult time for you as well. They are, I suppose in one way, proud to have those photos to show how much water went through that small community.
Going to the south-west of Alice Springs, the region received less rain than other parts. The biggest issue there was the amount of water coming down some of the rivers, particularly the Finke which caused several washaways. To those people there, congratulations and well done on going through such a difficult time and bonding together to pull through it.
When the floods affected the Pigeon Hole area, again in my electorate, through the VRD region, there were an extra 100 people in the community on sorry business. The road was cut between Yarralin and Pigeon Hole and, if you have ever driven that road, you can see it is not too hard to do. You would not need much water because it is such a rough part of the Territory. I also thank the GBM at Yarralin who made an outboard motor available for those people who wished to leave Pigeon Hole and return to their communities. Also, to the local shire staff at Pigeon Hole, particularly Elmor Anzac and the staff at the Nitjpurru Health Clinic, in particular, Lorraine Johns, for their efforts during a difficult time.
I thank the Minister for Local Government, the member for Arnhem, for the recent announcement through the Special Purpose Grants of a grant of $350 000 to the Victoria Daly Shire for a community hall and flood shelter at Pigeon Hole. Obviously, where Pigeon Hole is located along the Victoria River, regularly face the floods and the rising levels of the Victoria River, which come up very quick. Through my time as local member, they have consistently been asking for this particular facility, so it is just great. I congratulate and thank again the Minister for Local Government for announcing and providing $350 000 for a community hall and flood shelter at Pigeon Hole. That would go really nicely next to their new airstrip the Northern Territory government has also provided.
Turning back to the floods in Central Australia and the Utopia region, many people worked tirelessly to assist during the floods, including Ray Musgrove the OIC at Arlparra Police Station, and his colleagues, Senior Constable Paul Harvey and Constable Thi Nguyen. Also, Acting Senior Sergeant Darrell Kerr coordinated operations at the Alice Springs end, while Senior Constable Owen Auricht coordinated efforts in the Kulgera region. Sergeant Justin Harbour and officers at Ti Tree also deserve a special mention, as do Senior Constable Nick Burns and his colleagues at Pigeon Hole, Harry Scott, the Shire CEO at Arlparra or Utopia, and Robert Romaldi and his staff in Emergency Services in Alice Springs.
It was my pleasure to be able to go to the local Emergency Services headquarters in Alice Springs in Wilkinson Street and put on morning tea for Rob Romaldi and his staff, and some volunteers. We know they do a fantastic job, particularly the volunteers. There is a great quote on their website, which I would like to place on the public record in recognition of the great work volunteers do, particularly in our Emergency Services. The quote is: ‘Ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. What a fantastic quote, and I really do think that sums up the efforts of those volunteers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the rain was certainly welcome. In the Central Australia region, particularly in Alice Springs, yesterday was one of the wettest February days in years. Looking at the ABC website, it says 61 mm of rain fell in Alice Springs airport yesterday - just in one day; the most since January 2001. The town’s average monthly rainfall for February is 41 mm - that is for the whole month - and what we saw in Alice Springs yesterday was 61 mm in one day. It is an amazing amount of rain. We are expecting more stormy weather in the Alice Springs district, and I am sure all the crew down at the Emergency Services headquarters in Wilkinson Street are on edge and ready to get out there again with the volunteers and support, and provide a very important service to the community.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I talk on two points. First is the Seniors Forum that was held Monday. I thank the member for Daly for mentioning it twice in the last two days in this House. It is a very important opportunity for our seniors in Palmerston to get together. The Palmerston City Council gathers together different agencies, puts on a bit of a morning tea and it gives the opportunity for the people in Palmerston to voice their concerns directly to people who should listen.
What I am a little annoyed at is the assertions by the member for Daly that I, the member for Drysdale, did not care, as I did not turn up twice in two days. The member for Daly has recklessly made that assertion, full well knowing I sit here in parliament with an arm in a sling and but one free arm, having only last Friday had keyhole surgery for a shoulder repair. That would reasonably make people think that I was not available, instead of going out and being borderline slanderous in this parliament that I did not care for my constituents.
To the contrary, I do much, and I attend many of these events that occur. Monday, I was still rather medicated, only a couple days out of surgery and, unfortunately, not in a fit state to attend. It is a shame the member for Daly would come in and make such slurs, because it does actually reflect very poorly on his character.
My electorate officer, Donna Ellice, was there representing me in an official capacity. The Palmerston City Council was made aware of it well before the event. I did mention it at the halfway point. It was an oversight by Alderman Geoff Carter that he did not mention it in the first part of his talks; however, he did correct that. Mr Terry Mills, Leader of the Opposition, was also there briefly, but he was represented by his electorate officer, as was the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler.
Leading into parliament, we all know it is busy, but we were well represented. It is shameful that the member for Daly would come into this parliament and throw slurs which are truly unfounded. It will reflect badly upon him in the community.
Then I heard the member for Daly gloat about the great job they have done in setting up the seniors hospital bus run. I will stand here and say categorically: fantastic effort! It is a brilliant plan, and you have done well to introduce this. You are the government, it is your job. You have done a fantastic job, and congratulations! The residents do appreciate it. It is a shame the member for Daly gloated on the figures stated at the Seniors Forum on Monday. The numbers were between 80 and 90 people, not 100-plus as stated by the member for Daly - neither here nor there; only a few people. I know the service is well used.
Let us have a history lesson; a true representation of the spirit of people in Palmerston, and the founding efforts of the people who have brought about the service which is now in place. It goes back to 2002, when a lovely lady by the name of Judy Joyce, former alderman and Deputy Mayor of Palmerston City Council, began lobbying both the Northern Territory government and the Palmerston City Council to start this shuttle run to the Royal Darwin Hospital. Off her own bat, Judy Joyce started this campaign. Unfortunately, she did not get support from the government or the council at the time.
Judy Joyce, in conjunction with the former member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham, began a volunteer-based service. The hospital run has been operating since 2002 as a volunteer-based service, providing a great service to many senior Territorians in Palmerston. Then, it was run by a handful of people: Rod and Judy Joyce, Pam MacLeod, Brenda Lang, Diane Tennyenhuis and Paul Dahl. They received funding mainly through the member for Drysdale’s office - a member of Country Liberal Party - and the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. When Steve Dunham lost his seat, the operation of the volunteer bus service went across to the member for Blain’s office, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills. It was still in conjunction with the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel, and funds were supplemented to help with fuel costs of those volunteer drivers.
I take the time now to briefly mention the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. They have donated thousands and thousands of dollars to various community events around Palmerston. The Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel was set up by John Wilson - nicknamed ‘Pastry’, with Margot Cox assisting. Fortunately, on the death off Mr Wilson, Margot took over and has continued to this date to do the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. She is a fantastic lady who will reach out and do whatever she can for the community. She has been formally nominated for Australian of the Year. She has done a fantastic job. She continued to support the volunteer drivers until the recent takeover by the government, which has been long awaited.
Of recent times, the volunteer hospital service operated out of the office of the member for Blain. It has been run by Maggie Schoenfisch, Margaret Lee, Margaret Pinney, Jenni Suckling, Irene Schreiber and Pam Smith. They were servicing about 80 seniors in the Palmerston area throughout the time. It is a true representation of Palmerston’s great spirit and community orientation to help each other out. Maggie Schoenfisch is Palmerston’s Australia Day winner for 2010; a great lady with a huge heart who does her best for every person in the community.
It was a shame they were not mentioned today when the member for Daly gloated about how well the government has done with the hospital bus service. It had a very humble beginning with volunteers under the guidance of Judy Joyce. It should be recognised it was started by volunteers. It has been demonstrated clearly there is a continuing need by its support. On behalf of those seniors, we thank the government for the service. It is a much-needed service; however, it is the volunteers who started it and we thank them very much.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, during the November 2009 sittings in Alice Springs, I stated I would report to the Assembly in February 2010 regarding the intersection of Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive in Alice Springs. I agreed to investigate traffic congestion and safety matters around the Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection, take into account consideration of local stakeholder views, report to the Assembly at the February 2010 sittings and, subject to the results of the investigation, commit to a time frame for commencement and completion of any works to be undertaken at the intersection during the February sittings.
At that time, I provided some background on traffic volumes and crash statistics in relation to the intersection. Traffic counts had been undertaken at the intersection in 1997, 2005 and, again, late last year. The traffic count in October 2009 identified traffic volumes passing through the intersection during peak times to be between 10 000 and 11 000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Lovegrove Drive. The average annual daily traffic count for Larapinta Drive has remained relatively static for the past decade, and recent traffic data confirms a growth rate of less than 1%. This traffic growth rate is not expected to change from the current trend for Larapinta Drive in future years. This is consistent with the strategic planning documents for Alice Springs, including the Alice Springs Land Use Structure Plan.
The crash data for this intersection show there have been 13 accidents in the last 18 years. Five of those crashes involved injuries, with three incidents requiring hospital admission. Two crashes occurred in peak hour, and 11 in non-peak hour, with 10 occurring in daylight hours.
An investigation into the traffic congestion and safety matters around Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection has been undertaken. Surveys to determine traffic volumes and vehicle movement patterns during peak and off-peak times have been carried out. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure operational staff have been extensively involved in the investigative work, and have carried out consultation at the local level. Alice Springs Town Council executive technical staff also provided input regarding the perceived traffic issues at the intersection. Those surveys indicate the current road traffic arrangements are sufficient; however, as this intersection is a key location in the local road network in Alice Springs, I am advised the intersection can and will be improved.
The investigation has recommended proposed improvements works at the intersection, namely some geometry changes to curb lines, road signs, and traffic islands. These works will affect existing services and structures and will need detailed design. I have asked my department to commence survey of the site in an effort to finalise the design process. The proposed improvement works will be made publicly available, and I anticipate works will commence on-site in the middle of this year, with works to be completed by September 2010. Of course, we will ask motorists to be patient during the roadworks, and will program the works to provide as little impact during peak traffic times as possible.
Whilst I am confident this solution will ease traffic delays in queuing at the intersection, I reiterate that road safety is everybody’s business. I urge people to take care at all times when they are out and about on our roads.
I also take the opportunity tonight to talk about the National Archives held in Darwin. On 9 November 2009, the National Archives announced it intended to close its Hobart, Adelaide, and Darwin offices over the next three years. The Darwin office in Millner was set to shut its doors at the end of its current lease in September 2010. Concerns at this closure have been raised by many interested parties, and there has been considerable disquiet throughout the research and information management communities.
The Henderson government was opposed to the loss of the material, which holds significance for many Territorians. I had raised my concerns directly with the federal government. Yesterday, they listened to Territorians. The Rudd government announced the National Archives of Australia will maintain face-to-face services in Darwin. The federal government announced that Australia’s National Archives play a vital role in keeping the political, social, and cultural history of Australia alive.
This is great news for many Territorians including members of the Stolen Generations. The Millner archive holds records very significant to them about themselves, their families, and their country.
I thank the member for Solomon, Damian Hale, for his lobbying on this issue. In the announcement, Mr Hale said:
I welcome this approach. I have tasked the CEO of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport to work collaboratively with the Director-General of National Archives. I believe we will find a suitable facility in the near future. One option being explored is the co-location of Northern Territory government records with the federal archives. This will keep the records in the Territory and help researchers and interested parties access records of interest.
The announcement ensures the archive can provide high-quality services in Darwin for all Territorians. We will continue to work with the federal government and the National Archives to ensure these important records are maintained for access by Territorians. I will keep the House informed of progress.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Neville Perkins and Mr Abdul Khan, very keen followers of the parliament. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Darwin High School students accompanied by Ms Jane Farr. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
HEALTH PRACTITIONER (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 93)
IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 93)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to implement transitional provisions and consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation which are needed to fully implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme in the Northern Territory, and to maintain legislative functions that will remain the responsibility of the Northern Territory.
Those functions are: the regulation of three health professions that will not immediately be covered by the national scheme; the regulation of pharmacy business and ownership which is outside the scope of the national scheme; and functions of the Health Professional Review Tribunal for health professions covered under the national scheme and the Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act.
This bill focuses on addressing a range of legislative matters which will ensure the national scheme operates effectively and achieves its principal objective of protecting the public within the Northern Territory. The bill to adopt the national law to implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory was introduced in November 2009, and we will be considering it for passage by the Assembly in these sittings.
The national scheme is set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) which became the national law when it was passed into an act by the Queensland parliament, and gained Royal assent on 3 November 2009. The national scheme is to be fully implemented by all jurisdictions by 1 July 2010 as set out in the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, signed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 26 March 2008.
Each jurisdiction is at various stages of introducing legislation to adopt the national law and to introduce the necessary transitional provisions and consequential amendments. The Australian government is also progressing amendments to its legislation in a Bill C to support implementation of the national scheme. However, the Australian government will not need to adopt or apply the national law.
The National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy also commits jurisdictions to achieve key milestones in relation to the COAG agreement for the national scheme. To be eligible to receive its share of reward payments under the national partnership agreement, the Northern Territory must enact legislation to effect implementation of the national scheme by 1 July 2010.
This bill is consistent with the national partnership agreement and the COAG agreement to enable the national scheme to be fully implemented on 1 July 2010. The proposals in this bill have been through a thorough public consultation process in the Northern Territory and are supported by local stakeholders.
A preliminary regulation impact assessment has been completed by the Northern Territory Regulation Impact Committee. Based on the details of that analysis, a certificate for exemption from the requirements for a full regulation impact statement has been issued.
The national scheme will initially apply to 10 health professions, which are: the nine health professions registered in every state and territory - medical, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dental (dentists, dental prosthetics, dental therapists, dental hygienists), psychology, optometry, osteopathy and chiropractic; and podiatry (registered in every jurisdiction except the Northern Territory, where there are currently insufficient numbers to make registration viable outside a national scheme).
This bill will implement significant amendments to the Health Practitioners Act to remove references to these health professions, as they will now be covered by the national law from 1 July 2010. A large number of the amendments to the Health Practitioners Act are to remove terms relating to enrolled nurse, for example, where a provision applies to registration or enrolment. Registration will remain for three Northern Territory professions under the Health Practitioners Act, while the term ‘enrolment’ will no longer be relevant as it refers only to the nursing profession, and nursing will come under the national law.
Provisions will be retained within the Health Practitioners Act for regulation of the remaining health professions which will continue to be the responsibility of the Northern Territory; namely, Aboriginal Health Workers, occupational therapists and radiographers.
This bill proposes to repeal the Radiographers Act and transfer the continued regulation of radiographers to the Health Practitioners Act. This step will promote consistency amongst the health professions registered in the Northern Territory. This would synchronise registration cycles, implement best practice registration and complaints provisions for radiographers, and align their regulation with Aboriginal Health Workers and occupational therapists. A small number of provisions specific to radiographers would be transferred to the Health Practitioners Act. Local stakeholders, including the Radiographers Board and the Chief Health Officer, whose delegate is currently the mandated Chair of the Board, support the transfer.
The national law provides for four more health professions to be included in the national scheme from 1 July 2012. They are: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice (known as Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory); Chinese medicine; medical radiation practice (including radiographers); and occupational therapy. When these professions join the national scheme on 1 July 2012, the Northern Territory will not be responsible for the regulation of any health professions. Any other professions seeking regulation in the future will be subject to the national scheme.
A large number of consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation are proposed under the bill that are necessary to update terminology and references to professions that will be covered under the national law. These amendments have been discussed with representatives of the relevant agencies and will be further refined, where necessary. Essentially, these amendments change any reference in current Northern Territory legislation from the terms or definitions used in the Health Practitioners Act to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NT). This includes acts such as Health Practitioners Act, Evidence Act, Firearms Act, Health and Community Services Complaints Act, Interpretation Act, Meat Industries Act, Mental Health and Related Services Act, Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, Police Administration Act, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act, Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Act, and Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
This bill gives the Northern Territory the opportunity to participate in a major health workforce reform that is focused on providing quality health services and protecting the safety of the Northern Territory community and the Australian population. The Northern Territory is committed to upholding standards for health professions and protecting the safety and wellbeing of the community in the delivery of health services. The national scheme is a major step towards improving Australia’s health system. This bill references the national law and implements the necessary transitional provisions and consequential amendments to support full implementation of the national scheme in the Northern Territory by 1 July 2010.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the government’s bill is simply legislation designed to enable the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act of Queensland to apply to the Northern Territory. I will use this opportunity to speak to the provisions contained within the act.
When this legislation was first brought to my attention, I was supportive of the nationalisation of registration for health professionals. It made a lot of sense to streamline this right across the country. The nationalisation of registration is very welcomed, and will provide greater career portability and flexibility for Australia’s health workforce, enabling them to register with their respective national board and practice in any Australian jurisdiction.
The process will be beneficial to our Territory hospitals and health centres, reducing the red tape associated with recruiting and importing health workers from down south. Territory practitioners working out of health centres in border regions, and those providing emergency medical retrieval across state and territory borders, will also stand to benefit from this legislation.
Under the current system, practitioners are required to register in each state and territory they practice in and, according to the Australian Psychological Society, there is at least one practicing psychologist registered in each Australian jurisdiction who pays an annual registration fee in excess of $1500 and is required to meet the accreditation standards of all eight states and territories. I am sure this example is replicated in medicine, nursing, dentistry and other health professionals across the country.
With regard to the National Trauma Centre based at Royal Darwin Hospital, in the event of a national disaster or other prolonged emergencies such as the Bali bombings, doctors and nurses can be more readily sourced from other jurisdictions to provide specialist treatment to victims and relief for our local teams.
The other major change brought about by the inter-governmental agreement and this bill is the nationalisation of accreditation standards within health professions. On the surface, this is an important step forward in ensuring particular core skills are met at a standard consistent across all states and territories. This can only be an improvement on the sometimes vast differences that can be experienced between these jurisdictions across our states and territories. One example that springs to mind is the number of clinical hours required for nursing accreditation throughout Australia, ranging somewhere between 400 to 1800 hours.
The main concern raised by stakeholders in relation to the original legislation - which was known as Bill A - was the bureaucratisation, if you like, of the accreditation process. The original intention of the IGA and the text of the bill firmly entrenched the setting of professional accreditations standards with the Australia Health Workers Ministerial Council and their advisors, potentially allowing accreditation and training standards to be influenced and amended by political motivations. This was of great concern. The other was, with the current differences between the jurisdictions, the new bar would be set for professions which had vastly different requirements throughout the country.
To use a description from earlier, would the bar be sent at, say, 400 clinical hours or 1800? Would the political desire to get more professionals out in the workforce in a short space of time overpower the practical concerns of ensuring standards remain sufficiently high? The Country Liberals, while agreeing in principle with the national accreditation, did not support the original manifestation of this bill.
It is a positive move by the ministerial council that they have listened to the critics of the original model and have introduced amendments in Bill B to create more distance and independence between the political and professional components of this scheme, and for the publication on the board’s website of any direction given by the ministerial council to the board. Also, the ability for the national boards to develop and monitor accreditation standards through an accreditation committee of the board, or through the services of an external provider. The much more detail provision in Part 6 of the national law for the monitoring and assessment of programs of study, both in Australia and overseas, is a much needed improvement from Bill A.
I also welcome the decision to expand the professional boards to include one practitioner member from each large jurisdiction, and at least one representative from the three smaller jurisdictions. There is also a requirement for two community members and one member from a rural or regional area.
I make note, according to the website of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, of the 10 boards established, there were no Northern Territory appointments to the Osteopathy, Chiropractic or Podiatry Boards. I believe there is no Podiatry Board operating in the Northern Territory and, on the other two boards, the NT is represented by community members. It is unfortunate the site does not indicate which jurisdiction the community members come from, or which member is from a rural or regional area. The inclusion, in this bill, of at least one board member based in a regional or a rural area, again, is a positive inclusion for the Northern Territory. However, there is no definition in the Queensland bill, or the explanatory notes, as to what would comprise a regional or remote area. Maybe the minister could clarify this point, as regional or rural from a Canberra perspective could be Darwin, Cairns of even Shepparton. However, from a Darwin perspective, it could be Alice Springs, Gove, Bamaga or Broome.
The IGA set out the nationalisation of registration and accreditation of health professionals will operate in a transparent, accountable, efficient, and fair manner. An initial estimate put the cost to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments at close to $19.8m, with Commonwealth subsidies to continue for the scheme’s first two years. With nationally consistent standards and national registration, it is the intention of the IGA to put in place an environment where disbarred health workers are not able to exploit the lack of communication between states and register in other jurisdictions. Foreign-trained health workers will, likewise, be required to conform to nationally consistent standards, making all jurisdictions equally attractive to these professions and harder for under-qualified persons looking into Australia in jurisdictions which have set less rigorous standards for accreditation.
The legislation is to be reviewed in three years, but there is no indication there will be a coordinated review after this date. This is an important omission, as there will be at least two new national boards which will only begin operating in 2012. Most of the boards are yet to finalise the standards for their relevant professionals. It is hoped the new national standards aim for the higher of the current standards. It would be a wasted opportunity to allow Australia’s reputation of producing some of the best health professionals in the world slip away by setting standards that only average what is available now.
Madam Speaker, apart from some of those concerns flagged in my speech, the Country Liberals welcome this bill, and we will be supporting it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Greatorex. It is very important to note this process commenced in 2005 under a Liberal government. It is a very good example of political parties finding good legislation and proceeding and building on the previous government’s experience to deliver legislation which will now cover the whole of Australia.
I recall, with horror, the situation with Dr Patel in Queensland. One thing this legislation will prevent is a situation the same as Dr Patel. People like Dr Patel, if they are arrested in Queensland because of a problem, will then move to New South Wales or the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, sometimes information will not pass to the relevant authorities. As a result, people like Dr Patel can continue in other places the terrible work done in their home state.
I note the comments by the member for Greatorex. I will elaborate on some of the issues raised. First, this national scheme will help health professionals move around the country more easily, and will avoid duplication of registration fees. People who are registered in, say, Western Australia will be registered nationally; they do not have to register in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and New South Wales. It will reduce red tape and provide greater safeguards to the public by providing information on a national level, rather than people avoiding scrutiny by jumping states, and promote a more flexible, responsible, and sustainable health workforce. A typical example is the Northern Territory, where people would think twice before they came here.
One of the things I fought very hard for was Northern Territory representation – we are a small state; the big states tend to block all the big boards and, as a result, there are no vacancies left. I have to say I am very pleased the Territory has significant representation on some of the big boards, and also representation, through community members, to some of the small boards. I also insisted regional or remote does not mean the capital cities, a city 100 km, 200 km from the capital city, but real rural or remote. A real rural or remote area for me would be Gove, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs.
Our dental representative is Dr Mark Leedham, who is a practitioner; medical, Dr Charles Kilburn; nursing and midwifery, Ms Angela Brannelly; nursing and midwifery, Ms Heather Sjoberg, who is a community member; in optometry, Ms Judith Dikstein, a community member; in osteopathy, Ms Helen Egan, a community member; in pharmacy, Ms Bhavini Patel, practitioner member; in physiotherapy, Ms Philippa Tessman, practitioner member; and in psychology, Dr Shirley Grace, a practitioner member.
I understand this is complex legislation. Actually, the legislation which was introduced in Queensland is a big volume. The work was done by my department, not only to improve the legislation, but consulting with stakeholders and adopting their recommendations, which is commendable.
I believe unless we talk to the people who are affected by this legislation we are not going to have good legislation. We have done it; we understood some of the complex information brought to us. Many changes have taken place on a ministerial council level and at state level, and I am pleased this legislation has now been amended sufficiently to satisfy the needs of the stakeholders.
COAG committed $19.8m towards the establishment of the national scheme and, under the IGA, other resources of the scheme will comprise fees received for registration and accreditation functions, appropriate resources of the registration board, current Commonwealth, state and territory contribution for registration, accreditation, and related workforce functions. The parties have committed to meeting the initial cost of establishing the national scheme, but it is intended, in the longer term, this scheme will be self-funded within three years of commencement. It is the user-pays principle, which is very good.
Health practitioners are currently required to register to practise in the Northern Territory under the Health Practitioners Act. The administration of this legislation is supported by the Health Professions Licensing Authority funded by the Department of Health and Families. The NT health practitioner registration fees form part of the consolidated revenue. There is expected to be a consolidated revenue loss of $750 000 for the Territory from registrations - their money, paid by the practitioners into consolidated revenue. Otherwise, the money will be a direct transfer into the national scheme.
I am very pleased to see bipartisan support for this bill. It is important Australia, as a nation, meets the challenges of a health workforce and the health system, and find a way to do better business.
Madam Speaker, I have some amendments, and I would like to go through to a committee stage. The three amendments are insignificant, but they have to be considered. I will read some notes I have about these proposed amendments.
A number of amendments have been identified from the bill which will ensure proper application of the provisions and remove redundant definitions. The Parliamentary Counsel and Department of Health and Families recommend the following amendments to the bill.
An amendment is proposed to remove two definitions from clause 5 which are not required. The definition of ‘clerk of the court’ is redundant as it is not used in the legislation, and the definition of ‘responsible tribunal’ is defined in clause 6 of the bill.
An amendment to clause 7 is proposed to exclude specific provisions under the Information Act rather than exclude the whole act; specifically in section 9, Parts 3 to 8 of the act. The amendment will ensure the provision within the Information Act covering record management and archives will apply to records held in the Northern Territory under the national law. Section 9 of the Information Act states that the act will prevail where there is consistency with another law of the Territory. To avoid any doubt, section 9 is excluded from the rest of the bill, so the exclusion of Parts 3 to 8 may apply.
The excluded provisions covering freedom of information and privacy functions will be provided under the national law to ensure consistent application across Australia. This exclusion is consistent with other jurisdictions. Unlike most jurisdictions which have separate legislation dealing with these issues, the Northern Territory provisions are contained in the same legislation. Regulations under the national law have to be made by the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council and will cover such matters as freedom of information, privacy, and Ombudsman functions.
A clause has been inserted so the Administrator can make regulations if required; for example, if further provisions are required to ensure proper application of the national law in the Northern Territory. An expiry clause is proposed for Part 3 of the bill which provides consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act in support of adoption of the national law.
The second stage of this bill will make further significant consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act to support implementation of the national law.
Motion agreed to; bill to read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2009 (Serial 76) together with schedule of amendments No 32 circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.1 relating to clause 5(1) omitting the definition of a ‘clerk of the court’ and ‘responsible tribunal’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.1, relating to clause 7(a) which specifies section 9 and Parts 3 to 8 of the Information Act do not apply to the national law in the Northern Territory.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.3. The amendment proposes a new Part 2A and a new clause 7A to provide that the Administrator may make regulations under this act.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clause 11:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 32.4 which proposes a new clause 11 so that Part 3, consequential amendments, expires on the day after it commences.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clause 11 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motional agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination –
Report from Member for Brennan
for Interstate Travel
Remuneration Tribunal Determination –
Report from Member for Brennan
for Interstate Travel
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table, in accordance with standing orders, a Remuneration Tribunal Determination report from the member for Brennan for travel between 12 and 17 January to Perth.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Progress Report, February 2010
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Progress Report, February 2010
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I table the council’s first report.
MOTION
Print Paper – Council of Territory
Cooperation - Progress Report,
February 2010
Print Paper – Council of Territory
Cooperation - Progress Report,
February 2010
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation – Progress Report,
February 2010
Note Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation – Progress Report,
February 2010
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is the first report on the first two months progress of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
The council was established as a sessional committee on 14 October 2009 and commenced public hearings in Darwin on 9 November 2009. During its first two months, the council conducted five public hearings, in addition to Darwin, in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, a site visit of SIHIP construction in Tennant Creek, and spoke to more than 50 witnesses.
Earlier this year, the council conducted another hearing in Darwin and travelled to Nguiu and Wadeye. The council plans to conduct further hearings in the Territory’s regional and remote areas this year. The findings of this year’s hearings will be the subject of later reports.
It is anticipated the CTC will bring out further reports throughout the year because the issues it is dealing with are ongoing. A Working Future, for example, has targets which will not be achieved until 2020. Also, because the CTC is self-referring, it is able to investigate issues which it sees as being of interest and concern to the government and Territorians. This has already occurred with the council meeting with the Power and Water Corporation, Department of Justice, and the Northern Territory Police.
Madam Speaker, it might be useful, before moving to the key findings set out in the report, to revisit the purposes behind the establishment of the council. These were to facilitate:
(a) greater levels of collaboration in the government for the Northern Territory;
(b) enhance parliamentary democracy by providing a strong role for members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the executive government, particularly on matters of common concern;
(c) expand involvement in important Northern Territory initiatives and projects;
(d) provide new avenues for Territorians to have input through the Legislative Assembly into the government of the Northern Territory; and
(e) provide a road map for tackling some specific issues currently facing the Territory.
While it is clear the council has only just commenced its work, it is already improving collaboration between members, enhancing democratic processes by expanding involvement of both members and other Territorians in examining the issues surrounding SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future.
This report is the first step in finding ways to tackle the specific issues highlighted in public hearings. The report includes 21 recommendations about ways to address the issues identified by the council during its first hearings.
I will first turn to talking about some of the information as reported to the council on SIHIP. Witnesses attended hearings representing all the alliances; that is, from New Future Alliance, Earth Connect Alliance, and Territory Alliance Partners. In addition, representatives from both the Northern Territory and Australian governments answered questions about SIHIP’s implementation, and representatives from a number of Aboriginal organisations - Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation, Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, and Tangentyere Council - put their perspectives to the council.
The council heard evidence about the differences in housing design, size and cost prior to and after the SIHIP review completed in August 2009. We were told that, while the average cost for new housing is $450 000, all appropriate building standards will be met. However, the council is not reassured this is, in fact, possible without the post-review houses delivered being smaller. If this is the case, there are ramifications for tenancy management and repairs and maintenance budgets which need to be acknowledged and planned for. More importantly, however, if houses are smaller than needed, what impact will that have on the very severe overcrowding of housing?
The council asked the alliances what work is undertaken in rebuilds and refurbishes. We were constantly told the pre-review contracts for refurbishments would undertake refurbishing a house to the value of $150 000, and post-review refurbishment will be targeting the functionality of houses to an average of $75 000. After further questioning of alliances about how much work can be undertaken for that level of spending, the council questioned whether SIHIP-refurbished houses will be capable of contributing to healthy living practices, and what their continuing maintenance requirements will be.
One Northern Territory government official noted completed SIHIP construction work will add about 3500 houses to government housing stock. The council questions what the ongoing funding implications of the additional housing responsibility for the Northern Territory government will be.
The appropriateness of the design and size of new housing, and the nature of the work undertaken in rebuilds and refurbishment, is pivotal to ensuring the best quality housing is delivered. The council also questioned if the refurbished houses, post-review, are up to the Territory Housing standard.
A commitment was made to the council that about 50 houses would be commenced by the end of December 2009; however, no evidence has been provided to council this occurred.
In the January 2010 update on SIHIP on the department’s website, I see the Department of Housing and Local Government and Regional Services said there are now 52 new houses completed or under way, and 154 refurbishments and rebuilds complete or under way. If SIHIP targets are going to be met there will need to be a continued accelerated of construction. The council will closely monitor progress in meeting the construction targets.
One of the other important issues that came to light through the initial hearings which is discussed in this report is the responsibility for providing housing-related infrastructure. The council heard most of the SIHIP building work to date has occurred on sites with existing essential services and land servicing headworks. One of the findings of the SIHIP review was that SIHIP would focus on housing. Costs associated with housing-related essential services infrastructure would be determined in the audit of municipal and essential services being undertaken as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.
This is one of the links between SIHIP and A Working Future which is associated with another national partnership agreement; this one on remote services delivery. In evidence to the council, the Under Treasurer said the Northern Territory government has increased housing-related essential services in infrastructure funding over the last five years, and this will continue with the implementation of A Working Future.
The combined effect of the SIHIP review decision and the implementation of A Working Future is the Northern Territory appears to have incurred considerable additional infrastructure responsibility. How much, and how it will be budgeted for, has not been answered.
I have highlighted a few of the many concerns with SIHIP the report provides more detail on. The council makes 11 recommendations in relation to SIHIP, which I will quickly paraphrase to give an idea of the way the council believes SIHIP can be improved.
First, there is a general feeling problems associated with SIHIP relate to the program being set up by the federal government and then foisted on the Northern Territory government which has come under criticism for the slowness of the program. The council believes the Northern Territory government is still the best positioned government to manage SIHIP. Its members, and the members of the Territory parliament, are in a far better position to know the Northern Territory’s remote areas than federal parliamentarians and ministers.
The council heard one of the effects of the SIHIP review was a change in funding for refurbishments and rebuilds. This means houses may only be partially repaired under the lower expenditure. Handing back a house in this condition is counterproductive, and there are doubts whether Territory Housing can take them over. If the houses are not compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act, who is responsible for them? The council, therefore, recommends SIHIP be allowed to roll out its refurbishments and rebuilds to the standards originally promised; importantly, SIHIP meets minimal Territory Housing standards; and the handover to new tenants be streamlined to minimise any delay in getting people into improved housing.
The council heard, while in Tennant Creek, only part of the $30m SIHIP project will be spent on housing reconstruction, and the balance, $13.5m, has been set aside for infrastructure. It has been noted, since the review, infrastructure is not part of the SIHIP funding but, in Tennant Creek, it continued to come from SIHIP funds.
With an estimated shortage of 280 houses, the council is recommending the decision on Tennant Creek be overturned, and the $13.5m set aside for infrastructure be used for the construction of new houses, and the infrastructure funding come from the appropriate national partnership agreement. The council is also recommending the review changes to infrastructure funding need to be looked at for the whole of the infrastructure program.
I have already mentioned there has been some slowness in getting additional information to the council. A number of recommendations are trying to address this as well as getting more information about SIHIP publicly available.
Knowing the cost of each house is vitally important to know if the program is fitting within budget, to check on wastage, and the containment of administration costs. The council is recommending the scope of infrastructure works for SIHIP be published, providing details of who will do what and when; that all new rebuilt or refurbished houses, when handed over to Territory Housing, have a publicly available final cost which includes an administrative component; that both governments provide the CTC with a detailed financial report of the SIHIP project every quarter; and an audit should be done by an independent auditor at the completion of the process to determine the usefulness of the alliance model, including an assessment of the profits returned by the alliance through the process.
An important part of SIHIP is providing employment and training for local Indigenous people, and SIHIP has a target of 20% Indigenous employment and training. While the council heard in some locations the 20% target has been exceeded, and understands in some locations it may be much higher, the council wants a complete breakdown of training and employment data for SIHIP to be made publicly available every six months.
The council is aware, while private home ownership is a longer-term goal closely linked to SIHIP, it is not specifically part of SIHIP. It is already known SIHIP will not solve the housing issues in the Territory’s remote communities. Home ownership needs to be promoted to the right avenues as a means of overcoming the housing shortfall. It is clear the council home ownership schemes need to be actively encouraged by the Northern Territory government, along with private financial institutions, especially in communities where SIHIP is presently operating.
I will now turn to concerns people have raised about local government reform and its implementation. During the period the report covers, the council heard from representatives for all but six of the 16 Territory local government bodies. The council heard that shires do not have enough money to undertake the core services we all expect local governments to deliver, such as roads, rubbish removal, and management, and to provide recreational facilities. All the shires the council have spoken to so far said they were reliant on government grants because they have almost a non-existent rate base. Most shires made the point that, if grant funding decreased, services would have to decrease accordingly.
In addition to inadequate funding, there is a range of continuing issues as a result of local government reform described by witnesses. They include: inherited debts from previous community government councils; poor condition of transferred assets; the cost of CouncilBiz and the IT system; inability to produce financial reports and technically being in breach of the accounting regulations; lack of clarity about which roads shires have responsibility for; and additional funding for roads.
Most shires said there was no indication of the level of debt they were expected to take on, and some shires’ full financial positions remain unclear because of the inherited debts. In the case of the assets of community government council the shire inherited, a number of transferred assets, such as older trucks and graders, need to be replaced. This affects not only a shire’s financial position, but also how much road maintenance and other related work it can realistically undertake.
A number of shires made the point that, with large populations of disadvantaged people living in communities, it is not possible to charge realistic cost-recovery rates which the ratepayers cannot afford to pay. The reality is shires have little ability to raise rates on Aboriginal trust land and, therefore, the rate base will remain small. The council is recommending legislation amendments to enable shires to increase their own revenue base, such as through service fees in remote Aboriginal communities where they provide services.
The council heard evidence from shires which suggests the government is out of contact with local government problems such as closure of childcare centres and changes to waste management. Councils have no control over planning, so they need to be actively involved in decision-making in their council area. The council is recommending the government establish a working relationship with shires and municipal councils based on the model of the Capital Cities Committee to improve the relationship between government and council.
It was agreed by the then Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and Housing that the IT system has not worked well and the timing of its implementation was not good. Some shire witnesses said they were hopeful about the results from the remediation process currently under way. The council will follow up the progress through mediation process and the shires’ ability to fulfil the requirements of accounting regulations. However, due to the problems with ShiresBiz, and shires under financial hardship, such costs need to be compensated. The council is recommending the Northern Territory government immediately increases the establishment funding that was provided for the new shires, taking into consideration the unexpected cost in ShiresBiz.
The level of change brought by local government reform, the role of shire’s employees on bodies like CouncilBiz, and the continuing financial difficulties - including some shires’ inability to fill accounting requirements - all contribute to increasing complexity in responsibilities of elected members. To help address this by increasing the knowledge and understanding of elected members of shires, council is recommending the government improve the available elected members’ training, particularly in the reformed Local Government Act, and their legal and financial responsibilities under the act.
The council heard from a number of witnesses that they believe one of the reasons the government wanted to pursue local government reform was to help access additional road funding, although the council has been told an audit is under way of roads, in a process of recognition of the two road links, and additional road funding is unclear. It is equally unclear what, if any, process there is in relation to transferring road responsibilities to shires. The council will seek briefings on the audit, and also how government is following up on additional road funding.
The council is making three recommendations on roads: the first is for the Northern Territory government to resolve the status of road corridors to growth towns through Aboriginal trust lands with appropriate land councils. This is an important precursor to any further effort on roads, and has an effect on both local governments and A Working Future regional services planning. Importantly, growth towns will not succeed if the issue of public access on public roads is not sorted out.
Second, the council is recommending the government finalise the handover of roads to shires by consulting the shires on proposed roads for handover, auditing the state of roads, and identifying all works needed before handing the roads over; upgrading roads to a satisfactory standard prior to handover; and identifying ongoing funding for these roads.
The council heard the shires feel they were promised there would be extra road funding similar to what happened at the Pit Lands. So far, no similar deal has happened for the Territory. The third roads recommendation, therefore, seeks to address this by recommending the government get an explanation from the Australia government why there has been no increase in road funding in the newly-incorporated shires, as there was for the Pitjantjatjara council.
In closing, Madam Speaker, during the council’s initial hearing, witnesses had described a range of issues this report makes recommendation on. There were initial hearings to gather information on SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future. This report identifies problems with how SIHIP has been rolled out in communities, the implementation of local government reform, and questions some parts of A Working Future.
One of the strengths of the council is its ability to travel and hear firsthand experience of all those affected by the implementation of government policies. The council is currently finalising the work program for the next few months, and is planning to visit as many regional and remote towns as possible. Further reports will provide feedback on those meetings, and consideration of continuing and emerging issues.
I place on the record my appreciation of the work of my fellow committee members, and my thanks to the secretariat staff who have worked with council since it commenced, and to Michelle and Robyn.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the report and its 21 recommendations. There is a dissenting report and the opposition members will be speaking to that, I am sure.
What the chairman has tabled today is a progress report of the work down by the Council of Territory Cooperation to December. It is important to remember the purpose of the Council of Territory Cooperation. We debated that in October in this Chamber when we established the Terms of Reference for the Council of Territory Cooperation. I choose to remind members of what those Terms of Reference are.
The CTC’s purpose is to facilitate: (a) greater levels of collaboration in the governance of Northern Territory; (b) enhance parliamentary democracy by providing a stronger role for members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the executive, particularly on matters of common concern; (c) expand involvement in important Northern Territory initiatives and projects; (d) provide new avenues for Territorians to have input through the Legislative Assembly into the governance of the Northern Territory; and (e) provide a road map for tackling specific issues currently facing the Northern Territory.
I believe we have done that. The proof is in the 21 recommendations the chairman has tabled today - 21 substantial recommendations which were worked out cooperatively. To that degree, I thank the opposition members for their conduct at private deliberations and public hearings. I believe, by and large, they were cooperative and I thank them for that. It is probably too much to hope that will extend to cooperative debate in the Chamber. However, that is the point of the Chamber; it is a bit of a bear pit.
We have a majority report and a dissenting report. The most striking thing about the dissenting report, to my mind, is it seems to forget, in part, the purpose of the Council of Territory Cooperation ...
Mr Elferink: The rule is if we agree with you, you cooperate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Well, it is a pretty outrageous assertion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you will have your opportunity.
Mr GUNNER: The greatest complaint seems to be there is not a Council of Territory opposition, but the member for Port Darwin will speak to that later, and he will have much to say, I am sure.
As I said in my remarks to the motion that created the Council of Territory Cooperation, I have often found working relationships between members on committees quite cordial. You get on very well with the members you work with on the committee. I enjoy working with the members for Goyder and Brennan in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; with the members for Sanderson and Brennan, again, on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee; and the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin on the Public Accounts Committee. You can work quite well with members on committees. It is possible for politicians from different parties to work together.
The Council of Territory Cooperation is an attempt to take on the best aspects of those committees where we do work well together, and pursue issues of significant interest to the Territory. I believe we have done that. I thank the members of the opposition for the work they have done on the committee.
Getting out on the ground and talking to the people doing the work - not talking to the ministers but talking to the people building the houses - has been a good result of the Council of Territory Cooperation. In that, it has been a success. We have been on the ground where we have had open and frank conversations with witnesses, and we have done that, by and large, in a cooperative manner. The chair needs to be commended for that. It was his passion that saw the council created, and his steady hand saw it function.
Our progress report looks at two of the significant issues we were charged with at the outset: the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, and local government reform. Our next progress report will look in detail at A Working Future and also cover some of the issues we self-referenced in February, such as Power and Water and the reporting of crime statistics.
In this report, we make 21 recommendations, starting with 11 recommendations on the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. Recommendation 1 is pretty straightforward. All members agreed the Territory government are the best placed and the best-informed government to run programs in the Territory such as SIHIP. That is a paraphrase of Recommendation 1. It goes into a little more detail than that but, that is, basically, what it says.
Recommendations 2 and 3 are of significance because they affect long-term asset management and budget management for the Territory. The council recommends SIHIP should be allowed to roll out refurbishments and rebuilds to the standards originally promised, and the council recommends the Northern Territory government work with the Australian government to ensure stock for SIHIP meets minimum Territory Housing standards. These are critical recommendations. Through the problems with refurbishments and rebuilds, some of the houses which form the base stock for SIHIP may not meet the standards of the Residential Tenancies Act. This could create an ongoing problem for Territory Housing and, obviously, the Territory government, due to ongoing repairs and maintenance.
Let us be clear, though, the houses which are being built are great. They passed the member for Nelson’s star picket test. He took a star picket round often and had a bit of a crack at the walls. The walls always passed the test. We want to build houses that are robust. The quality of the materials and the durability of the houses are meant to last 30 to 40 years and, to date, they have met our expectations, in doing the rounds - they survived the star picket test.
There has been some confusion amongst the council and the people interviewed about the differences between rebuilds and refurbishments on the ground. There is a clear written distinction between the two. The SIHIP review definitions are quoted in the report on page 13:
- Rebuilds will occur where more than $100 000 on capital works is spent on an existing house.
Essentially, there is a written definition within the report about refurbishments and rebuilds, but sometimes, when you talk to the builder on the ground, they will say this is not quite clear. The report goes into that in a little more detail. That, in itself, is not necessarily a problem - although you would like it to be clearer.
What is a concern, covered by recommendations 2 and 3, is that the quality of the refurbished houses end up meeting minimum Territory Housing standards. That is going to be, literally, a case-by-case basis where SIHIP is being rolled out. Alliances are working on a works plan based on stock in those places. In some of those places, there will be houses which are being refurbished where the final product, at the moment under the current refurbishment guidelines, is likely not to have interiors painted or the floors done. That is something we need to work on with the Commonwealth government. There are genuine expectations of people moving into those houses that that work will be done. The kitchen and the bathroom are going to be done. Those are the wet areas, the most important areas. We will have a functional house: a roof, a kitchen, a bathroom - sometimes two bathrooms. The kitchens and bathrooms are pretty schmick too, sometimes better than mine. These are the most important areas, and we are fixing them.
However, we need to work to find a solution that addresses those houses where the floors in the lounge might not get fixed, or the internal walls where there is inappropriate graffiti are painted. I believe that is an issue. There is an honest and deserved expectation from a tenant moving into a rebuilt or refurbished home that it is up to scratch and it meets the standard all Territory Housing tenants should expect. There has been some evidence from witnesses the houses may be left with internal graffiti - walls cleaned but not repainted - and that floors may be left as they are; pitted concrete floors which would be impossible to keep clean, rather than tiling or re-concreting, or another solution.
That is an issue; something we need to work out between the Commonwealth and Territory governments, so they go to quality of living and hygiene. Obviously, the most important things in many respects are the roof, kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. They are getting done, so there is going to be a functional house. However, I believe we need to have a very honest conversation with the Commonwealth about the standard of housing expected by Territory Housing tenants. We have a repairs and maintenance budget in the Territory. We have a good working relationship with the Commonwealth. We are capable of working this issue out; we need to work this issue out. I believe people who are moving into these houses under this new system of Territory Housing have a genuine expectation of a better, healthier way of life afterwards. That is why we have SIHIP.
We are building new houses in the bush because we are determined decent housing is a touchstone for good outcomes in education, in health, and in jobs. That is why, when a house is built, rebuilt, or refurbished, the time between it being completed and people moving in is as short as possible, because we have said housing is important, and we need to do it. We do not want houses sitting empty. There needs to be final checks done to ensure all the work has been done properly, and we want people in those houses as quickly as possible.
In Tennant Creek, we saw some evidence that it is taking two to three weeks for those final checks to be done. That was, obviously, very early in the process. We saw some evidence later that those checks were taking two or three days. We need to ensure, in that process which has been worked out between government and the alliance - something that happens everywhere SIHIP housing is being rolled out - there is about a two or three day final check time frame so people are living in the good housing as soon as is practical. That is recommendation 4:
- The council recommends that the transition period from a new, rebuilt or refurbished house being completed, checked for successful completion and handed over to new tenants, be streamlined to minimise any delay of occupancy.
I believe the chair spoke at length to recommendation 5.
Recommendation 6 is an interesting one. We took a great deal of evidence on infrastructure, and there seems to be some confusion about who does what, and when they will do it. It has been neatly summed up in recommendation 6:
- The council recommends that a scope of infrastructure works for SIHIP be published, providing details of who will do what when.
That is pretty straightforward; it is building on work which is already happening. There is a reference in the report to that:
- Costs associated with housing-related infrastructure will be determined as part of the audit being undertaken as part of the NPA and sourced from the NPA and Northern Territory government programs.
This was from joint media release from the two ministers.
Further, we heard from Ken Davies and, as paraphrased in the report:
- … there are comprehensive infrastructure plans being developed, using Australian and Northern Territory government funds, in each of the SIHIP committees to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure in place.
We also have a quote from the Under Treasurer on page 18.
- The people managing the SIHIP program are, with the assistance of the department of Planning and Infrastructure, looking at the total infrastructure requirements in each of those communities, and making a decision on a community by community basis to what extent there should be additional infrastructure.
There are plans being worked on regarding who will pay for what, and when they will do it. I believe, for the certainty of the program over the next five years, that needs to be published so people are very clear about who is doing what, and it is predictable. There was some confusion amongst the alliance partners at different stages about who was paying for what infrastructure where, and whether it was going to be fenced - sometimes it was not, sometimes it was.
It has an impact on the alliances. One alliance we spoke to said some of the works they thought were going to be part of the SIHIP plan, Power and Water said they might be going to tender for them. There was some confusion, and that is something we need to clear up, and is possible to clear up. There is work happening right now on it. That needs to be published so people do know, over the course of the program, who is going to be doing what, when, and it marries up to the housing roll-out. Some of that confusion may extend from a lack of understanding of the original program, as covered in the report on page 5:
- Under the initial announcement, 57 communities were listed to receive housing upgrades and 16 communities to receive major capital works.
There has been a degree of confusion about where the SIHIP major construction was going to happen. It was forgotten by some that, during the process, the Territory government has an ongoing responsibility for the delivery of Indigenous essential services. Responsibility has grown over time as the population and services in the bush grew. Those points were picked up by the Under Treasurer in some of her comments to the committee on page 18 of the report:
- The Territory already provides substantial infrastructure funding for its own IES program provided to Power and Water ...
We all recognise there will be substantial increase in Territory and Commonwealth spending in remote areas of the Northern Territory associated with this expansion. The bush is growing; we need to respond to that. We have a responsibility to provide essential services, which is something we need to budget for. That growth and demand of population and works is why there was a $20m Treasurer’s Advance towards the end of last financial year.
The fact is, in each community, a different approach can often be taken reflecting the needs of each community. That is something which is being negotiated between the Territory and Australian governments. We believe, as a council, after the evidence we have taken to date, this needs to be sorted and a work plan published which shows clearly who pays for what and when the work will happen. The same principle of simplicity extends for recommendation 7:
- The council recommends that all new, rebuilt or refurbished houses when handed over to Territory Housing have a publicly available final cost that includes an administrative component.
Transparency applies to recommendation 8:
- The council recommends that the Northern Territory and Australian governments provide the CTC with a detailed financial report of the SIHIP project every quarter.
There has been some debate about how much a house costs, or how much it should cost. The average budget cost is $450 000. We did hear houses in the beginning were more expensive. No worries; it is partly how averages work. However, to achieve that average, those costs are going to have to come down below $450 000. There is a chance there are going to be under-spends, and there are questions on how those under-spends will be reinvested. There will be some balancing between over-spends and under-spends but, hopefully, we are looking at a program which does deliver under-spends more often.
We had some concerns, as a council, because of the cost of houses in Tennant Creek reported as being $450 000, which is right on the average. If we are to achieve an average of $450 000 across the Territory, you would hope somewhere like Tennant Creek, on a main highway, would actually have cheaper prices. We need to have more evidence of what was reported by Amanda Cattermole, quoted on page 16:
- We have $450 000 average cost of a house across the program which was arrived at in consultation with large scale consortium companies which together will bring economies to scale which have not been seen before. We are very clear on what those houses will be: they will be durable, they will meet the Building Code of Australia and National Indigenous Housing Guide standards, they will be appropriate climatically and regionally. We are confident this program can deliver houses in the manner I have just described because it has some elements which are different, I believe, to other smaller scale programs that have been delivered elsewhere.
We need to see some evidence. Obviously, we are at the very start of the project, costs where going to be higher, but we need to see some evidence those prices will track down; that we are going to meet the average of $450 000, and in main centres those prices are going to be cheaper. I believe the recommendations are accurate; I do believe the economies of scale will come into play. We heard testimonies from some witnesses along those lines; that that will happen. We are at the start of the project when costs will be at their highest before savings from efficiencies and established practice come into effect, but it is something that we do need to see.
To ease concerns and establish public benchmarks are easy to understand. We recommend that each finished house, when the keys are handed over, has a final cost, so we know how much that house cost, just as someone would get if they built the house themselves; a very easy to understand costing. I believe it will make a lot of sense to people if it is a price point that makes sense.
Recommendation 7 includes the publication of an administration component, recommendation 8 goes more to providing confidence that we are sticking to the 8% administration target. We believe a quarterly report provides a reporting mechanism that fits into established practice and is not overly onerous. This will allow for increased transparency in the tracking of the program as it rolls out. We also need to make an assessment at the end of the five years that will see how SIHIP has run along the alliance model; whether it has worked and whether that is the way to go again when we roll out programs - especially programs of this size and scope. This is summed up in recommendation 9:
- The council recommends that an audit should be done by an independent auditor at the completion of the process to determine the usefulness of the alliance model, including an assessment of the profit returned by the alliances through the process.
Regarding ownership and tackling generational equity, recommendation 10 states:
- The council recommends that Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) schemes supporting the private ownership of houses on Aboriginal communities be actively encouraged by the Northern Territory government and private financial institutions, especially in communities where the SIHIP program is presently operating.
That goes to tackling generational inequity; the capacity to have private ownership of houses on Aboriginal communities. The largest asset most parents pass on to their children or their grandchildren is their family home, which is an asset that grows and builds wealth. Private ownership is something which does need to be encouraged, as is having your own job.
SIHIP has a training and employment component. A target of 20% was set for Indigenous employment across the program and the alliances are encouraged to subcontract and use local companies wherever possible, placing a priority on the use of local Indigenous companies. Talking to Territory Alliance Partners, 60% of the people working on the Tiwi Islands are Tiwi people. All had some training of some kind, and a number of apprentices who adequately completed their training are working to complete their apprenticeships. That is from the report. It is great to see people on the tools. At Tiwi, we were talking to some of the people working on the rebuilds and the refurbishments, who worked on those houses when they were originally built in the 1980s. So, it has come full circle. It is great to see people on the tools. We saw it at Tennant Creek also. The member for Barkly and I thought the report captured it well when talking of Tennant Creek.
In talking with Julalikari about the reason they became involved in the project; Julalikari’s objectives in agreeing to leases for SIHIP work was employment and training for local Indigenous people:
- Ms Brahim said that Julalikari’s approach was centred on building the capacity of local Aboriginal community and therefore, more broadly, building Tennant Creek, by trying to ensure work for tradespeople and businesses in Tennant Creek. Julalikari was also keen to develop employment and training into the future post-SIHIP. Ms Brahim told the Council that SIHIP package employment and training in Tennant Creek is 30%, compared to SIHIP target of 20%. She added that Julalikari has supplemented expenditure on employment and training through an agreement with Group Training NT using the STEP project which has come from the Community Development Employment Program or CDEP.
So, we are getting people on tools, we see people working out there, and we are building a skilled workforce, which is important. There is, obviously, a training component to SIHIP, something that can be forgotten in debates around SIHIP, which is why we come to recommendation 11:
- The Council recommends that every six months training and employment data for SIHIP is made publicly available. The data is to include a breakdown of employee and subcontractor numbers, labour hours, training hours on-site and in the classroom, and the types of trades and certificates that people are being trained in.
There are still a few things, as a council, we want to explore when it comes to SIHIP. This is a progress report; SIHIP is a five-year program. We will continue to inquire into its progress. We want to see, as I already talked about, the cost of the houses come down as we move out of the early stages of the project. We want to see the speed with which the houses are built quicken as workers get used to what they are doing, and the alliances refine their practices. We want to see training translated into jobs. We want to see how the transfer of assets into Territory Housing hands works, and the difference it makes. These are all things flagged in the report for follow-up.
The other major area we inquired into, and is featured in the progress report, is local government. It is important to remember the context in which local government reform happened. The need for reform did not come out of the blue; it was something which was talked about by a lot of members. Braham, Baldwin, and Coulter all talked about the need for local government reform. A former member of Arnhem, John Ah Kit, made a passionate case for local government reform in this House in our first term in government. I quote:
- The simple fact is that it is almost impossible to find a functional Aboriginal community anywhere in the Northern Territory. I do not just mean the …
Mr Elferink: Oh, rubbish!
Mr GUNNER: I am quoting from John Ah Kit from earlier this term.
Mr Elferink: It was rubbish then, and it is rubbish now when you are quoting it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
- Mr GUNNER: I do not just mean the 10 or 15 communities that my department tells that, at any one state, are managerial or financial basket cases. The fact that a community may not get their quarterly statements in on time is only a part of the story. I am talking about dysfunction that is endemic through virtually all of our communities, both in towns and the bush.
It was a powerful speech. The member for Port Darwin obviously disagrees with it, and he can speak to that. I thought it was a powerful speech and, while focused on local government reform, it also outlined the need for other reforms. However, at the moment in the House we are talking about local government reforms.
He went on to say:
- Since self-government, successive governments in the Northern Territory have seen various forms of local government as the primary interface between Aboriginal community members, their representative structures and government agencies. The primary focus of government has been through the Local Government Act and, in particular, Part 5 of the act concerning community government councils.
To paraphrase, the member went on to claim the legislation he was talking about was, basically, innovative and progressive; it allowed for some traditional decision-making structures and for potential stride towards self-determination. However, his conclusion was:
- All of this may well be true, but I believe we must now openly and honestly acknowledge that the community government process has failed …
The government’s intention in seeking this fundamental reform of local government is to create certainty and stability through strong regional local governments that will have a similar capacity to that of the municipal councils. These regional shires will need to have robust business and management systems to deliver efficient and effective services and a governance framework which ensures that everybody is represented through effective community planning processes, strong leadership and community engagement.
The point I want to emphasise is ‘have a similar capacity to that of the municipal councils’.
There was a clear need for reform, but this is a reform of a massive scale and there is always, in a transition of this size, the capacity to do things better. This has been recognised in our report, and our recommendations go to strengthening the shires and their ability to have the same autonomy, competency and respect as, for example, the Darwin City Council. The recommendations, in particular, that address that are Nos 12, 13, 14 and 15:
Recommendation 12
- The Council recommends that the Northern Territory government amend legislation to enable shires to increase their own revenue base, such as through service fees in remote Aboriginal communities where they provide services.
Recommendation 13
The Council recommends that the Minister for Local Government establish a working relationship with shires and municipal councils based on the model of the Capital Cities Committee to improve the delivery of services and community development.
Recommendation 14
The Council recommends the Northern Territory government immediately increases the establishment funding that was provided for new shires, taking into consideration the unexpected costs from ShiresBiz.
Recommendation 15
The Council recommends the Northern Territory government improves the available elected members training program to increase the knowledge and understanding elected members of shires and municipals have of the reformed Local Government Act and their legal and financial responsibility under the act. Further, that the government investigates the possibility for this training to be delivered independently.
We need to find ways to broaden the revenue base of the shires, to improve their starting positions, their establishment positions, and the ability of elected members to know their responsibilities. Those three recommendations will create shires which, when they speak, should be able to speak with the authority accorded to the Lord Mayor of Darwin, the Mayors of Alice Springs, Palmerston, Litchfield and Katherine. We need to work with them on that same level.
There is a Capital Cities Committee that meets to discuss issues of common interest. That model works well, I believe. Some of the issues raised through that Capital Cities Committee have been in my electorate, and I have seen firsthand the cooperative manner in which they are dealt with is delivering, to date, good results. This model should be rolled out to the new shires, as our recommendations, led by the Minister for Local Government, so working relationships will be improved in the delivery of services and community development. Perhaps, even more importantly, it will build and establish a respect, and a new relationship with government. That is important during this time of transition when anxiety and stress still runs high, when people are still learning, in many ways, on the job. It is important we build our relationship better. I believe this model will do that.
The final recommendation I want to talk about is recommendation 21:
- The Council recommends that its reports must be timely and handed directly to government for immediate advice as to what action will be taken in relation to the report.
I believe we can all support that. We tabled the report today, at 10.30 am - 40 minutes ago. The government needs to make a considered response to this report. There are 21 substantial recommendations in it. In the original debate creating the Council of Territory Cooperation, one of the concerns was whether the government would respond to this report and treat it seriously. The test is in how they respond now to the recommendations put forward ...
Mr Elferink: I think the condition of the government bench is an indication on how seriously they take this.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GUNNER: At 10.30 am we placed the report on the table - 40 minutes ago. I am sure the government will take it seriously and they will respond in a considered way. The assumption from the opposition, obviously, is government is not going to respond. That is the comment they made in October when we created the council. I believe government will respond. The report is on the table. There are 21 substantial recommendations that need to be worked through, and that is why I support this report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just listened to the final comments from the member for Fannie Bay. The condition of the government benches could not be a stronger indication as to what the government actually thinks of this particular report ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of members, either individually or collectively, within this Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin …
Mr Bohlin: When did he say that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is right. I cannot refer to the fact that the government benches are empty. However, now he has called the point of order, I withdraw the fact that I have noticed the government benches are completely empty.
Dr Burns: They are not empty, member for Port Darwin - not empty.
Mr ELFERINK: You dill. Sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, I remind you reference to the presence or absence of members in this Chamber is not permitted under standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: I have just withdrawn it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Leader of Government Business for raising the issue I have had to withdraw.
The fact is the government remains in government because the member for Nelson started out telling Territorians the government was on notice. The vehicle by which he would put that government on notice was this vehicle, the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I start by making one observation: we have a council of Territory cooperation - it is called a parliament. To understand why that is a council of Territory cooperation, look what a parliament replaced historically, then you will understand a parliament is a place of cooperation.
It is also a place of disagreement. If the member for Nelson, or any other member in this House, thinks we should bind ourselves to the badge of cooperation by a fashion of unanimously standing up and singing the same song, then that person will be sadly mistaken. There will be members in this House who disagree with each other. It is not unreasonable for a group of people to form, and that there will be disagreements amongst that group of people.
However, the cooperation the member for Nelson had in mind - the municipal council model for Territory governance – was, essentially, what was called, in the 1960s, a love-in. When it comes to the hard core facts of running a society, or administering a community or a government, a love-in approach does not work, which is why we have a system already in place. Nevertheless, we have reproduced it, but not as a municipal structure as promised by the member for Nelson, but rather nothing more than a Public Accounts Committee on steroids, which is a far cry from the organ of governance we have.
You have to remember the reason this committee exists is because even the member for Nelson was so wavering in his support of this government’s capacity and competence he believed another organ needed to be introduced to act as a check and balance beyond the realm of this parliament.
Clearly, that could not occur under the auspices of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, so we have ended up with the Council of Territory Cooperation. At the outset, it was up to the Country Liberals to choose to join or not. We have probably been the most stridently critical of this council, but you have to recall that, whilst we have been the most stridently critical, we have been present. The reason is, as a Public Accounts Committee, or a variant of that form, there is some use for this particular organ, which is why the Country Liberals have chosen, and continue to choose, to be part of this particular organ. That, however, does not mean we are in some fashion suddenly absolved from self-criticism, which is what we must do. If you think this organ, which is a check and balance on government, is well organised, it is not.
I draw attention to the first page of the dissenting report. We have four staff to do, essentially, what a Cabinet must do if this organ is to achieve what the member for Nelson says it has to achieve - four staff. It is important to note three of the staff have responsibilities other than responsibilities to the Territory Council of Cooperation. We have a part-time staff on this organ of governance, which is meant to be a check and a balance on our system of governance which, by the member for Nelson’s own assessment, is an organ so close to collapse it needs to be propped up with the Territory Council of Cooperation.
We have not, as an institution and a council, a planning scheme on the establishment of Weddell. We are supposed to look at that. Because we are so poverty stricken in our way we respond, in support, leadership and guidance, we have not even reached those identified items in the original motion. Yes, we have taken on some self-referencing issues, but they have been single one-off issues we have dealt with. If this is meant to be a check and balance on government, surely we should be much more responsive than we have been. I urge government to make this committee much more responsive by resourcing it to the degree where it can do its job effectively. It currently cannot with three part-time staff and meeting irregularly.
We have to determine each meeting when out next meeting is. I am wondering, if the people of the Northern Territory listening to this debate would be satisfied, if they were able to run a ruler over the committee as it currently operates; that what they were promised when the committee was established, on any real assessment, is being achieved by the committee.
This is why there is a dissenting report. It is not because we particularly wanted a dissenting report in the Territory Council of Cooperation but, unfortunately, when we took critical comments about the structure of the committee and how it should operate into the committee, those comments were voted down.
The structure of the committee has already been dictated to the Country Liberals. The member for Nelson negotiated the structure and how the committee would operate, and then invited the Country Liberals to join. In a spirit of cooperation, I ask? Perhaps not! Then, when we decided to bring a report to the committee which substantially challenged the structure of the committee itself, the member for Nelson voted it down, so it can no longer find its way into the majority report. We were left with no choice but to submit a dissenting report.
It might be worth pointing out to honourable members, when we entered into the negotiation as to what should be in the majority report, the Country Liberals prepared a 30-page document with 25 recommendations, the ALP had a two-page e-mail, and the member for Nelson walked in with three sentences. In the spirit of cooperation, the Country Liberals supported the three sentences, and then went on with one suggestion to support all of the Australian Labor Party’s suggestions in relation to what should go into the majority of the report.
Conversely, of the 25 recommendations made by the Country Liberals, 19 were rejected, in spite of an assertion at the beginning of that meeting that they were generally good recommendations. Of the six which survived, two were amended, and one was dragged into the main body of the majority report. Of the 30 pages of observational material submitted for the Council of Territory Cooperation’s considerations, not one syllable survived the vetting process of the majority report.
This is the Council of Territory Cooperation and how it operates. It is starved of funds and it has problems with its leadership. I have written to the member for Nelson outlining the issues I have with the leadership of the committee. I critique it, not to destroy it, but to make it better and work in the way the member for Nelson promised Territorians it would work. That is why we are still there because, without that desire to improve the quality of what the committee does, by being honest and self-critical, there is no point continuing.
Nevertheless, the Country Liberals have not walked away from this. We could have walked away from this initially; we could walk away from it at any time. However, we continue to persevere because we still continue to believe there is something useful and worthwhile to be extracted from it, but only if it starts to take its job seriously - and I mean seriously - so that there are competent staff - and I am not saying the staff are not competent, but there is a body of staff dedicated to making it work, and then enforcing a system of investigation which is regular, methodical and understandable.
We made the outrageous recommendation in our submission that the Council of Territory Cooperation should meet once a week, to reflect Cabinet. Is that supported by the majority? No, Madam Speaker, it is not. The reason I am also concerned the committee does not operate properly is because it still does not understand its role at its core.
I will give you another example. In the beginning of November last year, I walked into the committee and suggested to the committee members: ‘Goodness gracious me! We should go and look at what is happening in child protection’. The response from the committee was: ‘Well, Christmas is coming and, then, after Christmas the January month holidays, so we really could not look at it until after the Christmas holidays’. I thought to myself: ‘You are kidding me, aren’t you?’ This committee is to be the organ of check and balance on government and, because of the Christmas holidays, we are not going to look at child protection - after reading the Deborah Melville Coronial? However, that is precisely what happened.
If we had been more responsive then we probably would have been able to alert government to a crisis in their own system. The Health Minister now acknowledges that crisis exists and, indeed, the previous minister for Child Protection ended up having to bring a separate inquiry forward, anyhow. We were in the committee arguing it should respond in an effective way before government did. That is how responsive we could have been - but we were not, because the Christmas break got in the way. If this is what we are going to do as a committee, then I will continue to be critical of it. We have to be more responsive.
The other thing we have been promised as a committee is a full response from public servants. Yet, the feeling I got from many public servants when we were interviewing them, was rather than fully briefing the committee, we were trying to extract information as though we were in the estimates process. The protection of government by public servants is a noble and honourable thing, but it is not what we were promised by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. What we were promised was a responsive, full, open, system of information flowing to us. Yet, I got the sense, at times, we were like dentists trying to extract a tooth from some of the public servants. I am concerned about that, not because I am critical of the public servants involved - loyalty to the government of the day is commendable and proper - but it is not what the committee was promised.
It is for those reasons I am critical of the committee. It is for those reasons I believe the committee could pull up its socks - and pull them up a long way. It is for those reasons we continue to participate in the committee. Having made those observations, Madam Speaker, I now turn my attention to other matters.
One of the areas we had to look at was SIHIP. I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Katherine, to deal with the many issues in SIHIP. Fortunately, the committee, in its majority report, made some reasonable observations.
In local government reform, the recommendations of the Country Liberals are quite straightforward. Whilst the member for Katherine will expand on this, I will make here some simple observations. The local government reform process has ground forward in the same subtle way a steam roller grinds over a gravel road. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has been caused and many people have been hurt along the way. We have heard from the member for Nelson today about how confused that local government reform process has been, is, and continues to be - not least of which was the computer system that was supposed to support local government, costing some $5m. It was fine except for one minor detail - it simply did not work. It remains a loadstone around the neck of many of the new shires.
There are two functions to the output group of local government in the Department of Housing and Local Government. Those functions are regulatory compliance and administrative support. It is not called that but that is, essentially, what the two functions are. It is the view of the Country Liberals the regulatory compliance can be done by an office or small statutory body, and the administrative support can actually be done by an organisation such as LGANT – the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. The rationale for the continued existence of the department of Local Government no longer exists. Yet, it consumes, if memory serves me, about $74m a year.
Whilst I know this will probably cause some consternation in some quarters, governance is not about maintaining a department for the sake of maintaining a department; governance is about an outcome at the other end for the people we are attempting to serve. If regulatory compliance can be done through a simple auditing system by a small statutory body, possibly attached to the minister’s office or some independent statutory body, then, that is fine. Surely, LGANT is better positioned to provide administrative support - so long as it is properly supported by the Northern Territory government - that it can do the administrative support required by its own membership? Can anybody actually explain to me the rationale for continuing to have a department of Local Government at a state level? I cannot see it.
We introduced that particular recommendation to the committee, and the response from the committee was: ‘No, cannot do that; will not make that recommendation’. So, another Country Liberals’ recommendation, in the spirit of cooperation, bites the dust. It is for that reason we find ourselves with a dissenting report.
In the time that is left to me, I wish to raise a couple of other issues which are not attended to in the majority report. In defence of the authors of the majority report, there is a reason they are not attended to; because it is not within the specific reporting period they have set for themselves. That is fine. They are also concerned the Hansard from those particular interviews has not been officially checked by the people who gave the evidence. That is also fine. However, in an effort to try to breathe some effectiveness or responsiveness into this committee, the Country Liberals have determined to step outside of that and actually make some recommendations to government, despite the existence of some arbitrary time frame, namely 31 December 2009.
We believe these are important issues which need to be drawn to the attention of government in a timely fashion; something the majority report does not do because of the fact we are concerned that some of the Hansard has not been checked. The Country Liberals are sufficiently confident with what they heard, and their own information, to be able to say we now feel comfortable enough to make these comments and observations despite the fact the Hansard has not been finally checked. I am not a great lover of process over outcomes.
It is of grave concern to me that, after several months, the Northern Territory government still does not know why the gas supply to it by NT Gas was cut off taking 14 000 customers off line. It does not have a clue – well, that is not true; it has some suppositions. Frankly, it has no real idea. If I were the Minister for Essential Services, I would be terrified to be in a situation where I lost 14 000 customers; my gas supply was shut off several months ago and I still do not know with any certainty why that occurred. However, because we want to slavishly appear to a specific time frame, we cannot report on that yet. I am sorry, it is too important. We must advise government through this process this is a matter of concern, and we draw attention to the people of the Northern Territory to this potentially calamitous problem.
We do not know why NT Gas hit the kill button on the gas supply to our power station in November last year. The reason it is important is, if we do not know what caused it the last time, how are we going to prevent it from happening again …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their indulgence.
Madam Speaker, we also touched on the issue of police statistics because the Council of Territory Cooperation was sufficiently concerned to get the police and the Department of Justice to sit down next to each other and explain the variances in their statistical arrangements.
It is difficult to understand how the police can arrive at a statistic of domestic violence representing 46% of all assaults, when the Department of Justice reaches, on the same data set, a result that 54% of all assaults are domestic-violence related. That means a full 8% variance between the two departments taken from the same data set. When you consider government policy is set using that sort of data, then, if the Police minister is relying on the Department of Justice figures, he will set the different parameters and different policies in place than if he were to rely on the Police department statistics. Yet, we consistently hear the Police minister quoting Department of Justice statistics to justify a police response. That is a concern when the variant is as great as 8%.
For that reason, we got them in, and it turns out one of the issues, of course, is there was a typo in the police annual report. Clearly, greater care must be taken in the preparation of police annual reports. It also appears the police crimes statistics include murder, rape, robbery, and other crimes of violence other than assaults, whereas the Department of Justice exclude murder, rape, and robbery from those statistics, which creates a statistical anomaly.
There are also issues as to when you extract this material off the system as to how the investigations have gone and how that material is dealt with at a later date, because investigating officers who fill in the computer systems at completion of their investigation will change what has actually been investigated and who has actually been charged. It concerns me those anomalies exist, and we urge a reconciliation between police and the Department of Justice in relation to statistics.
This, then, brings me to the final recommendation of the committee. Whilst we will be accused of playing politics and all that sort of thing, I will take members through the rationale of this final recommendation.
SIHIP, on which the member for Katherine will talk about at some length, was a debacle; to such a degree the federal government decided the Northern Territory government should no longer run SIHIP. Whilst they have lots of nice little platitudinal words about cooperative arrangements, the fact is the Northern Territory government was given the program to run, stuffed it up to a degree, and Macklin intervened. That is as simple as it occurred. As a result, you then had people like Amanda Cattermole being imposed on the Northern Territory government - I am sure she is a very professional public servant – as the Territory government’s silent intervention.
Who was the minister in charge of the delivery of SIHIP? The honourable member for Daly. Regarding the local government reform process, in our deliberations, we received, one time after another, a complaint, critique, a problem, issue, or point of difference, described by the people who gave us evidence. It is clear the local government reform process has caused so much uproar and upset in our community, as to have people driving around this House, in caravans, in the same way General Custer was surrounded by Indians at Little Big Horn in 1876. That much uproar! Who was the minister given command and control of the local government process? The honourable member for Daly was minister at that time.
One of the things we became aware of, when talking to Power and Water, is they still do not know why their gas supply was lost. I will not return to that particular issue other than to say it is of deep concern we still do not know. Who is the minister with the charge, carriage, command and control of that particular area of governance? The honourable member for Daly.
This minister is, ultimately, on any measure, the minister for calamitous outcomes. He continues to sit on the government ministry and hold his commission but, on any rational reading of the circumstances surrounding each of his ministries, we can only find one debacle melding into the next disaster, morphing into the next calamity. This man is to calamity what King Midas was to gold; everything he touches has led to poor outcomes. Not because he is engaged in any sort of vindictive ministry; I believe he is simply out of his depth.
However, this is not about the honourable member for Daly, or the member for Port Darwin, or any other member in this House. This is about governance outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory; those people who rely on effective local government service, who rely on electricity flowing through their copper wires when they throw a light switch, and who rely on SIHIP to deliver which, sadly, has fallen well short of original promises. Those are the people this debate is about, and should be about, and should always be about.
The problem is the minister remains in his chair and, for that reason, we are drawn by the evidence - not some political stunt, simply the evidence - the minister no longer should hold a ministerial title. It has been demonstrated time and time again it is beyond his capacity to do so effectively, and to the satisfaction of the people of the Northern Territory.
We see, in this, a minister who simply struggles to do his job, and it is time that minister moves on. Sadly, the arrangement between the member for Nelson and the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, precludes such a logical conclusion, so it does not find its way into the majority report.
It is for these reasons we had a dissenting report in the Council of Territory Cooperation’s first report. It is because we disagree. As I said at the outset, we disagree because we bring our logic to bear upon the arguments, and come to conclusions. Whilst I appreciate that may not suit some members, the fact is it is the truth. To have every single syllable of the report we constructed voted down by the majority is hardly within the spirit of cooperation. To have 19 of the 25 recommendations we put forward voted down, despite the acknowledgement at the beginning of the meeting that most of them were good recommendations, is hardly in the spirit of cooperation.
I do not believe, and will never believe, we can govern by loving. We must govern by the processes of logic and reason, and those processes should be applied without fear or favour. That is not reflected in the majority report.
Whilst we supported the recommendations made by the member for Nelson and the Australian Labor Party, in the spirit of cooperation, that spirit was not returned; partly because the member for Nelson is already trapped by the arrangement he has made with the government to keep them in power.
The problem I have, Madam Speaker, is this organ of check and balance against a government which was put on notice by the member for Nelson, has become nothing more than a committee humoured by government to keep the arrangement in place. I will look with very careful and close eyes at the response from government.
As I said at the outset, if you want to have a determination on how captured and enthralled the Chief Minister is by this new organ of government, I invite honourable members to look at the back of his chair.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the first report from the Council for Territory Cooperation. It has been interesting to listen to the member for Port Darwin stretching some of the truth, and a bit cute by half …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder whether the speaker would like to sit in consideration of her injury.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Arafura, would you like to sit?
Mr Elferink: We have no objection to that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: It is actually up to me, member for Port Darwin.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If you can see me over the top of the desk. If it starts hurting I will sit down, Madam Speaker, but I am fine for the moment. Thank you, member for Nelson and other members.
Ms Purick: You should not have kicked the dog.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I was not kicking the dog. Actually, I would like to kick some people in here, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Arafura, come to the point.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Listening to the member for Port Darwin and his stretching of the truth, there needs to be some clarity - or some reality checks. I was listening to him say 19 of the 25 CLP recommendations were voted down by the committee; that we did not want anything to with it.
The member for Port Darwin, very cutely, knows very well, regarding the 19 of those 25 recommendations, when I and the other Labor members of the committee looked at those recommendations, including the Chair of the CTC, we thought some of those recommendations were reasonable. Everyone on the committee had agreed the time line to report was December, and we would report on everything up to December. The member for Port Darwin knew that very well. The CLP members of the committee were always going to submit a dissenting report. Let us talk with honesty here in this debate about these issues. There was always going to be a dissenting report because of their obsession with the agreement which was in place between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. It is pure obsession - nothing more, nothing less - and they were always going to submit the dissenting report.
If they were saying they were going to come to the table and have full cooperation and work through the issues, which are important regarding local government. When we look at the issues of local government being the third tier of government, it is important. I believe all of us in this Chamber recognise that, yes, there have been issues with the shires. We can say we all know there are problems with the reforms. Being a member who holds a bush seat with a huge remote electorate, and who has two of those shires in my electorate, I know and understand there are issues, but they are not beyond repair and cannot be fixed.
I see my role on the CTC as working with other members of this parliament to put forward robust and important recommendations to government to look at how these shires can operate more effectively.
The other issue the member for Port Darwin touched on was NT Gas. I need to put on the record we had a fantastic meeting with Power and Water. They went through, in detail, about some of the issues and problems which had been encountered. Once again, the meeting with Power and Water happened outside of the scope of what this first report was going to be. Nevertheless, they will be issues which will come forward. There are members of the CTC who will bring forward those issues and report on the meeting we had with Power and Water.
We are also meeting with NT Gas, which is not due to happen until 3 March. The member for Port Darwin alluded to these issues, saying no one still knows why those issues happened, when we have not even completed that investigation or those meetings with NT Gas - the committee will be meeting with NT Gas in early March. I believe it is around 3 March we will be meeting with NT Gas to discuss some of the issues we have been keen to investigate and get on top of.
Regarding the recommendations in the committee’s report, if people think any of the recommendations are just glossing over or part of the deal between government and the member for Nelson, and are not recommendations that need the full attention by government - I was listening to the member for Nelson when he was delivering his report. Something all of us are concerned about is the issue of refurbishments. I have had a look at the Residential Tenancies Act and had a discussion with the Minister for Housing in relation to this. However, the issue of the Residential Tenancies Act is actually a red herring in all of this when you look at the broad picture, after the committee has gone around to these communities and looked at some of these houses. I take my role quite seriously, as a member for government, but I am also a member who is responsible and answerable to Aboriginal people in my electorate.
There are three areas in my electorate where there are going to be substantial housing projects. One is Maningrida, where the population is on par with the population at Wadeye. Gunbalanya is another community that has a population of 1200 people and, of course, we know the Tiwi Islands. As a member who holds a bush electorate where there is going to be three substantial housing projects, I am concerned about the refurbishment program. I believe the re-scoping of the refurbishment program by the Commonwealth government has created enormous issues on the ground in those communities, where the re-scoping of those houses has seen a diminished capacity of the communities, or the alliance builders, to be able to bring a lot of those houses up to standard. That is a huge concern, not just to me, as I know all members of government are concerned about this, particularly bush members who, at the end of the day, are answerable to our communities. Our communities expect us, as members, to deliver, and be honest and open and to work hard to ensure their interests are going to be protected and looked after. I believe the issue of the refurbishments has to be looked at, and addressed by both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments.
You can have the legal argument and interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act and what those standards are but, as a government, we have a responsibility as a landlord to ensure that - if we are going to tie people to a normalisation process and put in place tenancy agreements - there has to be a moral argument in that, if you are going to have one standard apply in the urban areas for how refurbished or rebuilt houses should be, or what those standards of houses for people who live in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs is, you apply that same standard to people out in the bush. You should not have two separate agreements or two levels of tenancies; one that suits the bush - out of sight, out of mind - and one for your urban centres. The issue of the refurbishments needs to be looked at quite seriously.
When I was going around having a look at the refurbishment, and talked to communities and the alliance partners, I also talked to people within the department. Someone I have known for a long time and certainly have a lot of trust in, is Peter Ryan, a man who has worked around the traps for 20-odd years and has a lot of knowledge and understanding. I remember first coming across Peter in the early 1990s when we were discussing housing designs and projects in Ngukurr and the Tiwi Islands, when there was some building going on there. In sitting down and talking to him not so long ago, it is like back to the future. The discussions we were having back then we are still having today.
We need to move beyond the politicking of who is responsible here and take some real responsibility. One thing I believe needs to start happening with our mob on the ground in the communities is a bit of honesty. People just need to tell our mob. There is a lot of confusion. Many people do not know just what they are getting in the housing program. Much of that communication needs to change, which is why the committee included recommendation 6 - that the scope of infrastructure work for SIHIP be published. There are many problems with people trying to ascertain what the real cost is, not just of the new houses, but of the refurbishments.
Recommendation 2 of the committee’s report, as the chairman said earlier in his speeches, is the refurbishments and rebuilds should be put to the standards originally promised. When you talk to people in the communities, there is a level of disappointment and confusion on the ground in some of those communities where it is happening because they were told one thing, and they are getting something else. That needs to change. Rather than the Commonwealth dictating the terms of this, I believe the Northern Territory government should ensure there is a change.
This brings me to the CLP. When they were talking about recommendations, many of the issues they brought were not recommendations as such; they were more broad statements. One thing all of us agreed on, along with the CLP, was the Northern Territory government is better placed to be doing this. The Northern Territory government should be the government driving these issues rather than a Commonwealth government sitting in Canberra, far removed from these issues in our communities.
The refurbishment is something which needs to be looked at. I believe it is sleeper. Whilst people keep saying no new houses have been built, which is perpetuated by people in here who say nothing is happening in communities, that is not true. Members of the committee who travelled to some of those communities prior to December saw there has been, and continues to be, activity in the communities. Are all the houses up? No, they are not. Could they be built faster? The people in the communities would like to see houses built much faster. However, we also know, for a number of reasons, those houses have not proceeded as fast as everyone wanted. Nevertheless, there are houses coming up in those communities. There are more houses than there ever has been, which a good thing, not a bad thing.
The council also looked at issues concerning local government, and A Working Future. We had one meeting with the Chief Minister’s Department. We need to continue to have further discussions with the department regarding to A Working Future and the growth towns. SIHIP is just one part of the picture when discussing growth towns. There are also issues regarding surveys, planning, and how those hub communities are going to work. If you look at a growth town in a region, how are those services going to work? If you look at the outstations, the homeland movement, are homeland residents to access those services in the hub community, or do those services go out to homelands? There are many issues which need to be addressed regarding A Working Future and the growth towns.
I look forward to the council having further discussions with the Department of the Chief Minister, and also Bob Beadman, who discussed his Coordinator-General’s report for his first six months. We will continue those discussions with Mr Beadman. There were, I believe, some fulsome discussions with him regarding issues and concerns members share, or do not share. I look forward to some of those discussions coming to fruition
I was not able to join the council in its meetings in Tennant Creek ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time of 10 minutes for the member for Arafura, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, member for Arafura, we will do that after Question Time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of electorate officers from Labor members’ electorates. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper – Council of Territory
Cooperation - Progress Report,
February 2010
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine who graciously moved I be given an extension of 10 minutes before lunch.
I fully support the report of the Council for Territory Cooperation and its recommendations. I believe, despite the dissenting reports from the CLP and the issues within that dissenting report, those members of the CLP know the level of cooperation of all of members of the committee in working together. It has been productive, we have looked at many issues, and it is a work in progress.
I believe the CLP shares the same concerns other members of the committee have in relation to this. We all want to work together to address this and ensure we can put substantial and workable recommendations to government so, at the end of the day, the end result is people in our remote communities are going to benefit from the housing and effective local government, and we can deal with some of the issues which have been prevalent for a long time in these communities.
These issues did not just happen. I have said before in this House, in 2001, these have been long-standing issues and we can only all work together to try to ensure the policies are there are making a difference and, if they are not making a difference, how we get the Northern Territory government, but also the Commonwealth, to look at these issues in a serious way.
In the time I have, one recommendation from the CLP was that the CTC should meet every week. I heard the member for Port Darwin talking about it. I have said to the member for Port Darwin, as a bush member sitting on that committee, I have an electorate which covers 220 000 km2. Holding a bush electorate, because I do not want to meet every week, does not mean I am not committed to the issues or what the CTC is looking at. I am very committed to it, but I am just as equally committed in what is my first and most important role; that is, the member for Arafura. It is that electorate I must serve, and serve effectively. However, I am also very conscious I will make as much time as I have and am able, to devote to this committee which I take quite seriously. However, I am not going to meet every week. I believe it is crazy we should have to forgo the commitments and responsibilities as elected members for our electorates for this. However, it does not mean the CTC suffers because we cannot meet weekly.
In the meetings we have had to date, we have been able to prove it has been effective. If you read the dissenting report, it is as if there has been no support from the other members of the committee, or meetings shifted for the committee itself or for the CLP members. There have been meetings which we shifted because members could not attend. There were meetings I have been caught up in and I have not been able to attend, and I have submitted apologies. All of us on the committee need to work together, rather than seeing this, because of the agreement - alluding to the agreement between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister - as the reason why nothing is being addressed.
We still have a long way to go. This is only the first of many progress reports to this parliament. The CTC still has a long way to go yet, in going back and questioning and talking to both Northern Territory and federal representatives. We still have a lot of investigation that needs to be done. Representatives of other government agencies need to come before the committee. This report is just the first of many progress reports, hopefully, we will be putting to this parliament in relation to these very important issues. As I said, we have not given enough investigation to A Working Future, and I am looking forward to this committee bringing before it government public servants who are chartered with the responsibility of A Working Future, so we can test and validate if that policy is actually making a difference on the ground in those communities. It is the first of many reports. It is an important progress report. It was a report that all members of the committee had agreed to up to the end of December. I know there are other issues we need to report on. They will certainly come after this report.
Before I sit down, I acknowledge the work of the secretariat, especially Jan Whitehead, who was the writer who pulled all this together, and persevered and was very patient with all the members of the committee in getting different versions of the report through, getting our comments and our feedback and fine-tuning the report. I acknowledge Jan’s work.
I also thank all of those shires, communities, and the departments that have come before the committee. It is a new concept and, despite people saying it has not been forthcoming, or the information we have had is not fulsome, I believe most of the information we have had has been. It has been a new process. It will get better. As the committee goes along, it will get better and will be more effective now we have gone through this process at bit more.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the CTC’s first report for February 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the first report of the CTC, and also to the dissenting report that has been produced by the member for Port Darwin and me in response to the failure of the CTC to adopt the contents of the submission by the Country Liberals into the main body of the report, and also not adopting the majority of recommendations which were contained therein. I am disappointed and a little surprised, I have to admit, that much more of the submissions from the Country Liberals were not accepted by the CTC. I will go on to explain why shortly.
I have listened to what has been said by the other members of the CTC. Much has been said about the operation of the CTC as a whole. A lot has been said about the pros and cons of the CTC. A fair amount has been said about the issues that have been examined by the CTC and the evidence that has been presented, and also the conclusions that have been drawn from receipt of that evidence. Today is not the opportunity to stand up here and parrot the contents of that report; it is there for all to read.
I believe one of the failings of the CTC is in respect to just how well the operation of the CTC is, why it exists, what it is supposed to do, and the failure of the understanding of that operation in the general public out there in punter land. I do not believe the CTC and its operation is all that well understood by the people of the Territory.
There has been a lot of press about the CTC. The member for Nelson has talked it up since day 1, and I believe he has portrayed it as some sort of utopian fix-all for all the crises that are enveloping the Labor government. He wanted it to virtually be an extension of Cabinet. He saw it as some vehicle by which the views, opinions, and good ideas that emanate from people on both sides of the House can be incorporated into the tactical and strategic direction of the government in making the NT a better place to live. Well, at least that was my interpretation.
At best, the member for Nelson’s ideas were well meaning, but the reality was that his naivety has led us to a point where this committee is proving itself to be a toothless tiger - although I would be happy to stand corrected if I see this government taking up the recommendations of the CTC, and even happier if the CTC were to start to include recommendations which actually had some bite, rather than taking the softly-softly approach embodied in the majority report tabled today.
In attempting to educate the people of the Northern Territory, I would like to create an analogy of the CTC so it might help people understand what it does. This is the view I have come to as time goes by. I do not mean to belittle the council, or the members on it; however, I am offering an alternative way of looking into the CTC’s operation so people who listen to these broadcasts or read the Parliamentary Record, might walk away with a better understanding of how the CTC works, and how it is shaping up.
First, I should qualify something - the analogy I use today mentions the Volvo car company. It is not a reflection on Volvo; it happened to be a name I drew out of a hat and used for illustration purposes only. It makes it easier for people to understand if I am talking about something they know. It is just an analogy.
Volvo has a car which was produced in 2001, and it is now almost nine years old. It is a car plagued with problems. It has systemic problems right across the board from the exhaust pipe to the radiator. Some are worse than others, although some of the parts of the car are working okay. Some of the car’s systems are performing so badly there is a bush mechanic - the bush mechanic I am referring to is the member for Nelson. He decides the way to fix this problem is to convene a committee of other bush mechanics to examine what needs to be done to fix some of the more serious problems with this car. The other bush mechanics, of course, are the members for Arafura, Macdonnell, Fannie Bay, Port Darwin and me.
In the interest of fairness, in the set-up of this committee of bush mechanics, two work for Volvo, to get their input; two of them work for another car company; and the other two work independently. One of the independent bush mechanics decides, at a very early stage of this committee, it is not going to work and her time is better spent elsewhere, so she follows her trade in her own region.
The bush mechanics’ committee is convened. The idea behind the committee is to hear from people who know about Volvos - people who know about the technical problems with the Volvo, people who fix the Volvo, people who drive the Volvo, and people from the Volvo company. All this is with a view to providing recommendations to the Volvo company about what went wrong with the car, who is responsible for it, and what needs to be done to fix the car.
The backdrop here is the company does not publicly acknowledge there are any problems with the car at all - that is the backdrop. The committee of bush mechanics start to examine the major problems with the Volvo. They have taken a few items, particularly bad operating items, out of this car, looked at them and, for simplicity, we have looked at the fuel injection, the automatic transmission, and the brakes. They are the major problems with the car. The bush mechanics get a range of people to tell them the problems with this car, how these problems came about and, in some cases, what needs to be done to fix the problems with the car.
The bush mechanics hear from people who drive the car, trade mechanics who repair it, and mechanics from the Volvo company itself. It also hears from some very specialised people who can tell you all the intricacies of the fuel injection system and the transmission. Some of this stuff is very technical, but there is an expectation the bush mechanics will understand it all - and they are clever people – and manage to pick up most of what is being said. With the limited technical capacity and knowledge, the bush mechanics examine all these people and get advice. However, it is not as simple as it seems.
Some of the mechanics sent by the Volvo company prove to be difficult. They evade questions, they are less than cooperative and fulsome in their answers, and they are obstructive in cases, trying to protect their employers. Others are more forthcoming, particularly those who drive, and those who can repair the car. They clearly articulate the problem, where the responsibility lies, and what needs to be done to fix the problems with the car. There are some very highly-qualified people who articulate both problems and solutions.
So, that all done, the bush mechanics have to put a report together to give to the company. But there is dissent amongst some of the bush mechanics; some want recommendations to the company to do more than others do. So, two reports are prepared: one under the hand of the majority of the bush mechanics committee, and the other one under the hand of the other bush mechanics who want recommendations to the company to go further than those contained in the majority report.
The problem with all this is the company does not have to actually listen to the bush mechanics if they do not want to, and they do not have to pay any heed to the reports they prepare. All of this, as I mentioned before, is against a backdrop of a car company that denies there are any problems at all.
That is where we are today. The CTC - with no disrespect - is a bunch of bush mechanics trying to tell a large car company what went wrong, who is responsible, and what needs to be done.
I have little faith in any assertions this committee will have any positive effect on the lives of Territorians. I read a quote in a recent newspaper article in the Northern Territory News where, I am sure it was the member for Johnston said - and I do not remember the exact quote - something along the lines of the government will look at the recommendations of the CTC. The member for Johnston articulated something similar in Question Time today. That is hardly a firm commitment from this government that it will take heed of, let alone adopt, any of the recommendations that flow from this committee.
If all the work that is going into this committee results only in a number of reports that gather dust on the shelf of the Chief Minister, then I will not be very happy and, I suspect, the people of the NT will be highly incensed. Sadly, except for, perhaps, a few of the more benign or innocuous recommendations that may be adopted by this government, that is exactly what I expect will happen.
The member for Port Darwin has already adequately detailed a critique of the establishment of the committee, so I do not intend to rehash what he has said. However, I just want to touch briefly on a matter relating to the non-compellability of ministers to appear before the CTC. This is another aspect of the operation of the CTC that makes it superfluous. Ministers of the government are, ultimately, responsible for the operation of their departments and, because they cannot be compelled to answer questions in the committee, we are lacking the depth of information in that layer - the next layer up which would make the operation of the CTC far more effective.
Not only that, but I would have thought ministers would have been all too keen to get themselves before the CTC to defend their positions and explain the reasoning behind some of the policy decisions around the issues the CTC is investigating. But, no, they hide behind the non-compellability provisions, and that makes the statements I hear from the Chief Minister regularly about them being an open and accountable government just laughable.
The member for Port Darwin said we have approached this committee with a true sense of cooperation, and that does stand. Any assertions made by any members of the committee that we have been out to scuttle this committee from the outset are patently false. All we are trying to do is make this committee one that actually works for Territorians; one that actually gets some results. We are prepared to work hard and commit the time and effort required for the operation of the committee. What we will not support is a committee that takes a half-hearted approach to its charter, and exists only as an organ to prop up the lame government, or to prop up someone’s ego ...
Mr Wood: That is a load of rubbish.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Did you take offence to that, member for Nelson?
Mr Wood: Let us stick with the subject we are dealing with. Do not …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Anyway, I have also been critical of this committee with respect to its expenditure - not critical of the amount of money that has been, or will be, spent in the running of this committee, but critical of the value for money this committee affords to the people of the Northern Territory.
Right now, if you look at Appendix C of the majority report, there is a report on expenditure that, as at 31 December 2009, stands at $33 000-odd. In the big scheme of things, it is not a lot of money, but this will jump significantly in subsequent reports with the travel this committee has, and is about to, undertake. Frankly, I would not be terribly upset if we were to spend $133 000 or $233 000, as long as this committee produces results for Territorians which gives them value for money. At the end of the day, if this committee counts for nought, then one single dollar spent is a dollar wasted on this committee.
I should touch on what has been achieved by this committee so far. We are certainly learning a lot. We have access to people we would not ordinarily have access to. We have been to places it is not common to visit. So, if the value of this committee is for educating the members on it, then it is achieving its goal. However, at this stage, that is the only real value I can see in the committee - I know it is still early days - unless the government really pulls a rabbit out of its hat and adopts what this committee recommends.
I want to touch on a few of the aspects of the investigations this committee has undertaken. First, on SIHIP. The first failure of SIHIP - and this is pretty well unanimously and broadly accepted across the Territory - was brought on by the raised expectations of both the federal and Territory governments. The reality of what is being delivered is a chasm apart from what was promised, and what was within the terms of the consultation taking place in the early days.
I refer to page 53 of the report - it is about the fourth or fifth paragraph – where its says:
- SIHIP also led to expectations being created in remote communities. After the initial consultations at numerous communities, larger houses were promised to the people who live in those communities. After the review that led to the effective federal takeover of the program …
I emphasise that - the federal takeover of the program because of the failure of the NT government to manage it properly:
- … those houses began to shrink in size, and the quality of refurbishments began to be watered down.
Apart from the fact it has taken so long to get a house built under this program, that is probably one of the biggest issues arising out of SIHIP.
There was an expectation out there amongst the people that they would be receiving housing which was within the parameters of the early consultation they had. Now, we are finding those houses are being made much smaller. Now, we are finding what was a refurbishment before has been watered down to just to getting the light switches up and running, and making good the wet areas. In some places, what was reported as expenditure on a refurbishment of $150 000 has now been cut in half, down to $75 000. The details of an example of that are contained in page 55 of the report.
This is an issue in the dissenting report raised by the Country Liberals. The only reason it became part of the dissenting report was, I suspect, because of the fixation of the other members of the committee on ensuring we stuck to a time limit of 31 December. This information was received by the Council of Territory Corporation after 31 December. We thought it was worthy to be included in the report but, of course, that recommendation was voted down.
When we visited Nguiu, we viewed quite a few houses which were being refurbished under SIHIP. At the end of the day, what we were finding - and I point to a photograph in black and white which is not very clear, but I hope if there is a colour copy produced, it does show up a lot better. We were shown a house that was about to be refurbished. It was having its kitchen redone, the bathroom redone, and new cupboards being put in, in the bedrooms. However, because of the cutbacks - the scaling back of the scope of works to be carried out on these refurbishment - there were no new floor coverings going down on that floor. The photograph does not show it well, but it is concrete that was laid 30 or 40 years ago, using beach sand as a component part of the concrete. Since that time, that concrete floor has become eroded and pitted. It has been damaged by the use of tools inside the house, such as axes. I would feel uncomfortable walking barefooted on that floor, let alone having children crawl on that floor. That is a floor that is not going to be upgraded under SIHIP.
This government and the federal government, which has taken their hands off the tiller on this issue, are just letting this go ahead. This is an issue where the Northern Territory government has let the ball slip so far they have not bothered keeping the feds in the loop on this. They have not sent someone over there to say: ‘Well, show me the scope of work under a new refurbishment cost …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move the member to be afforded an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thank honourable members for indulging me the extra time.
Instead of the Northern Territory government going over there and saying: ‘Show me what $75 000 will buy’ - I do not think they bothered doing that because, surely to goodness, if someone in the government had been shown that floor was going to remain as part of a SIHIP house, they would have been absolutely mortified. I would not - well, I probably would - let my dog sleep on it, but I certainly would not let my children sleep on it.
In charge of SIHIP at that time in the Northern Territory, of course, was the good member for Daly. We will come back to that.
I move on to local government, because I am aware of the time. This was doomed to fail right at the start. I do not believe there has been any evidence received by the CTC that adequately explains or outlines the reasons why this arbitrary date of 1 July 2008 was the date when this new creature had to come into being. I seem to remember - and I again stand to be corrected if I am wrong - the member for Daly at some point saying it had to start sometime and starting at the beginning of the financial year was a good idea - or something like that. However, it was that arbitrary start date that caused so much of the consternation around reform, and set the scene for the failures of local government reform that have plagued us since that time.
Brought on by that was the IT system which was never tried in an operational sense. It was not suited for the purpose in the Northern Territory. Mr Des Kennedy said in evidence and at a CTC meeting in Katherine - and I quote from the report:
- Evidence from an independent expert, Mr Des Kennedy, in Katherine demonstrated that any person of reasonable competence would have identified the program as useless for the purpose it was intended on its first day of examination. This error has cost taxpayers $5m. Moreover, Mr Kennedy gave evidence that, in his opinion, the shire reform was nowhere near ready for implementation on 1 July 2008 and that the roll-out of shires should have occurred 12 months later.
On top of that, the poor old shires, when they came into being, had no idea about their balance sheet …
Mr Giles: And still do not.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: And still – well, they are getting there slowly, but it has been a battle. Promises were made to the shires by the department of Local Government, and some of those promises were broken. There was a promise made to shires that the audited financials from the subsumed community government councils would be handed over to the new shires. This did not occur and, in fact, the new shires were handed nothing more than a mish-mash of unaudited accounts, and unacquitted grants. Moreover, I have some concerns unacquitted grant money may have had to be handed back to the funding bodies, adversely affecting the bottom line of some of those shires. This is a matter I believe will require further investigation by the CTC.
So bad was the accounting system, in evidence given in Katherine, the Roper Gulf Shire had submitted many late business activity statements and they were, in fact, fined by the Australian Taxation Office at one point for the late submission of a business activity statement.
The remainder of the report of dissent from the majority report is there for all to read. It does not contain anything which is untrue or fabricated. It contains words the remainder of the CTC did not want to have included in the main body of the report. I can only let people draw their own conclusions as to why that occurred.
The last point I want to make refers to the analogy I used before. I said the CTC was investigating matters around the fictional, imaginary car, of the brakes, the transmission and the fuel injection system. The head of the department looking after brakes, transmissions and the fuel injection system right from day 1 has been the member for Daly. The member for Daly has been the responsible minister for SIHIP, which was a debacle. He was the man at the helm of local government reform, which has resulted in untold millions of extra dollars in cost to Territorians. The same man, the member for Daly, is the front man for Power and Water. He does not know why 14 000 residents lost power, and how it might be prevented into the future.
The issue I have, as the member for Port Darwin said this morning, goes to whether the member for Daly has the capacity to do the job as a minister of the Crown in the Northern Territory with portfolio responsibilities which affect, so significantly, the lives of Territorians. It must be of grave concern to Territorians that every portfolio this minister gets his hands on seems to turn to mud.
The recommendation in the dissenting report to have this minister stripped of his portfolio responsibilities is nothing more than a call to prevent this minister from getting his hands on anything else - any other serious portfolio areas which affect the lives of Territorians - and turning it into mud. I am being kind when I say mud.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. How effective the CTC will be remains to be seen. I wait in anticipation. I express, again, my reservations about how effective this is going to be. I will certainly give it my cooperation, and I think I can speak for the member for Port Darwin as well in pledging his cooperation. You have seen, from the member for Port Darwin’s contribution earlier that, in the very spirit of cooperation, the members from this side of the House who are on the CTC, allowed the passage of each and every one of the recommendations which came from …
Mr Elferink: Supported.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Absolutely, we supported them. … that came from the Labor members, and also from the member for Nelson. We were not afforded the same level of cooperation. How seriously the word ‘cooperation’ and what that means is being taken by the other members of the committee, also remains to be seen. I guess we will have to reserve our judgment to see how this committee pans out over time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I wish to speak of a very auspicious occasion for the parliament of the Northern Territory; that is, the first report to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly by the Council for Territory Cooperation. I do not intend to speak at length; I have only just received a copy of the report. I give an absolute commitment to members on the Council of Territory Cooperation that I will read the report and the dissenting report
I can also say, categorically, my government will take the recommendations in this report very seriously. I look at these recommendations in the report with a view to implement these recommendations, wherever possible. We will run the recommendations through the full government and Cabinet process, where agencies with carriage of the particular recommendations will be asked to respond. Other agencies affected will be asked to comment. Treasury will certainly look at any costing implications in regard to those recommendations. Of course, Chief Ministers will have a whole-of-government view. I said when I was working this process through with the member for Nelson that my intention as Chief Minister is to take these recommendations in the spirit they are being put forward and, wherever possible, implement those recommendations. Where it is not possible to either implement them in full or in part, there will be a full explanation provided to the members on the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I thank all the members who participated on the council. I congratulate members because I believe, in the spirit in which I entered into the agreement that has seen the council come forward, this is about a new way of opening up the parliament to people of the Northern Territory, and providing an opportunity for parliamentarians across the Chamber to access a level of detail and information that was previously unavailable to members of parliament to help inform policy debate and debate on legislation. I believe, from the quick scan I have just had of the report, we have gone a long way towards doing that, because that has always been the aspiration.
I acknowledge that the members of the opposition who have been on this committee have worked diligently and, as I expected them to from the outset, have sought to use this as a vehicle to provide some political comment. The dissenting report, which I have read, is really just a politically motivated and spiteful attack on the government, and you expect that from the opposition. There is nothing really new in the opposition’s dissenting report. Oppositions always call for the head of the minister for this or that alleged sin - nothing new, nothing original; just part of the political process.
They said from the outset they went into this process with trepidation, but this is a political party opposite that, for all the years they were in government, certainly did everything they could to stop transparency and openness in government. For years, they rejected the establishment of a Public Accounts Committee; they refused to introduce freedom of information legislation; they opposed the introduction of a sensible register of members’ interest; they refused to introduce whistleblowers legislation; they opposed an independent Electoral Commission and, instead, ran it out of the Department of the Chief Minister; and opposed the establishment of a proper estimates process.
Everything we have done to open up the parliament and government to public scrutiny, when they were in government, they refused to do. It was only after we came to power in 2001 these fundamental elements of transparency and an open political system became law and practice in the Northern Territory.
This is another big step forward in transparency and accountability of government programs, policy, and expenditure. I have absolutely no doubt, and will say on the record today, I believe and commit to, on this side of the House, should we retain government at the next election, we will retain the Council of Territory Cooperation. I give that absolute commitment as we move to the next election, because I believe it, fundamentally, opens the doors and windows of this place and of government to the community, to the public. Yes, it is uncomfortable for the government of the day to lose control of the flow of information into the public arena. However, that certainly makes for a more robust, transparent, and accountable system. I am all for that. It will be interesting to see whether the opposition commits to maintaining this council if they come to government.
In addition to their form on transparency, the dissenting report highlights a very concerning trend for the CLP, particularly with the member for Port Darwin. It is evident, time and again, the CLP chooses to denigrate and rubbish the efforts of Territory public servants - in some cases naming them in the process. For me, a former public servant - I was not a senior public servant; I was a fairly high middle-ranking public servant - to see the ongoing attacks on public servants by members opposite, I find absolutely appalling. For better or for worse, our public servants do a great job in their responsibility to implement government programs of the day. Time and again, right back to 2001, the CLP have used this House to attack public servants, in various forms. It is to their eternal shame.
In one sweep, they intend to sack the public servants who work in the Local Government section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services - 64 people; bang, out the door, you are fired - in this report. We know they went to the last election saying they would sack 700 public servants. Well, that leaves 636 to go.
I also wish to condemn efforts by the member for Port Darwin to denigrate the Under Treasurer. This was brought to my attention. I found it absolutely reprehensible, as the member for Port Darwin, as the shadow Treasurer, has access, virtually whenever he wants, to briefings from Treasury officials about the state of the accounts. He would have had numerous briefings from the Under Treasurer over his time in parliament. For him to attack the Under Treasurer is nothing other than despicable. I have worked with the Under Treasurer since we came to government in 2001. I have found the Under Treasurer’s advice and professional capacity, at all times, to be absolutely without question. The Under Treasurer has not only served government well under my predecessor, under me, but also previous Country Liberal Party governments.
To assert in this dissenting report, in some way, the Under Treasurer had been seeking to avoid questions, and answers have been less than fulsome, is outrageous - absolutely outrageous. He should be ashamed of himself. The Under Treasurer is without peer; a person of enormous capacity, integrity, a professional of the highest order. To actually name the Under Treasurer in this report and point to what was a very brief exchange and to highlight that as somehow the Under Treasurer is trying to avoid the question is offensive. I urge the member for Port Darwin to not use coward’s castle in here to denigrate public servants. It certainly does not do his reputation any good at all.
I, as the Chief Minister, and my colleagues are in public life and we are fair game. Have a go at us, absolutely. I expect that, and that is the job you have to do as the shadow Treasurer and a member of parliament. However, do not go public servants, and attack them and their professional capacity, because they are not in public life. They do not put themselves forward in public life and they should not be the object of political attack by the member for Port Darwin. I am proud of the chief executives we have. I am proud of the staff who serve in each agency. They work hard, and they work very long hours. All of those senior public servants work in the interests of the Territory.
I am aware - and I have had this discussion with the member for Nelson - it has taken, on occasion, too long to get information which has been sought to the council. I have directed that information, when it is requested, has to be provided as quickly as possible. My door is always open to the member for Nelson. If he feels some agencies or departments are tardy in their response, then I will get to the bottom of it. We also have to remember some information may be very difficult and time-consuming to collate. If that is the case, it is going to take some time. I expect public servants to come to this council in the spirit it has been established; which is to provide an avenue for informed understanding of the roll-out of government programs and, if there are recommendations to improve those, to bring them forward for government consideration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also say this has been a genuine effort to open up the decision-making processes to broader advice by providing an avenue in a formal and structured way for the views of Independent members, the opposition members, and backbench members of government. This is not the first time this government has acted to change the normal way of governing.
We have established a subcommittee of Cabinet that drives the 2030 project. That subcommittee contains two people from outside the Cabinet process. It is designed to bring an outside voice into the way we govern. In developing Territory 2030, the government chose to have a process driven from the people up to government, a process the CLP criticised in this House. I believe this new way of looking at things is very important, and brings new perception and a new way of thinking into government.
The Council of Territory Cooperation is another element of this thinking. I believe this first report demonstrates we are justified in our thinking on this. At an initial look, I can see much I agree with and much which will require consultation, especially with the federal government who are the major partners in SIHIP. For example, looking at recommendation 15, the council recommends the Northern Territory government immediately improves the training programs for elected members. If these were an issue, the government would see that as a priority; local government would work best with well-informed and trained elected officials.
I suppose there has been a lot of debate in the body of this report, and in this House - and there will continue to be debate - about the roll-out of SIHIP’s program. However, when you stand back from the detail of the roll-out of that program, what we absolutely must not lose sight of is the commitment from the Australian and the Territory governments to improve the absolute dire state of Indigenous housing in remote communities through this program is unparalleled in the Territory’s history - $672m over five years, and $100m of that has come from the Territory government budget. It is unprecedented in its size and its scale to improve housing for Indigenous people. In a program of that size and scale, there are always going to be issues in detail. That is, in part, what this council is all about. We are determined, as a government, to make a significant difference.
SIHIP is part of a national partnership agreement which runs over 10 years, with over $1bn allocated to improving the housing stock in the Northern Territory in remote communities. This is an extraordinary commitment. It is certainly a long overdue commitment from governments. We will see, over the course of this year, a very significant improvement to thousands of houses across the Northern Territory.
In the repairs and maintenance side of SIHIP’s refurbishments program, when the review was conducted some months ago, a decision needed to be made with the budget which was allocated in the first instance; which was, given the scale of unsafe houses in the Northern Territory people were living in, what should the priority be? It was determined, across both governments, the priority had to be to make houses safe in the first instance, and to make them functional for families. Such has been the lack of maintenance and the lack of funding, the priority was we focus on safe and functional houses. We do not resile from that. For every house you bring to a habitable standard, would probably mean five or so houses you would not be able to make safe. We decided, in the interest of safety and functionality, that is where the priority is.
There is a long way to go. As my colleague, the Housing Minister said, this is a journey which is unprecedented in the Northern Territory; it has not being attempted before. Over $1bn has been allocated over 10 years to improve the housing stock in Indigenous communities. We know we probably need two to three times that amount of money. However, it is a significant step forward.
I take the recommendations on board. All of those regarding SIHIP will have to be negotiated with the federal government. They are the major funding partner; it is the government which has committed $572m to this program. It is jointly managed by the Australian and the Territory governments, and we will talk to the Australian government regarding the findings of this report.
As Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, thank you to all the members on this committee. Outside the politics and the personal attacks on public servants, I thank members of the opposition who have worked diligently on this committee. If we can take the politics and the personal attacks out, maybe the next report will be substantially more bipartisan than this one is.
All in all, it is certainly moving in the direction I was hoping it would go, and there is much information now on the public record which, previously, would not have been there. I am confident, when we analyse and run through the recommendations, government processes will be able to implement many of those recommendations.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to the report.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is my understanding, as arranged with the other side, the Chief Minister was to move an adjournment at the end of his comments.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION-
Note Statement - Climate Change Challenge
Note Statement - Climate Change Challenge
Continued from 23 February 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had some outstanding time, I think.
Mr Elferink: Did you? In that case, I will happily sit down let you get on with it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have seven minutes remaining.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I outlined yesterday the importance of this statement and this is a forward looking government in our Climate Change Policy. I outlined the elements of this plan which is a very important plan. Once again, I commend the minister for what he has put forward.
I was very interested in the debate to listen to the member for Fong Lim about a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, following on from him brandishing his - well, it was actually a Labor Party election placard from the 2007 federal election – and the debate that has gone on about the way in which the member for Fong Lim, when he was in federal parliament, actually supported the act which, essentially, overturned Northern Territory legislation and forced a nuclear waste facility on the Northern Territory. It is obvious from the comments by the member for Fong Lim that he still supports such a facility coming to the Northern Territory, and he has turned into somewhat of a commentator on that particular issue.
It occurred to me I should have a look at some of the history of this particular issue. It was very informative for me to go back to the 2004 federal election where this was an issue. There were some categorical assurances given by the then federal minister, Hon Ian Campbell in August 2004. The election, as I recall, was on 9 October 2004, and Ian Campbell came up to the Northern Territory and was speaking to ABC radio on 30 August 2004, when he said:
- … what we said quite clearly and unequivocally many months ago is that the Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland.
This is in October 2004:
It’s going to be an Australian offshore island. Northern Territorians can take this as an absolute, categorical assurance.
That was Senator Ian Campbell who, I believe, came to grief over a conversation he had with Brian Burke some time later.
The then member for Solomon was interviewed by Barry Nichols on Friday, 1 October – bearing in mind this is approximately a week before the election – and he said some very interesting things. Amongst others, he said:
- I will not see the federal government overturn any Territory legislation to situate a national waste repository here, and it is just absolute ridiculous scaremongering.
That is what the member for Solomon said a week before the 2004 election. Then, on Julia Christensen’s program on 29 September 2004 - get this - he said:
- I am not going to sit around and watch a nuclear waste dump put in the Northern Territory.
He is squarely on the record assuring people a week out from the 2004 election that there was not going to be a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the Territory, it was going to be on an offshore island. It was not even going to be on any island off the Territory coastline – quite categorical. Yet, just over a year later, I believe in December 2005, there was debate in the federal parliament about this very issue. It was then the federal government introduced legislation to do exactly what the member for Fong Lim found so abhorrent a year before, a week out from the election: to overturn and override Territory legislation and situate a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim supported that legislation.
What does this tell us about the member for Fong Lim? It tells us he is unreliable; he changes from one position - poles apart. Twelve months before, he was a strident advocate for Territory rights; he was not going to sit around and watch anyone overturn or tread upon Territory rights. Yet, a year later, he is part of it, a moving force in it, and is advocating it. I do not really think we can really trust a word this bloke says. As he said himself, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What does he do? The proof is in the pudding.
There is another issue which the member for Fong Lim has never suitably addressed around an election time. That was in the 2007 federal election, about the radiation oncology unit. I was hearing strong rumours around that time the tender process had failed - at least the second time and, possibly, a third time - for the radiation oncology unit in the Northern Territory at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I well remember a media conference at the hospital, where current member for Fong Lim, the then member for Solomon, was asked about this issue. I watched him stumble over it, having heard these very strong rumours. I asked the question: ‘Was he aware, during the 2007 federal election, the tender process had failed?’ I have shown in this House many times the pamphlet the member for Fong Lim issued, where he said around the 2007 election he had actually delivered this radiation oncology unit.
The member for Fong Lim has a little form around elections, saying whatever he has to say to get elected ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow the honourable member to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the minister has already had an extension, have you?
Dr BURNS: No.
Members: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You did not have an extension? No.
Mr Elferink: Hang on. This is a point of order that has yet to be resolved, as I understood.
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, last night the minister asked to finish at 9 pm and, so, he is continued that time.
Mr Elferink: Yes, but if memory serves me - and I could be wrong - he was actually given an extension of time at that point.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he was not. That was the member for Arafura earlier today.
Dr BURNS: I do not recall that, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: Oh, okay, it could be the member for Arafura.
Dr BURNS: However, I digress …
Mr Elferink: Yes, you have.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is the minister’s time be extended by 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank members for the indulgence of giving me an extension of time. I will return to the substance of this debate, which is around climate change and this government’s Climate Change Policy.
In summary, I compliment the member for Brennan. He has been very active in this area; he obviously feels very deeply and is very committed to this area. Once again, I exhort the member for Brennan to keep up the good work in this area. You have a bit of convincing of some of your colleagues on the other side, but you are genuine in your support in having workable policies regarding climate change. I commend the member for that.
I commend the minister also, and the Chief Minister. This is a wide-ranging policy, which has targets and a strategy to move us forward. However, climate change is just not the responsibility of government, as I mentioned previously. All of us in our community need to look at our carbon footprint. It can actually have a positive effect on the bottom line of companies. I mentioned yesterday some companies and larger corporations in Australia are actually looking to reduce their energy consumption, their carbon footprint.
Last year, it was my privilege to launch a green program within the Tourism portfolio to support tourism operators to actually reduce their carbon footprint and become carbon neutral by purchasing offsets. There was a business in Alice Springs - a tour guiding business that takes people out bush throughout Central Australia - and the operator reported to me, since they had become carbon neutral, through a fully audited process, their business actually increased by, from memory, 40% or 50%. Their bookings had gone up by that amount. That really indicates within the tourism industry, consumers are very interested in this and they are looking at their own carbon footprint, particularly with a lot of our long-haul visitors who come from Europe. They are looking at the long jet plane trip out here, and they want to see there are offsets in their holiday.
There are positive moves with consumers and within the community. Government needs to play its part. I believe we are but there is much more we can do. As I said yesterday, I have no doubt climate change and increasing temperatures is a phenomenon; I believe it has been demonstrated. I believe the largest question relates to what degree it will affect our planet; to what degree will sea levels rise? That is a matter of debate. However, those who completely dismiss climate change and the warming of our planet over the last few centuries are burying their head in the sand a bit. What we need to do is have the realistic debate about where climate change is heading and what effects it will have on our planet.
I also said last night in debate it was important for us in the Northern Territory to recognise we are a small jurisdiction economically. We have not had the same sort of industrial development as has occurred in the southern states. Within any carbon change policy and any emissions trade policy, we need to have the capacity as the Northern Territory - and I will certainly fight for the capacity - for us to grow in a balanced way; looking at the environmental impacts, but also the benefits to the people right across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
We also talked, in this policy, a little about some of the green initiatives, particularly some of the solar projects in the remote parts of the Northern Territory. It was my privilege, as Power and Water minister, to see a number of those projects, and they are very impressive. That technology is growing at such a rapid rate, and there are many Northern Territory businesses which are at the cutting edge of that technology. I believe there are special industries which could grow here in the Northern Territory. The Alice Springs Solar City is a great project. It is relatively in its infancy, but it is a great project and deserves support from all.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, it has been my privilege to speak to this debate this evening. I commend the statement by the minister and I look forward to the offerings of other members of the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one of the things I truly love about the member for Johnston is, despite his attempts to play politics and the rhetoric he tries to run, his natural reasonableness occasionally returns, and he actually makes some very good comments. I do not mean that as an insult; I mean it as a compliment to the member for Johnston. Deep down, the scientist which lurks within still strains at the bit to get out and, every so often, you see that manifest itself. Today was one of those occasions. Once we had gotten past the tirade and the scripted lines and all those sorts of things, he then started arguing for a reasoned debate around climate change - absolutely. I could not agree more.
In fact, one of the things I then listened carefully to was his language. It was the return to the old scientific language of caution, care, and no absolute statements - which sets him apart from the man who sits to his immediate right. That is because that man, in dealing with this particular issue, will couch his terminology and phraseology in belief. I heard the Chief Minister say, on numerous occasions, ‘the members opposite do not believe in climate change’. The problem with that type of phraseology is it intones that this carries some religious component which, of course, as the member for Johnston well knows, is a different sphere of debate altogether.
One embraces the metaphysical, where the other embraces the physical. I believe this debate should remain well within the terms of the physical, without using heretical terms such as ‘climate change deniers’. You can almost hear the other word, ‘heretic’, implied in that phraseology. It places the two gentlemen in stark contrast to each other; and I prefer the offerings of the member for Johnston when he is not doing the scripted line stuff, because he then defaults to his natural state, which is a man of critical thinking when it comes to these sorts of issues.
To that end, I listened with interest at the end of his contribution. He asserts there are climate change deniers on this side of the House - and he can assert that all he wants. I describe myself as somebody who likes to critically think about the issues of climate change. I am attracted to restraint in the way we do things regarding our impact on the environment, not necessarily because climate change exists or not; I do not mind restraint in terms of contact. Restraint implies thoughtfulness, and thoughtfulness is something which is important. I also believe, if you want to be thoughtful about these issues, you take the necessary steps to express that thoughtfulness in some sort of physical way.
I wonder what sort of car the minister who introduced this drives? I know what sort of car I drive; the car supplied to me by the Legislative Assembly. It sometimes disappoints me, when I look amongst the ranks of my colleagues on both sides of the House, and do not see any more of that restraint. I believe it would be more useful and credible if members of the government - or whoever comes into this House claiming to be a climate change believer, for lack of better words, or someone who accepts climate change as a scientific phenomenon - would put that belief, that acceptance, into practical steps.
I drive a hybrid car because I believe a hybrid car is, in part, my contribution to this debate in a practical way. We do not use air-conditioners at my home all the time. Sometimes in the evening the kids get air-conditioning, and sometimes we use an air-conditioner in the bedroom but, in other parts of my home, air-conditioners are not used because I am mindful of the energy we use. That is not necessarily because I accept immediately everything asserted about carbon dioxide emissions. It is because I like, as a way of conduct, personal restraint. I believe it is an important thing to do on other levels.
Once again, the statement deals with the future of the Northern Territory, but it is interesting there is a proportional do-ability in the targets set. The Northern Territory Climate Change Policy is available on the Internet. It is interesting to go to some history here, because the Northern Territory government has had a climate change policy before, or a carbon reduction policy and, over two years running through the estimates process, they did not meet those targets. They have now decided to change the policy. They have a Climate Change Policy and an aspirational goal of 60% carbon reduction by 2050. An aspirational goal means the government believes the Territory should aim to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 2007 emissions. Bully for them, Madam Speaker. I cannot wait to see the Chief Minister, in the year 2050, talk about this goal he has achieved. The truth of the matter is the Chief Minister well knows he does not have to achieve those goals.
The question I then apply to the Climate Change Policy is: does the government make any commitments inside the time frame relating to their current term of office, which expires in the year 2012? It does, it does. There are some really good targets they have set themselves in the current cycle. Target 10 from the Climate Change Policy is that by the year 2012 all traffic lights in the Territory on government managed roads will be energy efficient. They are going to fix the traffic lights. We are going to be rescued from the great sea of melting ice which is about to wash into the southern ocean as the newly greening Antarctic environment sheds its ice and floods us all by this government’s Target 10, because all traffic lights on Territory government managed roads will be energy efficient. Wow, that is an aspirational target we can go for! That can be done within the current parliamentary cycle.
By 2011, they are going to develop a climate change adaptation action plan. They are not going to actually do it, just get the plan ready. ‘That is what we are going to do, we are going to have a plan. So, by 2011 we are going to have a plan’ - target 35.
As for other measurable things, like being carbon neutral, the target is 2018. All the big ticket stuff is outside of the current term and the next few terms of the Northern Territory government. That is no major surprise, because they failed to meet their targets the last time they released a climate change policy and said they were going to reduce carbon emissions. Do you know what the target they set was? Minus-1% - 1% less each year. Did they achieve that target? No, they produced more carbon. Does the department of Environment produce the most carbon of any department by a factor of eight, in the Northern Territory government? Yes. There is an issue here which deals with, on one hand, aspirational statements as to what is going to happen in the future and, then, we look at the quality of what they have done in the past. The quality of what they have done in the past does not bode well for a successful aspirational future.
I remember - it must have been 2001-02 - when the No 1 priority for this government was going to be the geothermal energy bill. It was then re-announced in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The No 1 priority for this government became legislation, finally, about eight years after that No 1 priority was identified by government. It is all very well for the Chief Minister to come in here and hold up pictures pointing to Uranus; the fact is, the Northern Territory government will obfuscate, muddy the waters, and run all types of arguments to point the finger at everyone else when, in actual fact, as the government of the day, and the government for nearly the past decade in the Northern Territory, the only people they should be truly looking to is themselves.
I heard the Chief Minister quote at length the European trading scheme as a yardstick, as an ETS scheme. However, anyone who has a cursory knowledge of the European trading scheme knows what an unmitigated disaster it was, simply because the carbon credits which were issued, were issued in such numbers it rendered the credits, essentially, worthless. They hyper-inflated the carbon credits within the first year of operation because of the political interference which undermined that particular scheme. So, for the Chief Minister to say the European carbon trading scheme was a great argument for having an ETS here in Australia, he had better go and have a look at the history of that scheme, because, it was hardly a scheme that covered itself in glory.
I also note in the action plan, which was part of the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy, there is going to be a plan for halving the carbon emissions for public service travel. Well, here is a suggestion for government: if you want to halve the emissions for public service travel, book them on Jetstar because there is only a 50% chance they will catch their flight. I would like to see this government also turn their attention to things such as Jetstar before they start talking about these aspirational plans. What about real issues facing Territorians today, such as the horrendous situation which is starting to form around air travel in and out of Darwin?
I also listened to the member for Johnston in one other area - and I believe he had not been briefed. It is my understanding that, today, the federal minister, Martin Ferguson, introduced a bill into federal parliament which is directly aimed at overriding Territory legislation.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister came into this place and tried, through bluster, bravado, volume and pointing to pictures of planets, to avoid the real issue which is happening here. He said the battle lines are drawn between the ALP and the CLP. Well, I have news for the Chief Minister. If he wants to plan those sorts of battlelines, he had better go and read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War once more because he is targeting the wrong enemy.
It is not entirely unlike watching the British High Command during the fall of Singapore; they pointed all the guns out to sea and were invaded from land. It is not the CLP which is the enemy in this instance; the enemy is going to be the federal government. There are two people in the boxing ring: Kevin Rudd and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Henderson. They are the people who are in the boxing ring and they are the two people who are going to be squaring off against each other. People in opposition, such as the Country Liberals or the federal opposition, are merely speculators to that game.
What I want to hear from the Chief Minister and the member for Johnston is an absolute commitment - in the words of the Chief Minister; he loves this term ‘absolute commitment’ - to spend the $1m running a anti-federal government campaign he spent the last time round. He used taxpayers’ money to do that, as he said it was worth doing that because it was all about protecting Territory rights. Well, here is his opportunity to do that all over again.
Let us protect Territory rights against what is happening in Canberra and the introduction of Martin Ferguson’s bill. I can tell you, this is an outright attack on the liberty of the Northern Territory. This was the reason the bill which turned into an act here in the Northern Territory was introduced in this parliament; to send a signal to Canberra that we would not stand for it. I heard the Chief Minister say: ‘We will not stand for it’. What are you going to do? What is the Chief Minister actually going to do? Outline a plan; tell us what the budget for the advertising is, in your not standing for it. Tell us what you are going to do behind the scenes. Who are you going to pick the phone and speak to? At the moment, it is almost like Peter Garrett is doing this to the Northern Territory.
It concerns me deeply that the government will allow their Labor Party allegiances to stand in the way of what they profess. What they profess is to stand up for Territorians – well, here is the clearest possible test you can have; there is now a bill before the House in Canberra. I want to hear that the Chief Minister is going to raise a campaign against the current sitting member for Solomon as a protest to what is going on in Canberra. That is all he has to do. Of course, it will not happen because, before his allegiance to Territorians, he will have another allegiance which he holds much more deeply; that is, the allegiance to his political party. I believe this Chief Minister, if he fails to stand up and be counted, and engage in an active campaign against Canberra, will be failing his duty to Territorians because of his other allegiance - his allegiance to his political party.
Madam Speaker, this is a straightforward test for government. I call on the Chief Minister and his government to stand up and be counted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Climate Change. There is a global challenge and we have taken decisive action with the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy.
I understand climatic change can be an emotional issue; that people accept it as gospel, and other people deny it. There are some people who are sceptics. Other people inquire about the science behind the climatic change. I agree with the people challenging the science. As a scientist myself, I would like to have some proof there is climatic change - not to confirm it, but I want to see the evidence behind it.
To be a sceptic and to deny it is a different story. A denial is a personal belief in a dogma - a dogma that says nothing is changing, nothing is happening, put your head in the sand, everything will be all right.
Climatic change has been taking place on this planet since this planet was formed. One way or another, climate on this planet has changed. Sometimes, it changed rapidly, sometimes it changed slowly. We have seen evidence of this climatic change through the fossils we find of different eras, through the fossils that are extinct because of some cataclysmic event that took place and triggered some significant changes in the planet. There are theories about a meteor crashing on earth, and the result of this collision was a significant change in the environment through the dust in the air and reduction in the sunlight and, as a result, possibly, dinosaurs became extinct.
We also saw climatic change take place even more recently in the 19th century when a volcano, Krakatoa, in the Indonesian Archipelago, with a massive explosion, spewed so much dust and ash into the atmosphere the air was blanketed by a layer of ash which prevented sun rays reaching the atmosphere, with significant results like cooling down the planet and creating some difficult conditions for plants and animals. We saw the climatic change when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines exploded in the 1990s. The emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere had a significant impact on the atmospheric temperature. If you read the book, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, by Tim Flannery, there are some stories and evidence of the climatic change which were even more recent.
After 11 September, the American government ordered all aeroplanes to be grounded until they found out what caused the terrorist attack. Scientists observed there was ash - what they called significant; for us it appears significant - which caused a few degrees Centigrade increase of the atmospheric temperature. They actually came to the conclusion, when the aeroplanes were flying, their exhausts had created a blanket effect in the atmosphere, preventing some of the solar radiation reaching the earth’s atmosphere and surface and, as a result, when this blanket disappeared, there was increased radiation reaching earth and the temperature of the earth and the atmosphere increased.
What we see now are some climatic changes that are taking place very quickly. What in the past would take eons, centuries, or thousands of years for changes to impact upon the environment, in the past few years we have seen a significant impact, mostly of an anthropogenic nature. We know very well that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere increased since we started burning coal during the Industrial Revolution. We know carbon dioxide increased since we started using fossil fuel extensively at the end of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. We also know now of the significant melting of the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic and, of course, we have scientists predicting the extinction of the glaciers in the Himalayas.
However, when certain inquiries were made and more scientific evidence was sought after, we found that was not true. That is why I say, as a person with a scientific background, I want to see more evidence about the climatic changes. I want to see a robust debate, but I am not going to close my eyes, dig my head into the sand, and say nothing is changing, everything will be fine, mate, do not worry, keep doing what we are doing.
What is really interesting is, a few years ago when I was the minister for the Environment, I attended a briefing by the CSIRO in Canberra. I have to admit, when I saw the CSIRO report, I nearly fell off my chair. At the time, there was a Coalition minister who laughed at the proposal that there was a possibility water would lap at the doorsteps of the houses in Cairns, until the CSIRO scientist said that was quite accurate; there will be a significant rise of the sea level that will affect low-lying areas.
There are other effects. For example, in the past 25 years we have seen a significant decrease in rainfall in the south-west of Western Australia. We know very well, because south-western Australian being an agricultural area, rain has been measured for the past 100 years. The reduction in rainfall in that particular region is recorded through the Meteorology department.
What else is very interesting is the fact that the climatic changes are stronger in the northern tropical region in Australia and other tropical areas. The rainfall will withdraw from east Queensland and will increase in Central Australia, the Barkly and Alice Springs regions. On the other hand, the strength of cyclones which will occur in the tropical north of Australia will increase significantly. I do not know about Queensland, but I recall very well when I was in Western Australia, living in Port Headland for three years, we did not see one cyclone. The cyclones used to come down across the Pilbara as a Category 2 or 3 maximum. Since I have been in Darwin for the past 17 or 18 years, the cyclone strength has increased and we see more Category 5 cyclones, which start in the Coral Sea, cross the Gulf of Carpentaria, get into the Northern Territory and degenerate into a tropical low, cross the Territory and strengthen again as cyclones as they go towards the Pilbara coast, and hit the Pilbara coastline. I do not know if it is a coincidence, or a sign that things are really changing.
It will be a significant challenge for us, particularly in the Northern Territory. The Territory is divided between two significant regions, the arid centre and the tropical north. Both areas are significantly impacted upon by the change in climate. It is not only the impact from the sea rising and inundating low-lying areas, it is also the significant impact it will have on human health. In Darwin, we have Leanyer swamp. Every time we have king tides, and every time we get rain, there are significant mosquito breeding areas we manage to control by spraying from helicopters using pesticides. If the frequency of king tides caused by increasing sea levels, and if rainfall increases, this will be a more frequent event in Darwin and other low-lying areas, and we will see a significant impact upon the human population.
On the other hand, drought in Central Australia will impact upon people living there. Lack of water will make many communities unliveable. There are already marginal areas, marginal lands, relying on groundwater, where the aquifer is recharged through rainfall. Any significant change in rainfall will see a significant change in the availability of groundwater which, in turn, will affect the central arid zone of Australia.
I only have to remind you of what is happening in Sahel, which is the region south of the Sahara. With the Sahara Desert advancing to the south, many people living in areas that had grass and savannahs which were green, who farmed their animals and grew their food, are now being pushed further south, creating not only desertification, but also impacting upon the population in the south of that area. All these refugees have to stay somewhere, be fed, and have access to water. We have seen this happening time and time again.
Our Northern Territory Climate Change Policy has been developed in consultation with Territorians. There is not much point in having a policy developed by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats tend to see things in a different way. What will come into account is how much it is going to cost, how quickly we can do it, and what the government can deliver in an election cycle - usually four years. This is going to be a long-term policy, not for four years, but for the next 10, 15, and 20 years. We have had contributions from environment and community groups, Indigenous groups, and of course, industry. As the Minister for Climate Change mentioned, there was significant input by people from all over the Territory, and the feedback received has been taken into consideration in developing the policy.
We have committed $34m to undertake priority actions outlined in the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy. With 40 targets and 118 actions, the policy will guide us to decisive action. By 2020, we want to establish carbon offsets to remove at least four million tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere through land management-based carbon offsets.
Many methods are tried around the world today. There is vegetation; do not clear land in a way which will increase emissions and have a serious impact on land. Also, new modern agriculture techniques, so you do not lose the topsoil, and you do not let carbon escape from the ground, or even incorporate carbon into the ground in order to bind the carbon into the ground rather than be emitted into the atmosphere.
We will work together with Territory landowners and investors to develop new carbon offset opportunities. We will assist land managers in participation as stakeholders, to develop government’s frameworks for sustainable participation in carbon offset management. We will work with the pastoral industry. We will attempt to find ways to reduce emissions from animals. There are significant emissions from animals because they are ruminants and the emissions are part of their digestive system and process. At the same time, we will attempt to reduce emissions in transporting these animals to the markets. Currently, the animals exported from Darwin to the markets in South-East Asia have the lowest emission per capita because they are transported by boat. We cannot say the same about other animals which are transported from the Territory down south by truck. By the simple formula of head of animals, distance and fuel consumed, it makes it easier and better to transport by boat, or even by train, than by truck.
We have to look at the mining industry. The mining industry can have an effect on climatic change – a negative effect or a positive effect. Of course, a negative effect would be through the operations. On the other hand, the positive effect is what we mine, and for what purpose. Natural gas is a fuel; when you burn it, you produce carbon dioxide. The difference between natural gas and carbon is the significantly less emissions using liquefied natural gas compared to carbon. If we can convert the Australian power stations to burn gas, we will have a significant reduction in the emissions of coal-fired power stations of Australia
Here in the Territory, most of our power stations are fuelled by LNG, by natural gas. However, there are a significant number of small communities that are powered by diesel which, of course, emits more greenhouse gases and has an impact on the environment and, hence, an impact on climatic change. We can use renewable energy such as solar panels but, until we actually reticulate gas to most of the big communities for their power stations, we will still continue to have the same problem. You can actually power the power station for 12 hours using sun but, when it is dark, you have to find another source of energy, and that source will be a diesel generator.
Uranium, for many years has been a dirty word in Australia and the western world. People associate uranium with nuclear energy, nuclear bombs and nuclear war. The Chernobyl accident, of course, did not help. Fortunately, Chernobyl was not due to any fault of the construction or the design of the nuclear power station; it was because the operators of the power station exceeded the safety parameters for the operation of the power station, bringing it to such a state they were unable to control it, and it resulted in the explosion in Chernobyl.
On the other hand, if you look at the scientific evidence of the emissions by uranium, or any other fuel, through the whole of life of the power station – that means from the moment you start mining it, to the moment you start disposing of it, and anything in between – you find the power station with less emissions are the hydro-electrics, followed by uranium, followed by solar energy, followed by wind energy, followed by natural gas and the last and most polluting are the coal-fired power stations.
The Northern Territory has significant bodies of uranium which currently are exported, providing 1% of uranium in the world, which helps significantly reduce emissions by power stations around the world. If you bear in mind India is considering building another 28 power stations, and China is proceeding to build 58 power stations, the impact and the effects uranium can have on climatic change in the Territory are significant. If these power stations were coal-fired power stations, the emissions would be tremendous.
The other thing we can do, as government, is promote green solutions for the public service, for the buildings we utilise by requesting four- or five-green status. We can achieve that by changing the way the buildings are designed. Most buildings are built to be constantly air-conditioned and illuminated by electric lights. Even if you look in this parliament, we are actually sitting in a bunker. The old buildings had big windows so you did not have to have artificial lighting inside those buildings. I am very pleased to have seen some new designs for office buildings which are surrounded by glass that is formulated to allow natural light to go in, but to reflect the light rays that produce heat, which then you have to combat by air-conditioning.
Air-conditioning is significant. With the new inventions in air-conditioning, even in our own houses, you can use air-conditioners that actually use less electricity than the old traditional style that can consume a lot of electricity when they fire up, and when they stop again.
We now have the white diodes we can us for some of the lights that produce exactly the same light as normal light, but consume about 10% of the energy. If the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Alice Springs can provide 50% of their energy by utilising solar panels on their roof, and using that electricity to power the lighting, the hot water system, and the air-conditioner, why can we not do that, say, in our hospitals and our public buildings?
Another question I put to my department was: why do we have to have V8 four-wheel drives moving one person, let us say, from here to 100 km away? Why can we not use smaller cars, and ask people when they travel, instead of each one having a car, to travel together if going in the same direction? My department has now initiated a change of fleet. Our fleet will not have the big gas guzzlers; they will actually utilise cars that have a smaller capacity, and also will not be using petrol but diesel, which is more economic.
Climatic change will affect us. The good thing is we can all have an effect on the climatic change by doing a few little things in our own houses, but also in our workplace. One of the things we are talking about for some of the big hospitals is why we cannot use co-generation? That means using the heat from power generation to either cool or heat water. There are examples where, in Europe, a lot of the air-conditioning takes place from co-generation.
Our government is also looking to find new sources of energy. Geothermal is a new form of energy. We have introduced legislation to allow exploration, and to allow the industry to exploit and export geothermal sources of energy. There are places in the world - Hawaii, some of the Greek islands, New Zealand - which are utilising for their power stations very hot steam that comes under high pressure from volcanic areas. This can be done here in geothermal areas. We have some of them in the Northern Territory - very hot rock we can use to inject water and take steam which can be used to power turbines. Now, geothermal has become very popular.
We have had 17 applications for exploration of geothermal energy in the Territory before lunch when we opened for applications. From 8 am to 12 noon, we received 17 applications from industry for the exploration of geothermal energy because it is clean, it is green and, of course, they get the carbon credits.
Another program we have is the solar cities. We supported the Australian government and Desert Knowledge Australia develop a solar demonstration facility for solar energy. You can see that in Alice Springs at Desert Knowledge. The Territory will remain a low land-clearing jurisdiction with the introduction of native vegetation legislation. That, combined with whatever it will take to reduce energy consumption, utilising natural gas for powering our power stations, finding new solutions for how to do business better and more clever, I believe, we can be an example for the rest of Australia, and the rest of the world.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to listen to the members speaking in this debate, and their personal anecdotes about climate change. We are talking within the lifetimes of the members of this House.
For me, it reflects on issues in living in north-western New South Wales, and seeing the Barwon River flow regularly - it was there every day - then, in the 1990s, crossing the Darling River at Willcannia and seeing it dry. It was dry like that for many years. I crossed the Hay Plain as a child and witnessed the environment, and then crossed a number of years later, once in the 1990s and in the new millennium, and saw it as a dust bowl. Also, there are the changes we have seen in the great Lake Eyre. We have to be very serious about what changes have happened through human habitation and industrial revolution.
There is no place for scepticism. The scientists will do their work and the research will continue. I am proud to be part of the Henderson government whose minister has brought this Climate Change Policy forward. It shows a government that is forward thinking, that is concerned and, I believe, shares some common ground with all members about care of our environment and environmental protection on the way forward.
Building the productivity and prosperity of the Northern Territory imposes challenges for public transport growth, land release, supply and demand, sustainable infrastructure, and adapting to climate change. Infrastructure is integral to our ongoing efforts to achieve sustainable development in the Territory, achieving economic growth and social advancement while, at the same, time protecting our environment. Increased energy consumption in the built environment is forecast as a result of the higher temperatures predicted with climate change.
That is one of the reasons why we have acted, implementing new energy-efficient measures for new building design. We want to reduce the economic costs of building energy in efficient homes for the future. Research has shown better designed commercial and residential buildings provide some of the most affordable forms of greenhouse gas abatement in the economy. Infrastructure planning, design, construction and operation need to be conducted in accordance with sustainability principles.
These principles will form the foundation of the Henderson government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy. Planning the facilities for the use of public transport, walking and cycling as viable transport options, will help ensure the Territory’s sustainability, liveability, and productivity.
Through the Department of Lands and Planning, we have a number of energy management programs and initiatives. The NT government’s Energy Smart Building Policy has the objective to achieve and maintain best practice energy management in NT government operations, and sets a 10% energy intensity reduction target for Northern Territory government agencies by 2010-11. The Northern Territory government Energy Efficiency Program is a funding mechanism to support the NT Energy Smart Building Policy and represents significant investment to address climate change. The Energy Smart Schools Program is aimed at achieving a Territory-wide approach to energy management and sustainability in government schools. These programs strengthen the Henderson government’s commitment to climate change.
The Territory 2030 strategy clearly articulates a vision for the new town of Weddell, including the intent it will be a world-class green city. As the Territory’s newest green city on a greenfield site, Weddell presents the Territory with the opportunity to design a city which will be a model for tropical cities and towns of the future, with environmentally sustainable homes and buildings, and first-class urban design. The development of a new, well-designed city is complex and will require the integration of many linked concepts, including: housing; affordability and social inclusion; access to education and health services; commercial and industrial infrastructure; land use frameworks and transport networks; communications; recreation facilities; lifestyle; and, public places and parklands. Environmentally sustainable design principles supporting climate change will underpin the development of Weddell.
Protecting our environment is everybody’s responsibility, and making our homes more efficient is one way we can all help reduce climate change. Climate change is one of the most important issues facing our community. That is why this government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% over the next five years. From May this year, all new homes constructed in the Territory are required to meet the 5-star energy efficiency rating. Reducing our carbon emissions and having more energy efficient homes is one way we can all work towards protecting our environment. It will also save Territorians money through reduced power bills into the future. The 5-star rating for new homes will require increased insulation for walls and roofs, increased shading, increased glazing, and more sensitive orientation of the building. Building a new home or renovating your existing home provides an opportunity to incorporate sustainable features which will reduce the energy resources your home needs.
New units will be required to meet the 3.5-star rating. Until now, units did not have to comply with the defined energy rating. This is because the Building Code did not deal with the unique Territory climate - tropical north and an arid centre. This is a significant move, and a challenge for our local development industry; however I am confident it is the right move for our future.
Many Territorians choose to live and invest in unit developments, for hundreds are built each year. As a government, we support these developments which provide for housing mix in our housing stock. I believe many Territorians will welcome government’s moves to improve the energy efficiency of new units.
Moves towards 5-star energy efficiency provisions in new houses have been part of the national housing landscape since 2005. The Territory delayed introducing five-star energy efficiency measures pending adjustments to the modelling tools to address the Territory’s climate, which includes Darwin and Alice Springs being assessed differently.
We have not made these changes without working closely with the housing industry. An industry reference group was set up to consult with the building industry, and it has advised government it is now appropriate to move to 5-star energy rating for new homes, and to adopt a 3.5-star energy rating for new units.
Relevant design and construction industry groups consulted during this process of adopting a 5-star energy efficiency rating included the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Association, architects, building designers, and building surveyors. Government will continue to consult with industry on energy efficiency requirements for commercial buildings. I am pleased to advise some builders are already building to, or exceeding, the five-star standard set by the Building Code. What we have done is raise the minimum standard. The Arnhemica office building in Parap is an excellent example of energy efficiency. Public information sessions will be held in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs next month which further adds to the education on this very important issue.
As stated by the Chief Minister, the Henderson government has allocated $4.5m in the 2009-10 budget, in partnership with the Rudd government’s Solar Cities Initiative, to develop a solar plan and upgrade the air-conditioning system for the Araluen Art Centre in Alice Springs. This multimillion dollar Alice Solar City Project will be the first of its kind in the Northern Territory, where air-conditioning and heating will be generated by solar energy. This project is an example of our commitment to address climate change. It will be the first solar cooling project of its kind and magnitude in the world. It is anticipated the completion date for this iconic project is July 2011. The use of solar energy should reduce electricity use at the Araluen Art Centre by about 50%, and gas use by 70%.
The transport sector is one of the fastest growing greenhouse emission sectors and, as such, provides significant opportunities for greenhouse gas reduction. I am for the culture of changing behaviour, and of developing public transport. Like the Henderson government, the Northern Territory public transport system puts in the hard yards for Territory families. Last year, our buses travelled over five million kilometres, made over 200 000 trips, and moved around 4.5 million Territorians to where they wanted to go. They make it easier and safer for people without cars to access services. They reduce the need for private vehicles through providing a choice of alternative travel modes and, by doing so, they reduce the adverse environmental and social impacts of transport on communities.
I am proud to be part of the Henderson government’s initiatives on public transport. In January last year, we became the first government in Australia to give free travel on all school and public bus services for seniors, pensioners, carers, and students. There has been a solid take-up from the public and we are significantly reducing traffic congestion, parking congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions. And it does not stop there. The Henderson government is improving and expanding our public transport services. We have introduced new Darwin bus services to Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and the convention centre. I was proud when the COOLmob applauded this government’s introduction of bus services to our iconic Mindil Beach Markets last year, reducing traffic and parking congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier this month, the Minister for Central Australia, Hon Karl Hampton, announced the start of $185 000 school bus service to Jay Creek. The uptake of school kids using the bus has been exceptional and, just yesterday I was informed 42 kids caught that bus to school. That is 42 kids who did not need cars to get to school - and 42 kids at school. That is a real result for the environment, our education sector, and those kids.
However, we want to go further. We are introducing cleaner and greener buses into our Darwin bus fleet. Euro 5 is a new standard to restrict the amount of harmful pollutants from commercial vehicles reducing exhaust gases. There are now five Euro 5 buses in the fleet and more will follow as the fleet is progressively replaced. These buses reduce nitrogen oxides by 42%.
Park and ride facilities in the rural area will also be established this year, and rural bus services expanded to provide our ever-increasing rural population with better access to our public bus services. This will deliver on another election commitment and will improve commuter and social transport options in the rural area, cut travel costs and congestion for more people, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. This year, rural bus services will be coordinated into the new orbital bus service which will provide for increases in service levels between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina. Again, more people on our buses means less cars on our roads, and results in a cleaner and a greener Territory.
The Henderson government is taking action to help the environment even further by providing free public transport to the Territory’s many major and special events. Last year, more than 70 000 people enjoyed the services this government has provided to these events, and we will again see free buses to many of our major events this year. This weekend, our buses will be carrying scores of excited fans to their favourite game of Rugby League.
Territory 2030 will see less impact on the environment through reduced reliance on private motor vehicles. Not only will we see more Territorians walking and cycling, but we will see more Territorians using public transport. The Henderson government will give even better public transport options to Territory families this year with the release of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy and the overarching 10-Year NT Transport Strategy for the Territory. These strategies will not only forge better links between our regions and centres, and deliver better education, health and social outcomes for all Territorians, but they will help the environment by giving Territory families alternatives to using their cars.
This is part of our plan to deal with the Territory’s booming population. This is what we stand for. These are the challenges we take on and this is the delivery that we effect for all Territorians. Not only is the Henderson government providing the safest and best public transport services in the Territory’s history, we are also providing the cleanest and the greenest.
Madam Deputy Speaker, climate change is real and, unlike the sceptics, this government is serious about the world we live in and will be leaving behind for future generations of Territorians.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for making this statement today. Climate change is a very important area. However, we do tend to drift, quite often, into areas of all talk and no action. I recognise the government is trying to do things in the area of climate change. I am not a climate change sceptic; I am sceptic of no action - on many things.
We have seen in this parliament rigorous debate by the government - not by outside, by the government - on whether or not the Country Liberals should be supporting the global financial crisis stimulus package the federal government put in place. We heard that debate and the accusations made by many on the other side, including the Chief Minister, attacking this party and us over our reluctance to talk to our Senator in the federal parliament in regard to supporting the stimulus package. It is important to know what the stimulus package has actually achieved. There are many areas where some things have gone well and some things have not.
In this area of climate change and some of the reactions to solving some of the problems or addressing some of those concerns regarding climate change, it is interesting to hear the commentary which has been going on for many weeks now about the insulation program. I am sure we are all up to date on that.
I would like to tell a little story about a bloke I would like to call Steve. Steve became an insulation installer in Alice Springs. I will refer to him as Steve, and will not give his full name. Steve had a Certificate III in General Construction for the purposes of carpentry from Charles Darwin University. Steve heard about the stimulus package when it was first announced and what would be occurring with the insulation program, with the $1600 rebate where, if people got insulation installed they could get $1600 back. Steve is an entrepreneur who thought this was a terrific opportunity to get into business for himself and have a go at it. Where I live, many people in Central Australia - and, I am sure the rest of the country - have been inundated with flyers in their letterboxes saying: ‘Come and get your insulation for free’. I have received many of those and many people in the electorate have taken them up.
Steve wanted to get into business, so he asked the federal government what he could do about it. They told him how to apply - you apply online; none of this rigorous application process that will test your skills to be able to do the job, your fitness for duty, your understanding of the electrical cabling works in roofs. Steve was given the go-ahead to do this work. I am referring to a story Steve, the person in question, has told me.
He was authorised to start work in July. He started work in July, having never installed insulation in a roof before. Steve was putting flyers into people’s letterboxes, advising they could have installation for free. He was doing that, undertaking those jobs, and sending the copy of the invoicing to the federal department to claim his $1600 back.
A question came to Steve, at some point. He was asked whether he had what they call a white card, and he responded: ‘Why?’ The federal government, through the department of Employment - which I will refer to as the federal government for this purpose - when he responded: ‘We do not have white cards in the Northern Territory’ and asked if it was going to cause him a problem in his business with the jobs he had done and had on his books to do. They said: ‘No, do not worry about it, just keep going. You will be right’. Steve had done the right thing by asking whether he needed to have more qualifications, and they said: ‘No, that is not the case’.
Anyhow, he went through a process of trying to obtain his white card so he could be authorised under the federal government program to continue installing insulation. He was fortunate enough, after five-and-a-half months of installing insulation, to receive his white card, based on his Certificate III in Construction for carpentry. That authorised him to get a white card to install the insulation. The purpose of me going through this story is to explain that, if you cannot run a program, how can you run climate change seriously? On 12 December 2009, Steve got his white card, which I have here, Madam Speaker.
He has gone through a lot of to and fro since that point in time, talking with the department of Environment asking if he can move to a position where he becomes certified. This certification request came in January, at a time when it started to get political mileage, to put it in that context. Things started to get hot in Canberra, so they said: ‘Right, you now have to get certification’. Steve said: ‘But we do not have an insulation certification program in the Northern Territory’ - which we do not. He lives in Alice Springs and there was absolutely nothing in Alice Springs in that regard. At the time, when people were falling off being installers of insulation, he was advised by the federal government to just keep going until they could investigate it.
Some time passed, until February, when we saw Mr Midnight Oil in a whole lot of trouble about this program, when they said: ‘You are really going to have to start being compliant with the electricity inspection requirements; to get an electrician there to check to see whether the inside of the roofs are live’. So, he has had to go down that process of undertaking those assessments, at the same time, fielding the request to get some sort of insulation qualifications.
What was happening at the federal level, when they were having the debate on climate change, is that the federal government was saying: ‘We are active on climate change. We are borrowing all this money, putting the country into years of debt, to fund insulation in people’s houses as part of the climate change initiative’ - which is not a bad climate change initiative; it is just how well you can run the program, how well you can run your department, and how well you can run your country.
However, it has reached the point now where Steve has been informed he will not be able to participate in this program any more because he has not been able to get that insulation certification because it is not run in the Northern Territory. I am not sure how many other people in the Northern Territory actually have that certification to continue this program. I am not aware of any, and I have done a fair bit of research. I am not aware of any - that is not saying that there are none. However, I am not aware that has actually occurred.
This poor bloke has gone out and leveraged himself to start a business, to run a program - as I understand, doing it as well as possible. He has told me he has installed a couple of foil insulations - the ones that were in contention a couple of weeks ago in the media. He had not, at that time when I spoke to him - probably a week-and-a-half ago - been contacted by the federal department of Environment asking him if he had installed any foil insulation. It was interesting to see, at the time when this was such a big issue, this bloke had not even been contacted to see what he had actually installed.
The point is, as of this morning, he had to go out of business, to lose his job because of the failures of the federal minister, Mr Peter Garrett, in running this program. It goes to the heart of how committed the federal government, and Labor is, and how committed Northern Territory Labor is, in addressing climate change. Clearly, this is a failure - and clearly a failure which has put people’s lives at risk in the Northern Territory, in Central Australia, in Alice Springs.
I have not spoken to him since the last time I spoke to him to find out how things are going with inspecting the insulation he has provided. I know he has given advice to the federal government to tell them of the houses he had put foil insulation in, but he had not heard back at that point. So, he has arranged himself for an electrician to go around there, at his cost, to inspect it to ensure he has actually done the job properly. He was having a hard time getting the federal government to respond, up to a week-and-a-half ago when I spoke to him.
It gets worse than that. There are many constituents in my electorate who have decided to go up into their roof and check out how the insulation was installed. People are going into their roofs, finding out only half or a third of the insulation was ever installed. This is a signal that further cements the problem with this insulation program.
I would like the government, rather than addressing one question in Question Time, to explain to the Territory parliament and Territorians how many people are at risk in the Northern Territory. How many people are at risk of their houses burning down in the Northern Territory? Have there been any? How many people in the Northern Territory have electrified roofs? This is all part of climate change policy, and the response to climate change policy. I really would like them to do that.
It shows if you can not run a simple insulation program, you cannot run the country. We have seen the same thing with SIHIP. Here is a whole slate of money designed to solve one particular problem in the Northern Territory - and what has the government done? They have completely stuffed it!
We heard one of the committee members from the Council of Territory Cooperation talking today about requesting more money from the federal government for SIHIP. How can he have $672m, build two houses, and be asking for more money? How can you do that? It gets worse! I would like the federal government to investigate how many people in the Territory - and this is not a witch hunt - have had claims against their house and a rebate paid for insulation installation, and the work has not been done. I am interested to know how many companies have been paid $1600 with no installation being installed in houses. I believe you will find that to be a hairy figure of claims going into the federal government; $1600 paid here there and everywhere, and no work being done. There are houses across the Northern Territory where people think they have compliant with the insulation system, and they are not because of a dodgy program.
It continues on climate change. We talk about remote communities, and it is easy and needed to campaign on the issue surrounding diesel power generation in remote communities. There was a program run by the federal government which received a large amount of media attention. It was a remote solar panel power generation program to replace diesel generators. The government, in its wisdom last year trying to save money, decided they would cancel that program. This was a program employing many people in the Northern Territory, not only replacing diesel electricity generation systems, or supplementing the electricity generation, but employing many people to do the maintenance on these systems. The federal government, in its wisdom, in its big climate change brow-beating or chest-beating approach, has cancelled it.
We now have communities who were on schedule to have their electricity systems replaced, which would have a positive impact on the environment, which cannot receive that program any longer because the government has tried to save money. However, it will throw money out the door everywhere. It will waste money on bad management of the insulation program; it will waste money on bad management of SIHIP. The member for Fannie Bay, in his role on the CTC, is now seeking more money from the federal government. That is in line with the conversation about funding being cut in half for house refurbishments because of bad management by the government.
There are examples right across the Northern Territory, of where this government is not actioning climate change initiatives. I am advised there is need for more power in areas around the Barkly to support economic development. The government will not make that investment into more power generation and economic development so business can grow in the Barkly region. There are, potentially, another 500 jobs which could grow in certain industries in the Barkly region. However, the government will not invest in power generation. The company looking at investing, with job creation and economic development in the Barkly, has offered to run a large solar panel project, which would be the second largest in the southern hemisphere, to assist primarily in power generation for their industry and, on a secondary level, as a tourism opportunity to see the second biggest solar panel project in the southern hemisphere.
The government will not support them in assisting or providing a base load of power for this industry to commence. Here we have an opportunity that looks at climate change, economic development, and job creation, but the government will not invest in that project. It just goes to show, once again, if you cannot manage a project, you cannot manage the Territory.
What we have seen with these two particular programs by the federal government - the insulation program which has now been cancelled and, today I understand, has had a $41m injection to try to protect people who are losing their jobs because Peter Garrett got it so wrong and the cancellation of the solar panel for remote communities project. We have opportunities to put more climate change supportive power generation models in areas such as the Barkly which will support industry development. We have stories such as the Chief Minister last year lambasting the hybrid Toyota Prius and similar cars for not being energy efficient enough, and deciding to take on much larger powered vehicle cars.
There are numerous examples in the Northern Territory where climate change is not a real concern. It is a real concern to the green political vote and how you attract the preference deals at election time, but it is not a significant enough deal on how you actually have fundamental changes in the Northern Territory to address climate change and support economic development and job growth.
This is an industry which should be a thriving industry but the government is not committed to that. Then we heard this afternoon - after much debate over the last couple of days, especially yesterday and last night, about this nuclear waste - some political beat-up on the member for Fong Lim and many on the Country Liberals side of politics, about how the government is going to stand up to these big bullies in the Labor Party - how they stood up to them in 2004 and in 2007, and they are going to stand up to them again. Then they attacked us.
We are not in the debate. We are on the periphery. People decided in 2007. It was put up for the popular decision and they decided. We have the member for Lingiari - someone who I ran against in a federal campaign - out there supporting not having a nuclear waste dump. We had the Senator for the Northern Territory, Trish Crossin, saying she did not support a nuclear waste dump. We had the now member for Solomon saying he did not support a nuclear waste dump. It is interesting to see these people, in their wiggling little room at the moment, because they are in a bind.
The Chief Minister, in Question Time today, was talking about how he would stand up for the Territory. He did not answer the question about whether he would put $1m towards the campaign against the federal government, the candidate for Solomon, the candidate for Lingiari, or the Senate Labor Party seat for the Northern Territory and what these people are doing. What did we see the Resources minister, Martin Ferguson, do this afternoon? He introduced legislation to repeal some of the Northern Territory legislation.
At the same time this was happening, we had this big debate going on about statehood. The Northern Territory government is spending money on a statehood campaign. A lot of people in the community are asking: ‘Will we ever achieve statehood?’ Not while we are in the mess we are in. People say: ‘We would never have had the intervention if we had statehood because the federal government could not overrule the Northern Territory government’. That would be a bad thing, I believe. However, putting that aside, the intervention has been a good measure in the Northern Territory. We will never move towards the position of statehood while the government continues to run the place as it is running it. If the government had actually done their job in the last 10 years we might be a state now and they might not be able to introduce this legislation to override Northern Territory legislation. That is where we are, Madam Speaker ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I note that, at 5.30 pm, I will be closing government business and bringing on general business.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, would you like me to conclude now, or continue my remarks at a later date?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you can continue until 5.30 pm.
Mr GILES: No worries, Madam Speaker.
We have this issue about a nuclear waste dump coming into the Territory, and the Chief Minister and his mob of cronies over there are trying to bring the Country Liberals into the debate. It has nothing to do with us. We can buy a box of popcorn and sit on the sideline and watch you two have a blue - the Territory government versus the federal government. It will be very interesting to see if the Territory government and the Chief Minister have to bring legislation into this House to support it. It will be very interesting. I would really like to see the Chief Minister back his convictions and start that campaign - funded by Territory Labor, not by the government - and campaign heavily against the candidates who are running for Labor in the Northern Territory, and tell them we do not want this nuclear waste dump …
Mr Tollner: The only way to stop it is to vote against Labor.
Mr GILES: That is right. The only way to stop the nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is to vote against Labor. These are the people who sold out the Territory. They stood up for them in 2004 and in 2007 but, in 2010, they will roll over and get tickled on the belly. This is the nuclear waste dump - something that runs deep through the heart of Labor. I know it does. It must be hurting. They must be listening, fielding calls from the Greens saying: ‘What are you going to do?’
The federal minister for Resources, Martin Ferguson, has just announced they are going to overturn or override legislation in the Northern Territory. Now, the Territory government, Territory Labor is stuck. It would be good to be on the outside of this just watching. Fortunately for the Country Liberals, we are. We are not in the game; we are out of the game. It is a fantastic opportunity.
Coming back to the Climate Change Policy ministerial statement, we support measures to reduce the impact of human activity on the climate. However, we do not think the Northern Territory government has the capacity to do that. They are all talk and no action - just the same as SIHIP, the pink batt program, the reluctance to change diesel-generated power systems in communities to solar, and in not condoning the federal government for cancelling the solar panel program. It is a failure. The pontificating by the Chief Minister about the nuclear waste facility is just further indication of the inept approach and the inability for the Northern Territory government to move forward on climate change.
I thank the member for Brennan for the hard work he has done on climate change, and the input he has had on calling on the Territory government to bring about this legislation, to move forward …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it now being 5.30 pm, I ask you to resume your seat. Under Standing Order 93 in respect of general business, the resumption of debate on this item of business so interrupted will be continued on the next sitting day. I call on general business.
Debate suspended.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (INVESTIGATIVE POWERS) BILL
(Serial 85)
(Serial 85)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, at the request of, and on behalf of, the member for Araluen, Ms Carney, I move the bill be now read a second time. I thank the Leader of Government Business and members for their indulgence in allowing this to occur. I am clearly not Ms Carney, and I present this bill on her behalf.
The bill seeks to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. Under existing legislation, the Children’s Commissioner can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - that is, children in the care of the CEO - or the implementation of recommendations arising from the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse report. The Children’s Commissioner does not have any ‘own motion’ investigative powers under the current act. The Care and Protection Children Act establishes a Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee. The primary role of this committee is to assist in the prevention and reduction of child deaths. The Children’s Commissioner, however, cannot instigate an investigation into information obtained through the committee’s duties unless it comes in the form of a complaint.
This bill expands the scope of the Children’s Commissioner’s functions to allow the commissioner to initiate an ‘own motion’ investigation into situations that involve children defined as protected under the act and children not in the care of the CEO. The commissioner’s functions also include the ability to investigate allegations of child abuse reported through either the department or the Northern Territory Police, if the person raising the allegation is not satisfied with the handling of the complaint. The commissioner will be able to investigate both the handling of the complaint and the allegations, regardless of whether the child involved is defined as protected. The commissioner will also be able to investigate matters referred to him by the Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee.
The purpose of these expanded powers is to strengthen the cooperation between these two bodies to better carry out their role and the objects of the act.
Madam Speaker, I table the attending explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
I have developed and introduced this bill as a result of comments made by the Northern Territory Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner in her annual report, and the Country Liberals’ concern over this government’s appalling apathy in the face of continual systemic failures in the Northern Territory’s health system.
There were three issues raised by the commissioner in her annual report that caused the Country Liberals, the opposition, and me great concern which I hope to address through the introduction and passing of this bill. The other is out of my out hands. I can only hope, by echoing the commissioner’s comments in this House, it will shame the government into acting.
First, the act does not allow the commissioner powers of ‘own motion’ investigation. Section 12(1)(a) of the act restricts the commissioner to investigating matters which are either referred to her by the Legislative Assembly, or through a formal complaints process.
Own motion investigations are an important tool in the arsenal of independent government watchdogs. It gives the bodies that hold government to account the freedom to commence investigations into matters which come to their attention, either ancillary to an actual complaint or when similar circumstances and failures have been identified over many complaints but are not the subject of the complaint in their own right, or for particularly sensitive matters when the identity of the complainant would be compromised, even with the confidentiality arrangements currently in this act or other acts. We need to protect the integrity of the complaints process, and allow the commissioner the discretion and freedom to carry out his functions.
Second, the commissioner has no power at all to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in reports. This is a specific amendment to the act called for by the commissioner in her 2008-09 Annual Report. On page 5 and 6, the commissioner referred to the report tabled in the Legislative Assembly in 2008 regarding the investigation into the assault of an infant on Ward 5B at Royal Darwin Hospital, the paediatric ward. In this report she was highly critical of the security arrangements in place at the time of the assault, and made several recommendations to rectify and strengthen security to protect our most vulnerable patients.
The commissioner stated she was satisfied CCTV cameras have been installed as per recommendations 5 and 6, and mediation has been entered into to negotiate compensation in line with recommendation 2. However, she made the point she is unable to investigate the implementation of agreed recommendations. She cannot confirm which of those recommendations have been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented. She continued:
- This, in my opinion, is a flaw in the efficiency of the Health and Community Service Complaints Act, and I recommend that, when considering any amendment to that act, the minister give due consideration to empowering the commissioner to seek information about implementation of agreed recommendations and to report further to the Legislative Assembly if appropriate.
The situation which has prompted this blunt and public request to the Health Minister is the ease by which two of the commissioner’s staff were able to gain access to the paediatric ward despite locked doors and entry control measures being installed in the entrance. I believe we all remember that. As described in her report, they were able to coattail in behind an authorised person. They were neither challenged for identification, nor for their purpose of visiting the paediatric ward. They not only entered the ward unchallenged, they were able to move freely about the ward, and exit without being questioned by staff.
This is exactly the type of unauthorised access escaping the notice of staff which led to the assault of an infant in March 2006, and that recommendations within the commissioner’s 2008 report were designed to prevent. To again quote the commissioner:
- I can only speculate about whether or not the recommendations relating to staff training, security and risk assessment, regular review, staff induction procedures and the other risk reduction initiatives recommended in the 2008 report have been progressed
I cannot stand by and allow the continual degradation of the Territory’s health system to continue unchecked by this government. This is not the only report which has highlighted training and policy awareness inadequacy provided by Royal Darwin Hospital. These are administrative failures, and by no means reflect the quality, care, and dedication provided by the practising staff. We all know they do a brilliant job treating our families and loved ones, and they need to be supported by management and the government. They need the support from the Health Minister down so they can concentrate on the task of treating their patients.
I will now speak to the provisions of the bill, Madam Speaker. Clause 5 inserts a new section 21A, which enables the commissioner to instigate own motion investigations and other considerations if the commissioner decides to commence an own motion investigation.
Clause 6 amends section 48 to allow reference to the commissioner to investigate matters on own motion.
Clause 7 introduces two new sections to the act. New section 66A, is to cover recommendations contained within a report made under section 65, for action by a person who would not be classified as a provider under this act. Under this section, the commissioner is to notify any person this section applies to, in writing, of the recommendations and any actions which need to be taken in regard to those actions. The person has 45 days to respond to the commissioner about what steps have been taken in relation to these recommendations. The requested time frame can be extended by up to 15 days at the commissioner’s discretion.
The commissioner may make a report to the minister if, after a reasonable time, the commissioner is not satisfied as to the progress of the endorsed actions. The commissioner must take into consideration any comments made by that person. If the commissioner makes a report to the minister, the minister must table that report within three sitting days.
The new section 66B allows the commissioner to follow up the action taken by the provider or non-provider to address recommendations contained in a report provided to the minister and tabled under sections 66(8) and 66A(7). After six months of the minister receiving a report to be tabled under section 66(7) and 66A(6), the commissioner may request an account of what steps are being taken in relation to the recommendations, or reasons for not taking steps in relation to these recommendations.
The person responsible for the recommendations has 14 days to reply to the commissioner. On request, this can be extended up to 15 days at the discretion of the commissioner. If the commissioner is dissatisfied about either steps taken in relation to a recommendation or the reasons given for not taking any steps in relation to the recommendations, the commissioner may conduct further investigations into the relevant health and community service on own initiative and notify the minister of the decision to investigate further. After any further investigations as allowed by this proposed section, the commissioner may provide a report on the investigations to the minister on findings of that investigation, which the minister must table within three sitting days of receiving the report.
Clause 8 introduces a new section 108, Transitional Provisions, so the new section 21A will allow the commissioner to instigate own motion investigations into matters provided by a health or community services provider at any time up to two years before the commencement of section 21A.
I believe the provisions outlined above will improve the ability of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner to fulfil her functions under the act.
The final matter I wish to raise relates to comments made by the commissioner on page 5. In 2003, the minister appointed an independent review panel to report on operations of the act and to recommend any legislative changes to improve the functionality of the complaints process. Despite handing the report to the minister in 2004, the report has yet to be tabled in contravention of section 106(3) of the act. The commissioner highlighted not only the failure of the government to publish that report, but its failure to follow the reporting timetable required by legislation.
This government refuses, again and again, to listen to the cold hard facts as they pay lip service to the mantra of accountability and transparency. We see it time and time again.
The Country Liberals are committed to listening to the community and, when changes are needed to improve critical areas of government, it will take decisive action to implement those changes. This bill is the Country Liberals’, the opposition’s, and my commitment as shadow Health minister to not only hold the government to account for its failing health system, but to pave the way to deliver a health system that serves the needs of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (GRIEVANCES) BILL
(Serial 86)
(Serial 86)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
The bill I present seeks to amend the Police Administration Act and, in doing so, introduces into the act the provision for setting out how to deal with internal officer grievances. Before I head off into setting out the provisions of the amendment bill, I put on the record that we, on this side of the Chamber, are currently undertaking a substantial review into the disciplinary sections of the Police Administration Act, to which we will be releasing a discussion paper later this year.
In respect to the bill I am presenting, it specifically deals with the issue of police grievances. Grievances have been a policy mechanism within the force to allow officers to lodge complaints about a range of matters. The problem with these has been there are long time frames in which these matters can be dealt with. In fact, there are a number of officers at the moment who are not active or are on long-term sick leave as a result of their grievances not being dealt with. Whether or not officers are in the right or wrong in respect of their grievance, is not the matter we are here to deal with. What we are here to deal with is the matter of ensuring such matters are dealt with in a timely manner. Whether it be disciplinary matters or grievance matters, having people out of the force in an unknown capacity in respect to when these matter will be finalised for months and months and, at times years, is unacceptable by anyone’s standard.
As there are a number of these incidences, with some of these ending up in the media, it has given us the clear view the current policy mechanisms are simply not working. This is certainly the case when it appears the force is unwilling to deal with these matters. As such, we are moving for this provision to be provided in law.
Hence, we are inserting a new section 163 into the Police Administration Act. The new section 163 sets out that, if a member is aggrieved in accordance with general orders, then this matter must be dealt with as soon as possible, but certainly responded to within 14 days. The section also sets out the matter, in its entirety, must be dealt with within six months. This is well and truly a long enough time to deal with such matters, and for both the force and the officer to have such matters dealt with. We hope such matters would be dealt with well and truly within this time frame.
If matters are highly complex or there is information lacking, there is a provision for a once-off extension that must be sanctioned by the minister. This additional extension of time, of up to three months, has been made the responsibility of the minister. If such a matter is to require longer than six months, then they need to take some level of responsibility for the matter. They must, in the first instance, be aware such matters are outstanding within the police force for which they have ultimate responsibility. The bill sets out the minister must, in writing, set out whether they have or have not given an extension of time, and under what provision of the section this has been done.
The opposition will not accept a never-ending period for these matters not to be addressed. Matters in respect to serious issues in the force are to be dealt with, and we will not tolerate any level of bullying in any organisation, and any actions which are not open and accountable.
These things should not placed in the too-hard basket and be allowed to simmer and continue without resolution. We owe it to give clear direction in a clear policy format that matters must be dealt with, and done so in a timely manner. This bill sets out a clear change which will put in place a finite time line for such matters to be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT (FEES) BILL
(Serial 83)
(Serial 83)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Madam Speaker, we are again attempting to address the issues of removing the cost barriers of FOI applications. So much has been said by those opposite about undertaking this; however, nothing much has changed. I note last week, just as it looked as if I was about to introduce this bill, the government brought forward regulations which mean the provision of reports to MLAs, and other narrow circumstances, will be done without cost. This is not what the minister said she would do last time I brought forward amendments to the Information Act. More on that later.
Looking at bringing this bill forward, we have extended the ability for there to be charges waived and further powers to the Information Commissioner to waive charges when departments fail to meet or hinder the process of releasing information.
I will now turn to the bill itself. This bill seeks to amend the Information Act. Clause 3 introduces a new section 156(6A) to expand the circumstances the commissioner or public sector organisation may take into consideration when making a decision on a request to waive or reduce either the application or the processing fee, or both. This section will apply to holders of a pensioner concession card or other entitlement card issued by the Commonwealth; applications by non-profit organisations or individuals if payment of fees would cause the applicant financial hardship; if it is not economical for the public sector organisation to charge a fee; information being sought is of public interest; or the information has been provided after either a review or a complaint.
Clause 4 introduces a new section 156A. It introduces provisions to exempt MLAs from paying application or processing fees for an FOI application provided the total cost of that application does not exceed 3000 revenue units. Once the total cost exceeds 3000 revenue units, the public sector organisation may charge an application and processing fee. The total cost has been referred to as penalty units to keep the threshold in line with inflation.
In presenting my second reading speech, I wish to make passing comment on what was raised by those opposite and by the member for Nelson. In respect to the issue of charges for FOI applications, the member for Karama said, when I last presented a bill dealing with no cost for MLAs that:
- The second proposal contained in the bill is all fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived. As members are aware, this is within the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. So, while we agree with the intent of the member for Drysdale’s amendment, in this case the government will not go through the process in terms of developing a bill to enact this agreement. The government has proved it is prepared to undertake reform to improve transparency and accountability.
The fact is we are still paying for our FOI applications, and whatever the above means for those opposite, it certainly does not mean MLAs are getting access to information without the barriers of cost. Not that long ago, the Leader of the Opposition was reminded of a $21 000 bill to pay, and a $1500 bill. The charges just continue. So, members for Nelson and Karama, I am not sure where the reality is for you in respect to not charging MLAs for information. However, within the Territory public service, the wounded bulls just keep on charging.
I also note, at the moment, the Opposition Leader is off to mediation with one department about not having provided information, and there being a prima facie case they should have. I also note the Health department has again begun refusing things. For instance, they have refused to provide health flashes for the last year, and have sent back a number of FOI requests without dealing with them after sitting on them for literally years and going through all stages of appeal. Now, they are off to the commissioner for another go.
The process of FOI put in place by this government is poorly resourced, and appears to be one that only wants to provide the information it wants to provide. A change is needed and, in particular, I believe a significant change, in respect to capturing of e-mails and the document handling system for government. However, I digress.
When I last presented a bill to make changes to the Information Act, the member for Nelson was concerned he did not have enough information in respect to the issues of the dominant purpose clause that was in the bill. In this instance, we have removed that clause from the bill. I will be pursuing this later and I forward to engaging the member for Nelson and the government in respect to the concerns they have.
The member for Nelson also raised not having enough time to consider the issues contained within the bill last time. To address that I say here, and I will in writing through you, Madam Speaker, to the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: I am here. I am listening.
Mr BOHLIN: … I am available to provide you with a briefing on this bill ahead of its consideration later this year.
The member for Nelson also raised that he looked forward to the government working and bringing forward a combined effort in respect to the bill. I remind the member for Nelson through you, Madam Speaker, the government still has not undertaken and released its required review into the Information Act, and maybe the member for Nelson could use his new-found influence on government to get that commitment.
The Country Liberals are not interested in sitting on our hands, and waiting for this government. We are interested in getting on with the job unlike, it would appear, those opposite. This bill has within its limitations on the amount of information which can be provided without cost - which was a concern the member for Nelson had raised outside the Chamber - in that people could ask for all sorts of information and have no regard to the cost on departments. While we on this side disagree, as there will be a political consequence of doing such a thing and the act has within it powers to prevent unreasonable requests, we have, as outlined above, put limitations on the amount which can be accessed without charge by MLAs.
In addition, there are further extensions of the ability for there to be reduced costs in the issuance of material from departments, and the Country Liberals believe this will further enhance our FOI laws.
I flag there is more reform required in making Territory FOI laws work as they should, and I will be bringing further changes forward in the future. However, this bill is incredibly reasonable, modest, and seeks to enhance the Territory’s FOI laws. I encourage all members to support it, in particular the two Independents, as to date the current Henderson Labor government appears unwilling to open up these laws. However, I look forward to being proved otherwise, and welcome their support also.
In closing, I believe the regulation put forward by the government is confusing, particularly as to what is covered by a government report, leaving too much to be unclear for those requesting and those processing these applications. Our bill is a simpler process.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Referral to Standing Orders Committee –
Mini-Statements to Replace Ministerial Reports
Referral to Standing Orders Committee –
Mini-Statements to Replace Ministerial Reports
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly refer the following matter to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report:
The establishment of a mechanism to allow mini-statements to replace what was formerly ministerial reports.
Suggested guidelines to be considered:
- There be a maximum of three mini-statements per day;
The opposition and crossbenchers be given one hour notice on topic to be discussed unless an urgent matter does not allow such notice;
Speaking times of – government, one speaker of five minutes duration; opposition, one speaker in reply, five minutes duration; one Independent, in reply two minutes; and government, one speaker in reply, three minutes.
Since coming to parliament, there have been reports at the beginning of parliamentary sittings each day. It was only last year they were scrapped as part of the reform of parliamentary procedures. I agreed to those changes at the time, as I thought the way reports were delivered by the government was unfair to both the opposition and the crossbenchers.
There was little or no warning as to what was in the reports, meaning those on this side of the House, especially the shadow minister, had no time to prepare a reasonable response to the report. This meant the government could use the reports as a free hit, knowing the other side would not be prepared. I believe I have sat through a few of those debates.
One of the classics was the previous member for Goyder when the Primary Industry minister made a report on the vine leaf rust. Most of us knew what it was because there was a quarantine area around Darwin which prevented grape vine leaves being removed from this area. Our good friend, the previous member for Goyder, spoke about how his weeds were really bad and you have to be careful with weeds. We had to whisper in his ear that he was on the wrong trail. So, instead of having an informed debate, we had a debate, unfortunately, where the shadow minister at that time was caught off guard and did not have time to prepare an adequate response.
It would be fair to say the reports were used as an opportunity for self-promotion of the government, and there was little chance for a well prepared alternative view to be given in response. It should be noted it also gave both sides of the House the chance to agree on some important matters. We should not lose sight of that. It was not only just about a debate. In the case of the vine leaf rust, if the government had not actually got rid of all the plants with that very serious disease, if it had got into southern grape vines it would have been a disaster. Obviously, the opposition, at that stage, would have said, ‘Well done’, because it was one of those bipartisan issues where both sides could say the government had made a good effort ensuring this did not spread south. It is not just about having a debate here, but also working together on some important issues.
I feel reports, in many cases, were beneficial and they allowed an update of current issues or gave an opportunity for announcement on government policy, or whatever. If there was an urgent statement to be made then the report was a chance to let the House know. It could have been something about cyclone preparedness, or something the public had to know about fairly quickly.
This motion simply reinstates the reports in a fairer and more open and transparent way. It requires the opposition and crossbenchers to be given one hour’s notice on the topic to be discussed in the mini-statements. It allows the shadow minister equal time to respond, and still allows a response from the crossbench and a from the government minister. It allows for a maximum of three mini-statements, but it could be the government, on some days, simply does not have anything to report - although, I find that hard to believe.
The idea of reports was good. I just felt it had been used by the government for its own benefit, without really believing in this side of parliament having equality when it came to responding. People see through these things when they are listening to parliament. If they know the government, all of a sudden, snapped a little trick question on the opposition, and they see the opposition is struggling, that might be politics but the ordinary person says it is not fair.
There needs to some fairness in this place at times, where we can have good debate. I would rather have a good debate than poor debate which is simply poor because we were a little tricky in promoting something the other side did not know. That will happen in parliament, of course. In Question Time; that is built into it. However, when we were dealing with reports, it was a chance to discuss some serious matters. It could be also discussing lighthearted matters. However, it did add something to parliament that is actually lacking at the present time.
If the opposition wanted to debate, you would either have to put up with a censure motion - which can be a bit over the top and theatrical sometimes - whereas a statement only comes so often and, sometimes, they can drag on for a couple of days and you do not get chances to debate some of those issues. The mini-statements fill a gap in relation to some current issues that would be worthwhile for at least some debate in parliament. From that debate, of course, then you can raise some other issues in Question Time, and in relation to some legislation which has been presented.
Madam Speaker, this motion does not ask members necessarily support the idea but, instead, it will go to the Standing Orders Committee for examination. I simply put forward some of my ideas. Other members might think it is a poor idea because it is a lot of work and they will have to start writing reports. Other people might be happy to see them go. However, if we can raise the level of debate, make the debate more sensible, and debate issues people find are current at present, even if it is only for a small time in the morning, that is good. If we allow the opposition to have one hour’s notice that makes it more open and transparent. It will allow the opposition to have at least equal time.
That is fair; we do it with statements. With statements, the shadow minister gets the same time as the minister. It is great if the Independents can have a bit of a crack, but the Chief Minister recognises we are crossbenchers. The three minutes gives an adequate time for the minister to respond to the comments which have been put forward.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I note the Opposition Leader will probably be speaking on this motion. Government will support the motion. The member for Nelson did flag, when these changes were brought about, it might be timely to review and change the whole issue of calling the mini-statements some time later. I understand some of the reservations the opposition and the Independents had about ministerial reports in the form they were in previously. I can understand that.
However, I say to the member for Nelson, as government ministers in Question Time, we could be asked about anything by opposition members. We do not have what the topic is going to be flagged at all. Sometimes we deduce certain things from the newspapers and statements made in the media, but the element of surprise is one important component of Question Time. That is why, as ministers, we study very hard and have great big books that thick to try to get across, at least, the major issues within our portfolios. Or, if a question is asked of us we do not know the answer to, I always try to say I do not know the answer, and try to get back to the member with the answer to the particular question, hopefully, by the end of Question Time.
From government’s point of view, the reports - as I will call them - were an opportunity to put positive or important matters before the parliament. Without having access to reports anymore, we find ourselves considering whether we need to raise these matters through a question or, indeed, during adjournment debate. I found myself, as minister, during an adjournment debate actually talking about things that formerly, I would have done within the report - something that might not warrant a question or a whole ministerial statement.
We recognise and accept it is an important component. We are certainly willing to engage in discussion with the Independent member for Nelson and the opposition on a format for this. I am not sure what position the opposition might have on this particular issue.
One issue I flag is what time of day the member might be thinking about having these reports. Government is quite open to having this discussion within the Standing Orders Committee. We are quite happy to support this motion and have the further discussions with the committee. We will be supporting the motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in a similar vein, the opposition has on the record a number of concerns about the use of this facility, as devised by government in the past, and found it of great concern. Now there is a revisitation of this particular practice introduced by the Labor government - a rethink, and a proposed reshaping of this vehicle about which we have had a lot of discussion - it needs to be properly weighed and assessed in the Standing Orders Committee. Therefore, we give that support.
The matters that were raised for many years with regard to this practice which had been instigated by the current government, still stand, in essence. I understand the modification which has been recommended by the Independent member for Nelson but, nonetheless, I believe there are some deeper considerations that need to be undertaken with regard to the purpose of the parliament, what is our core business, and the need for robust debate on substantial matters.
I have, perhaps as a conservative, an aversion to this element being allowed to proceed too quickly. That is why it must go through the Standing Orders Committee. As a former teacher, nearly every classroom starts the day while they are all trying to get their bearings with the morning news; what exciting things happened. Then, It adds that element of becoming a vehicle for showcasing certain initiatives of government; they get an extra media release forum or platform to be able to fly a few balloons, and we do not have Question Time until later in the day. From that flow a number of serious considerations, principally being the function of the parliament to serve the interests of the people rather than to serve the political process.
The right place, of course, is a Standing Orders Committee to do that deeper consideration of the whole structure of how we do our business, the real purpose of such an activities conducted in the parliament, and should or should not this particular practice be a part of our Standing Orders and operation within the parliament. The right place to go is, of course, Standing Orders Committee. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the motion has our support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank both speakers for their support of the motion. I take up the points the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. Yes, part of a debate around the time is whether these particular reports take place at the beginning of the days sittings purely to get more publicity. That is something, I can imagine, which will create some debate within the Standing Orders Committee.
I must admit, I imagine if any government of any calibre actually is in power, they will, of course, try to use the timing of statements to the best of their ability to get the most publicity. That is the way a lot of politics is done. I do take up your point. I am easy as to what time of a day such reports could occur. If we wanted to get away from that possibility which has been used as a means to get on the midday news, then it could be that we have it later in the evening.
The Standing Orders Committee, I imagine, would certainly look into it. It could go back and look at whether such a reporting system is done in other states and how it is also applied there.
Regardless of what time, or the length of time we speak about it, it gives it a little more room for some, possibly, minor debates, but it does add a little - I was going to say to the colour of the debate, but I did not really mean that. I mean more options for the debate, if you could put it that way. We tend to have great big debates on big subjects and, occasionally, there are smaller issues that need to be identified in parliament, need to be recorded in Hansard. From some of those small debates, of course, the bigger debates can occur. The idea of the mini-statement report at least being discussed within the Standing Orders Committee can raise all those issues the Leader of the Opposition raised.
The minister also raised a number of issues; how he spent time talking about matters you could probably say were purely policy issues from his department. He was using the adjournment debate for that. I believe that is a little sad. I must admit I would get annoyed with dorothy dixers too, because I often thought the subject of the question could be something for a ministerial report, or a ministerial statement. I believe there are some pluses and minuses in all this.
The Standing Orders Committee will certainly give it proper scrutiny. I believe by the time they look at the options, what the problems were in the pre-2010 system, and how it works in other states, the Standing Orders Committee will arrive at an intelligent decision, based on all of those things, to bring back to the House.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Budget Papers for Indigenous Affairs
Budget Papers for Indigenous Affairs
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker I move that the Northern Territory government produces a specific and detailed budget paper setting out:
(a) all funding provided to departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs and where and when these funds where expended and on what; and
In August, during the no confidence motion against the Henderson government, I spoke to this Assembly about all of us working together to create a kind and more harmonious, more tolerant, and more accepting community in the Northern Territory. At the time, I said to the Assembly, and I quote directly from the Parliamentary Record:
- It has always been my dream that we all - Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal - can work together for a better future. It is still my hope that this Territory can be the jewel of Australia. We can only do this if we look after each other, speak up for each other, and care for one another. The best hope for us, as a Territory, is if we look each other in the eye and support each other. The place of our birth or the colour of skin should not be the things that divide us.
Six months later this is still my hope; it always will be my hope. I do not see it as a far-flung vision, nor do I see it as an unachievable ambition as remote as the communities and the people we in this House represent. I know it is obtainable; it is within the grasp of all of us. It can be achieved in the lifetime of every one of us if we make it our common purpose, our focus, from today and into the future.
I know I speak for all members in this Assembly when I say what I outlined in August is the shared vision of all us here. To my former colleagues in the Labor Party, to the 11 members of the opposition Country Liberals, and to the Independent member for Nelson, I say I know your motivation for being here is to bring about change for the better, right across the Northern Territory. I know you would not have run the gauntlet of a life in public office if you did not believe you could make a difference to how the Northern Territory works, and endeavour to improve the lives of all Territorians.
Where we all differ is in the methodology we use to bring about change. Again, though I can generalise when I say something, we all agree change is desperately needed if we are going to steer the Territory into calmer waters after years of turmoil and turbulence. Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, want peace in their lives and, while government policies and government decisions cannot guarantee they will be achieved, they can at least provide a pathway to a safer, prosperous, and more secure future.
Territorians are a great bunch of people, who love living in the Northern Territory; we love the place we are born in and the place we grow up in. It is a unique place, and it is unique because of the different nationalities and the different people we have. There is much more about this place that sets us apart from the rest of the country; indeed, the rest of the world. In the Territory, I believe there is great respect for Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people. The roots of Aboriginal culture in the Northern Territory go back tens of thousands of years. They are a source of pride for all Australians, but that is not to say people do not have concerns about living here. One of the reasons is the gulf between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians and the social hardship caused by the significant divide.
It is very safe to say there is a genuine feeling among the wider community for the thousands of Aboriginal people who either choose, or who are forced, to sleep rough because of poverty or because they are a long way from their homes. It is also safe to say that, mixed up with the frustration and anger directed at Indigenous people who, for whatever reason, cross the line and break the law, there is also sympathy of the poverty and apparent hopelessness that appears to be ingrained in sections of the Indigenous community.
On the other hand, I believe there is also great resentment, confusion, and frustration that the vast sums of money apparently spent on Indigenous people is having no impact at all. There is no doubt that all layers of government - Territory and Commonwealth - spend money on Indigenous policy. The question is, how much?
The prevailing view is it is a lot; that the welfare arrangements for Indigenous people - notwithstanding the quarantining implemented as part of the federal intervention - are unfairly weighted against the non-Indigenous community. That belief is that money is splashed on Aboriginal people by governments for little or no outcome. It is this type of sentiment that prompted the insidious revolution in the state of Queensland that led to the rise of Pauline Hanson and the reactionary forces of the One Nation Party.
The picture I have just outlined is buttressed by a view in the community that, into the future, the situation affecting Indigenous people and the security and the welfare of non-Indigenous people can only become worse. However, never let it be forgotten that we in this Chamber are in singularly unique positions to bring about change. That is why we are all here.
My motion today involves the very important subject of Indigenous expenditure that I touched on a few moments ago, and the openness and the transparency of money spent implementing Indigenous policy right across the Northern Territory. ‘Openness’, ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ are buzz words of free government everywhere. In fact, upon reflection, if the Chamber will allow, I will retract the previous sentence. ‘Openness’, ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ are buzz words of free oppositions everywhere. Once in government, oppositions have a habit of rolling down the shutters and putting idealism into a file marked ‘U’ for Unnecessary Information.
In my motion, I seek a significant change in the way Indigenous revenues are expended in the Territory. Over recent years, there has been much debate about whether the Martin and Henderson Labor governments have spent monies allocated for Indigenous improvement in the areas for which they were intended. The argument transcends politics. Community leaders such as the former head of Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Barry Hansen, as well as Charles Darwin University academic and Labor Party advisor, Rolf Gerritsen, have spoken of their concerns that money allocated to Indigenous benefit is not being spent in the areas where it is targeted.
A Senate inquiry into the allocation of money was, at best, inconclusive. What it did confirm, though, was a change is required; a change that will take the politics out of Indigenous spending and will guarantee Aboriginal people are getting their share of Commonwealth and Territory revenues, and put a stop to this sniping and bickering in this Chamber and beyond over an issue that is crucial to all Territorians.
As it stands today, we simply do not know. The Henderson government says 52.4% of its budget is spent on implementing Indigenous policy - 52.4% of the budget on approximately 30% of the population. That bald figure, that statistic, only adds to the confusion and doubt and further begs the question: ‘Why are things so bad out there?’ It does nothing to expand on where the money came from and where, once it leaves the Treasurer’s coffers, the money actually goes.
Let us look for a moment at education. What proportion of money spent on education in the Northern Territory is actually spent on Indigenous people? How do we actually know for sure what the percentage is? Is the figure collated per Indigenous student or is it based on the school, the suburb, the town, or the community? How do we know? How do we actually know from the budget process whether that figure includes an Indigenous student at Moil Primary School or whether it includes a white student at Papunya?
What about in the area of Corrections? How much of that precise, very specific figure of 52.4% is spent on the Corrections process for Indigenous people? Let us not forget, in excess of 80% of the prison population is made up of Aboriginal Territorians.
My motion calls for an opening up of the budget process in a way that will have long-lasting benefits for Indigenous people and all Territorians. What I want to see is the publication of specific and detailed budget paper that set out: (a) all funding provided to the departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs and where, when and on what these sums are spent on; and (b) whether funding is derived from the Territory or from the Commonwealth, where each of these different funding areas are provided and expended, and what outcomes are achieved.
In my view, this would not require a significant shift from what already takes place during the budget process. These include, of course, the budget speech - probably one of the highlights of any Treasurer’s year - a document which is widely listened to and read across the Territory. Then we have one of the key Treasury documents, the Fiscal and Economic Outlook. It is this document that discusses the current and topical issue in public finance from the Territory’s perspective and analyses whether the financial data provided meets the Territory’s obligations under the uniform presentation framework as agreed between the governments. As all Treasury workers would know, it is a crucial document which talks about the money coming in and the money going out.
Third, of course, is the budget itself. It amounts to a department-by-department overview of programs, projects, and monetary allocations for the upcoming financial year. It is a key document that sets out what the government is committing to, as detailed information about agency budgets grouped by ministerial portfolios. It includes agency budgets, highlights appropriation amounts, output statements, and accrual financial statements for all agencies within the Northern Territory budget sector.
Additionally, there is the infrastructure program paper which lists the projects which have passed the government’s worthiness test. This is about government’s investment. This is an interesting paper to read because it tells not only what was done but, of course, what has not been done. There are many examples of infrastructure projects being passed over or revoted for other more important projects, particularly targeting voters in the northern suburbs around election time.
Other documents that support these key papers are the Budget Overview, the Northern Territory Economy Overview and, of course, the glossy brochure for the bush, the Regional Highlights document. I know for a fact many members in the Chamber and in the community take the time and make the effort to read these important documents, particularly the Northern Territory Economy, as a snapshot of where we are today and what is on the horizon. I commend Treasury staff who gather together the information for these publications.
In parallel with the Territory budget process, the Commonwealth follows soon after with its own budget papers, no doubt causing a few headaches for our Treasury officials as numbers are rejigged and new policies accounted for. Still, they prepare a series of papers and a range of reports on a variety of programs.
It is with this motion in mind I turn to the area of accounting for Indigenous expenditure. The Productivity Commission is now working on a Council of Australian Government’s 2007 commitment to report transparently on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians. The commission notes:
- Despite the commitment of significant government expenditure over many years, disparities between outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians persist (particularly in areas of life expectancy, child mortality, educational attainment, and economic participation).
I am aware there have been commitments endorsed by COAG in Darwin last year to move forward with a national report on Indigenous expenditure, and that a steering group has been established to develop a reporting methodology to meet that goal. I look forward to reading, in coming years, a concise, collated report on Indigenous expenditure at a national level, and recognise the work which needs to be done to establish the necessary framework for collecting and reporting information on government expenditure on services to Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is not too early, therefore, for governments to start thinking about ways to facilitate this reporting process, and it is here the Northern Territory government can take the leading role.
In this motion, I put to the House it should be a requirement in the preparation of the budget papers that government prepares a separate paper that collates the proposed expenditure on all Indigenous-related program projects and infrastructure investments in the Northern Territory. In the same way the rural highlights or infrastructure spending is given its own space, its own book if you like, under my plan so would Indigenous spending. This budget paper would report in individual agency and individual programs, and identify individual Indigenous contribution components. At that line in my preamble above, it would be an important next step on the way to putting to bed the discussion in relation to whether Aboriginal people are receiving too large or too little a slice of the budget pie.
I believe everyone in this House, and many Territorians besides, understand the answer is no, but it would be excellent to have the entry data that would support that assertion. This motion is non-political and, obviously, non-binding on government. If it is supported by the Chamber, quite possibly it will have made a contribution only to debate and to filling up pages in the Parliamentary Record. Of course, it is my hope the rest of the Chamber shares my belief that Indigenous spending does warrant its own budgetary publication.
Earlier in the day, I heard the member for Arafura say in this House our communities expect us to be honest, to be answerable. She also said today, ‘I am also answerable to Aboriginal people in my electorate’. I say, with the greatest respect, to the member for Arafura and other honourable members in this House, that one way of improving accountability in our management of Indigenous policies is to open up the books for more rigorous public scrutiny.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my hope this motion will be accepted and, if not in time for the 2010-11 budget, this reform will be in place in time for 2011-12.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion. The Northern Territory government already monitors and reports on expenditure on services to Indigenous Territorians, and we will certainly continue to refine the way we do that.
Addressing Indigenous disadvantage certainly remains a key challenge for all governments right across Australia. We know taxpayers and the community generally want confidence that public funds are targeted, reach the ground, and make a difference. Public reporting of this expenditure is important. We are leading the way in setting a model. By no means do we say the model is perfect, but we do say that we, on this side of the House, have acknowledged there needs to be a beginning, a starting point.
Our Indigenous Expenditure Review is an independent audit that identifies Indigenous revenue and Indigenous-related expenditure across the Northern Territory budget. This methodology is assessed by the Auditor-General, and has been independently verified by reputable commentators such as Professor Ken Wiltshire and Saul Eslake. It is important to mention this regarding the process and methodology, because I am incredibly focused on wanting to ensure government processes about methodology are clear and succinct but, at the same time, recognise this is new area and new ground the Northern Territory has taken in wanting to ensure, under a Labor government, we can collect the data and ensure that data is out there in the community.
Most recently, the Council of Australian Governments has recognised the work we are doing in this area. In fact, it was COAG, on seeing the work being done here in the Northern Territory, which has directed all states to follow this lead. It is an important step nationally. All governments have now committed to a national scheme of reporting on Indigenous expenditure, nationally and by jurisdiction. I repeat, I am not saying the system we have is perfect - it is a work in progress, we can always improve and we must always improve - but we have set a bar high for the states to follow.
With other jurisdictions following our lead, we will be able to compare expenditure on Indigenous-related services in each state and territory. The Northern Territory is an active participant in developing this COAG national Indigenous expenditure report process. The methodology for this report is being developed across all governments with expert assistance from such groups as the Productivity Commission, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Importantly, the data collection for this report will involve the identification of Indigenous-specific expenditure by functional area, as well as the use of mainstream services by Indigenous people. These reports will provide for a robust and public analysis of Indigenous expenditure across all government services.
The most recent Northern Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review was conducted for the 2006-07 financial year. Nationally, it is only the second review ever undertaken. The first one was commissioned by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling. It is important to acknowledge this Indigenous Expenditure Review was undertaken before the Northern Territory government’s $286m Closing the Gap commitment and the significant increased Commonwealth funding under the emergency response. If we go back a couple of years, it was the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who had the vision to begin this process.
Despite not encompassing significant additional funding which is accelerating joint government work to support Indigenous Territorians, the review found 52% of our entire budget is spend on Indigenous-related services for 30% of our population. I certainly take on board the comments by the member for Macdonnell relating to that data collection. It is something we must continually be vigilant about. Examining the human service-related agencies of Health, Education and Training, Housing, Local Government, Sport, Police, and Justice, the audit found the proportion of Indigenous-related expenditure was 56.4%. In Health specifically, around 60% of the Health budget is spent on Indigenous-related health expenditure. Improving Indigenous health is a key challenge. This assessment was recently confirmed by the independent Australian Institution of Health and Wellbeing. This financial year, the government is expecting to spend approximately $2.18bn on services to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
Honourable members would know the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has also looked at levels of federal and Northern Territory government spending on Indigenous affairs and social services in the Northern Territory. A very spurious claim by CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion, that the Territory was underspending in Indigenous affairs was dismissed by the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry found no evidence of underspending in Indigenous affairs by this government. In fact, the Senate inquiry endorsed the significant progress we are making in Indigenous policy and service provision under Closing the Gap, and an increasing number of national partnership agreements with the Commonwealth. The Senate inquiry rebutted the claims the Territory government receives funding from the GST pool to enable it to address Indigenous remote infrastructure as not accurate.
We have heard in recent times the member for Braitling make claims about the Commonwealth Grants Commission, estimates for the cost of delivering services, and alleged underspending by the Northern Territory government. The Commonwealth Grants Commission submission to the Senate inquiry mentioned earlier made clear:
- The Commission’s ‘funding formula’ does not contain any expected, or target, or ideal level of expenditure by State, program, location or intended service recipient ...
Given the Commonwealth Grants Commission does not make specific expenditure allocations, it is not possible to compare actual expenditure to allocations. The CLP is wrong; they disregarded the findings of the Senate inquiry and the advice of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Unlike members opposite, we are certainly not interested in that kind of political point scoring. I recognise the importance of this motion coming before the House so we can get to the heart of the matter, to work together in improving the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
Regarding Closing the Gap national partnerships, we recognise the enormous work required to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and that the Territory cannot do that alone. We have a small population, a small tax base, and the disadvantage in remote areas has been created by decades of neglect at both a federal and Northern Territory level. It will take significant investment and commitment to address - not just in dollars, but in human resources over a long period of time, and a continued commitment over that long period of time.
We are making progress in partnership with the Australian government. We have signed up with the National Agreements on Health Care, Education and Early Childhood, Skills and Workforce, Disability, Housing, Remote Service Delivery, and Indigenous Economic Participation, to name just a few specifically addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Under these agreements and our Closing the Gap program, $1.5bn will be spent directly on Indigenous-related programs over the next three years to 2012-13. These are very real and positive partnerships to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
In May last year, this government announced its key policy platform of A Working Future to address the infrastructure service gaps we inherited in our 20 growth towns. The member for Macdonnell was an incredible key part of that launch. I know, in conversations with her at the time, and subsequently, wanting to ensure these growth towns have substantial funding has always been a commitment and intent of the member for Macdonnell. I also know, in taking on this role, it is a road I now walk in making sure, with the growth of these towns, we have the data that is required to be able to see these towns grow - not in just the physical locations of these towns, but also in the public service, in the bureaucracy, in the Treasury, and in the data that is collected. There has to be a new way of thinking. There has to be an understanding the data collected is not just centred on Darwin city, Palmerston, or Alice Springs. We are needing very real and clear data with a methodology that adequately reflects the needs of the people in the regions, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal.
The roll-out of A Working Future is well under way across all Northern Territory government agencies, driven by a very dedicated Service Delivery Coordination Unit, the SDCU, and the work of the Independent Coordinator-General for Remote Service Delivery, Mr Bob Beadman. I understand the need to keep the management of this work focused and on track in delivering key improvements. Importantly, this work is helping to target and maximise benefits from our new investments.
We are well under way with our detailed analysis, town by town, of what funding is going where, and review of our investment strategies, to ensure we are getting the return on investment expected by taxpayers, town residents, and all the people who look to our growth towns for services. I point out this is ground-breaking; it is a new era, a new area. We are creating an improved delivery of service. The social fabric of the Northern Territory is changing and people know all of this is new, and it is always a continual work in progress. However, from the outset, our government is absolutely committed to making sure we get the basics and the process right; that we can at least keep working on the methodology of how we can deliver these services.
All of the Territory’s mainstream services are used by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians, and agencies do not deliver separate programs. In most cases, it would not be possible, or even practical or sensible, to separate the Indigenous component of Territory services. There are a couple of reasons for that. One example is Royal Darwin Hospital. Our key hospital provides services for the whole of the Northern Territory. Its budget this year is $245m, almost a quarter of the Health budget. We recognise, as well, the growing population across the Northern Territory. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown us that, in the Northern Territory, the Indigenous population will be almost half the population of the Northern Territory.
It is incumbent that those in leadership roles, and whoever is in government, is planning for that growth and recognising whatever we are growing has to be for all people and be based on equality and services any Australian citizen receives anywhere else in the country. It is a big goal, it is a bold goal, it is a big vision, but we are out there and we are doing it.
In speaking to the second part of the motion, I will outline the funding sources available to the Territory. There are three types of Territory revenue: the own source revenue, GST, and the tied payments. The Territory has complete discretion as to how it allocates own source revenue and GST funding. As members will acknowledge, the Territory has limited capacity for their own source revenue, with a small population and, as I said earlier, an even smaller tax base. The GST funding is a main contributor to the core services. The increase in GST funding we have seen has gone directly into improving core services. There is always going to be a question, and all members need to be vigilant about the GST. I certainly am, as the Minister for Indigenous Development, in the big plans I have to carry through in these areas.
Tied payments from the Commonwealth generally comprise between 15% and 20% of total revenue, and are already provided to agencies under separate appropriation, termed Commonwealth appropriation. Examples of these include, as we all know, include SIHIP and the Closing the Gap national partnership payments. Other national partnership agreements have been developed and agreed at COAG to support high-needs groups,
Regarding reporting on outcomes – which is a really important point the member for Macdonnell raised - of the delivery of the budget, I take that on board. It is something I am keen to see strengthened. I know the staff in Treasury work hard, and it is good to hear you commending them regarding the regional partnerships, which is important. It is very well for people to come in here and have a go at one another, but there is a significant amount of work which goes on in the background and I thank you for that commendation of Treasury staff. However, I would like to see, in the steps towards the delivery of the next budget, some of those points taken on, member for Macdonnell. I am sure we will have ongoing discussions over that.
There are additional reporting and monitoring requirements under the tied funding arrangements with the Commonwealth, including independent assessment of our progress by the COAG reporting council. The Territory is committed to supporting the accountability and reporting requirements embodied in the new national approach to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Budget papers and annual reports already provide a detailed breakdown of funding and expenditure by agencies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the motion on but, for the reasons stated, I cannot support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to know where to start. I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing on the motion. It is a very important motion, and one which will go a long way to helping solve some of the problems we have in the Northern Territory in relation to Indigenous affairs.
I listened to the member for Arnhem speak after the member for Macdonnell. I picked up two different things. The member for Macdonnell spoke with personal passion about things she really believes in. The member for Arnhem, I know, sees things differently than the way she speaks. However, it would be good to have a debate about some recognition of the reality of what is going on across the Territory.
What the member said about COAG and how the money comes in, and all this - we know that; we know how it works. However, it is not working on the ground. If anyone had their eyes open, they would recognise it is time for something to change so we can move forward with advancement. The Territory is filled with a litany of failures in Indigenous affairs - just filled with it. Often, I hear the member for Arafura. We are in different parties, but she, at times, talks about what she really thinks.
I wonder how much the three people I believe have the most interest in this area from the other side - the members for Arafura, Stuart, and Arnhem - actually get in and fight for change. This is a very positive motion the member for Macdonnell has brought on. This is something which could get us to a grounding where we could see where we actually are. We have offered before to have a bipartisan approach on these things, and it has been rejected by this government. I just wonder!
We have moved to a position in the Northern Territory where Labor has lost the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people right across the Territory. There is a terrible level of no hope and despair for such a large number of Indigenous Territorians - it is terrible. In 2007, when former federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, took a leadership position in the Territory seeking to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, there was hope. People the length and the breadth of the Northern Territory had an opinion about what Mal Brough was doing. Some thought it was over the top, many took a bit of a wait-and-see approach, and a large majority of Territorians applauded his conviction and his steely determination to take on what I see as the biggest challenge the Northern Territory faces.
While the views of Mal Brough were differing on how he approached it in many areas, including consultation, and on the measures and the language, there was no criticism at all about something that needed to be done – none – and there is not any criticism today in that similar regard. The view that the current position now, or in 2007, was situation normal is just not correct. It is not right and it is not what people believe.
In 2007, it was time for change; in 2010 it is time for change. Unfortunately, we are still in a predicament where Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are looking for leadership and for change on these issues. Parliament is supposed to be one place to provide that leadership. It is a vacuum. What occurred following the change of the federal government in 2007 was a releasing of the reins, removing leadership in Australia, signalling all the measures would be removed; that normality of dysfunction would be brought back for one and all. Federal Labor widely applauded it, rolled back the measures, rolled back the quarantine. This is what is discussed on the street.
After that 2007 election, we still find ourselves in a vacuum where no one is steering the ship, a position where Indigenous Territorians, many of whom are walking around aimlessly, wondering when the shires will be fixed, when houses will be built, when roads and bridges will be constructed so kids can get to school, when businesses will be developed, jobs will be created and, more importantly, children will be protected.
The vacuum of leadership is cementing the future for many - and it is not just Aboriginal Territorians who are affected. Let me state it is just vented frustration about what government does so wrong. Government does so much so wrong, and it is the result of a vacuum of leadership in the Northern Territory that brings about this venting of frustration.
The Northern Territory is a multicultural society, and it is strong in that. It is multicultural in terms of Indigenous and non-Indigenous for this specific conversation. We are tolerant, we are supportive, we love one another, and we are brothers and sisters, black and white. The history of culture in the Northern Territory is embraced, and there is cooperation in seeking a future of togetherness for a more conducive society that is proud of its history.
I would love to see the day when Indigenous language was taught in schools to everyone, not just Indigenous kids. It is a multicultural society where we all get along, and we all appreciate each other’s history. However, the predicament across the Territory is where some line has been crossed with many soft voters forming negative and unforgiving views towards the local Aboriginal population. That is a negative as a result of the lacklustre leadership of the Northern Territory government.
Before I go on, let me make it clear I am not generalising about all Aboriginal people; however, I am talking about specific concerns to a large demographic within that population. It is somewhat of an elephant in the room people are afraid to speak of for fear of persecution.
In my maiden speech, I spoke to parliament and declared I will be seeking action on Indigenous issues, and I intend to be heard, while the government will, no doubt, play dumb and target me. Through their networks and information delivery mechanisms, we are hearing that story. Their comments of: ‘Oh, you are not black enough to be called Indigenous’ and ‘You have not been in the Territory long enough to speak on these issues’, are absolutely ridiculous. If you have a passion about something, you speak about it. It is appalling the way the government treats people, including me, on these matters.
The member for Stuart said: ‘I was born and bred in the Territory’. That is probably part of his problem because, until you can go outside and see the way society should run and the way people should be treated - and the member for Arnhem said she has a bold goal and vision about how people should have equity in services. We all agree on that. That is not what is happening; it is just a bold vision or plan.
Many see Aboriginal affairs - both the progression of, and disadvantage of - as an out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue. Some people live and work in the environment of Indigenous affairs, but there are many people in the community for whom these issues sit on the periphery. For those who do sit on the periphery, they view the consequences of Aboriginal social and cultural dysfunctionality and disadvantage as impacting on them personally. They feel a sense of ownership. These people have an appreciation of the long-term damage this worsening problem circumventing Indigenous disadvantage is having on the very fabric of society, as all others issues are virtually subsumed by it.
You do not have to look too far for misery - whether you are in a remote community, a shopping centre in Alice Springs, a town camp in Katherine, or at the Parap shops. There has been much spoken about the situation of Family and Children’s Services in this Chamber. The debate is not only justified by the failures of this government, and the sad stories we read. On the streets, there is a particular note being written that there is genuine and heartfelt concern for the plight of Aboriginal children affected by this dysfunction. There is a great respect for Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people. There is genuine wont to see things improved.
Most people do not excuse the behaviour and broader social impact of the terrible dysfunction and hopelessness which grips many Aboriginal people - but not all. However, they understand it, and they want action. They appreciate the situation people are in. They do not like the law and order consequences or the dysfunction and the disadvantage that comes out of it, but they appreciate how it got to that point, and they want action. They are sick of seeing government throwing good money after bad.
Government has not only lost the hearts and minds of Indigenous Territorians, they have lost it from non-Indigenous Territorians. It is no wonder, because all we see is money going in but nothing getting done - good money after bad. There are no outcomes. We have heard the member for Arnhem, the minister, talking about the million dollar programs, the billion dollars here, but nothing is changing on the ground; that is what people care about.
We hear of children at risk, drunks on our streets, overcrowding and damaged housing. I could go on, but it is not going to serve a purpose for the argument to talk about the negatives. I walk on top of the fence. Not taking a perceived bash at the Aboriginal approach is one way to explain it. I take a position on the fence of understanding the issue, how it has reached that point, and some of the solutions; balancing the punitive with the social responses. The Country Liberals have been in the distance for a long time on these issues. It is not saying we failed over the last 27 years, as the government wants to say; we achieved much. We have been away and, now, we are back. No more are we back than on Indigenous affairs.
I must thank the party and the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition for his guidance on this issue, and for prioritising it through such an important point. However, we are not in government, and it is Labor which has lost the hearts and mind of Territorians on this heart-wrenching situation. It is a situation where there is now a climate of no respect and we wonder if we made this so – if government failures have encouraged and developed the situation of what is often classified as reverse racism. How did we make this happen? Was it us? How do we resolve it? By making more and more funding announcements, more and more programs, supporting an inflating industry that perpetuates misery and hate and, ultimately, the neglect of duty for the care and protection of children. What have we created by taking this approach? A situation, a development, a whole industry of waste that surrounds what can be classified as Aboriginal money; a whole industry just feeding off this disadvantage; an industry feeding off misery where everyone has a role, everyone is running around doing their job, trying to make improvements. All the while, the situation is just getting worse. The bridge at Palumpa is still not built - my point.
The situation is misunderstood by governments, both Territory and federal. These governments do not appreciate that every time they announce another program, more people will be brought to the Territory, people who will struggle to find a place to live because there are no houses which, effectively, is pushing rents higher through demand economics, and forces the most disadvantaged out of a tight housing market. They announce another program; people have to come to town to run that program. It puts pressure on the housing market and the people who have the least money to be able to afford to pay have to move out and they become homeless. This is the situation we find ourselves in. So, we see more homeless which, as we know, breeds alcoholism, antisocial behaviour, children not having a safe place to eat and sleep - misery, Madam Speaker, misery. That is what we are breeding.
What is this situation? It is a situation of inequality, what I would call economic inequality. Economic inequality where the average annual earnings of our most advantaged are far outstripping our most disadvantaged. The effects of income inequality is detailed in a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett titled The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better which specifies the complete breakdown in society and norms. I encourage the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Arafura to read the book. It will explain to you how spiralling income inequality, where there is a great disparity between the higher and the lower, spurs growth in mental illness. Health and social problems go out the window in the levels, obesity reigns, and education standards become poor. Teenage pregnancies go through the roof. Violence runs free on our streets. Breakdowns in community life and social relations occur. This inequality brings about the situation of environmental damage, harming social, economic, and cultural reform and progression.
That is the position where are in now. I do not have to go through those inequality levels for you to understand where these measures are in the Northern Territory. Teenage pregnancies, education - we have seen the NAPLAN results and I am not going to go into the social dysfunction. Government has the whole model so wrong. There is no leadership, no direction, and no action but money is coming out like a tap turned on. What is worse is children are still at risk. We are in dire straits. The saddest thing is that the poverty, the desperation, and the hopelessness appear to have become intergenerational. We fear Aboriginal youth and children are already destined for very limited opportunities in life, and will endure lives afflicted by poor health, poor education outcomes, and limited life expectancy. We have lost generations of Aboriginal people. I am worried we are about to lose another - the kids today - and that would be tragic.
Territorians are proud to be so, ever those who have not been here long. However, some of this pride is gone and, when looking forward to the next 10 to 20 years, people are not convinced it will get any better. In particular, they think rather than closing the gap, the gap will widen as another generation of kids are lost in poverty. The public will accept a hit in the hip pocket if it can be shown there is a way, a real plan, a mixture of hard and soft to turn the hopelessness that surrounds the current generation of Aboriginal children and youth into a better future than they have today.
Do you ever think we will win back the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory? Labor will not. The Country Liberal Party, more than anyone, must provide hope and opportunity for all children. The perplexing question for government is how to fix this problem - a problem they know, and the member for Arnhem knows, and would like to see fixed. It is one that is so large and so intrinsically linked to all facets of government across all portfolios, and appears too cumbersome for some and too immense for others. We must move towards clarifying where we are. No one knows what degree of input is going into Indigenous affairs, but we certainly see what the outcomes are.
I do not wish to stand here arguing about SIHIP, NAPLAN and prison numbers. I want to establish what the problem is. The key mechanism to achieve this outcome is to commence building a level of transparency to the degree of spending. This approach will allow the measurement of specific receipts from the Commonwealth designated to improve Indigenous outcomes and, then, parallel these figures with the level of inputs the Northern Territory government expends on specific program expenditure.
I am not talking about general business. General Business is about education for Territorians. It is about building and maintaining roads and providing health services such as emergency wards in hospitals. That is not targeting Indigenous-specific funding. All of these are areas of general business of government. Government should be providing what I call a basic level of services.
The process of this could be the development of a specific and detailed budget paper that supports this motion, setting out the details of all funding provided to Northern Territory government departments and agencies for Indigenous affairs, and how, where and when these funds are expended on what. They should clearly provide whether funding came from the Territory or from the Commonwealth and, for each of these different funding areas, how funding provided was expended, and what outcomes were achieved.
I received briefings from government departments on the direction things are heading. While the Country Liberals would take somewhat a different approach from a policy perspective, one thing we must do is tackle the matter with urgency and priority - something which is completely lacking from this government; there is no urgency and no priority. Leadership should drive this intent; leadership should drive urgency. Mal Brough took the bull by the horns head on. Whether you like all the elements of the previous emergency intervention or not, we had leadership and action.
This motion brought on by the member for Macdonnell is supported by the Country Liberals, and I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing this on. We provide the opportunity to work together with the Northern Territory government to move to a level of greater transparency. A specified and detailed budget paper would support greater accountability through the system of democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I hoped someone from the other side would speak because, if you heard the words which have been spoken, you would have some cause for a belief that what has been put on the table to discuss, would be responded to by those who have expressed views on this most significant of matters.
I am actually surprised I am speaking now, when I expected a member of the government to be engaging in this topic - particularly one of the Indigenous members. What I fear now is the case is this issue, once again, has been seen through a political prism: ‘It is only politics, after all, so we judge it accordingly and, therefore, do not speak to it’.
Politics is not going to solve any of these problems. I thought enough has been said in here which so clearly presented the challenge - with the words which have been put before us to contend with now - that we make a decision to get serious about the amount of money that is spent, and whether that spend results in noticeable and measurable difference. If we are clear about the money and what it is being spent on, and measure that against the outcome, then at least we can shift our attention to that point and bring about some change. They resist stating the core business is, in fact, being attended to without a full explanation which satisfies honourable members.
What is the core business? That is a question that has to be asked. What is the core business? If you see it through a political prism, it is quite plain it is to maintain your perception, your presence politically, within this arena.
However, if the core business is, in fact, to do as we are urged to do at the start of each parliament - to advance the true interests of all Territorians and, most notably, those who most need our help, If we approached it in that manner, then we would have a serious debate. The problem is still there. I find it very hard to believe my honourable colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, placed themselves in a position where they are not going to engage because, after all, this is political. I suspect that is the reason.
They must have this view that everything is, in fact, okay. Or perhaps they have pre-judged? They have seen us as though I have been in power for 26 years before the change of government in 2001. If you do the sums on that, I do not think I would actually be able to stand here today. I have been in government for 26 years, I am personally responsible, as all of us are here, for everything you think has gone wrong. Then you put yourself under this glorious light as being the ones who are going to fix everything, and you cannot trust us. It means I would have been in parliament for 36 years and personally responsible for everything. How dumb is that?
You talk about racism, discrimination, prejudice, and describe things to suit your own position. You are at the centre of it - your own ideology, justification, which are empty and shallow, making no difference at all to those who need the help. I have to say to you, this is my 11th year in this parliament. I have said, on more than five of those years when I am rising to speak on such matters, the same thing.
How is it that we cannot even come to having a meaningful discussion on this matter? We hope all the words that have been spoken this morning - I made a list of words, ‘we are committed’, ‘transformation’, ‘targeted’, ‘it is a bold policy’, ‘we are working hard, damn hard’. You talked about ‘embarking’ on something several times, about future forums, and about partnerships. Gobbledegook! That means nothing to those who need a response they can understand.
What sort of a response does a hungry person need? Food. What sort of response does a person who does not have a secure place to live? They need security; the family settled down. What about the school that is having some difficulty keeping a teacher there? They need a teacher there; they need to know that education is being valued. They need to know their modest contribution is actually being respected and it will grow. All these words have been spoken.
You cannot achieve a genuine partnership to achieve something by hoping it is going to happen to some place remote from here - because we are ‘working damn hard’ and we are engaging in some strategy or plan, or some forum is going to make a difference out there. Yet, right here, the community leaders cannot come together to decide on a common ground, cannot stand in the same place, cannot agree on something as basic as this.
We cannot even have a robust and honest debate about such matters without things being cast in a political context. There is prejudice clearly. You have painted the Country Liberals in a particular way, so it makes it a bit easier for you. You give yourself this veneer of respectability by all of these bureaucratic-type buzz words that are being sprouted on the other side. I hear the same kind of responses we have had when we were talking about protection of children.
How hard was it to bring a change of heart and mind? I hope that is the case; that we have seen an action from the government, because you had public pressure placed upon you. You had the blow torch to your belly, and then you adjusted your position. I will let you go, but you are saying this is the greatest thing that has ever happened, as though it was solely and completely your moral imperative to make this decision. We all know you were forced into it, dragged kicking and screaming. Why? It was the protection of children, after all, which was at stake here. Why was this so hard? Why, after all these years, is it we are just at this place? In a matter such as this, how is we still are having the same debates and the same begrudging deep resentful reluctance to be involved in serious business because you cannot take your ideology to anyone else?
You still think: ‘You were in power for 26 years’. I hope that does not happen because, if you are in power for 26 years, I reckon if you compare 26 for 26 - you think about that for a second, if you can escape from your own mind set; match the two. All the schools which were built, the railways. I was delayed twice coming from Palmerston this morning by a train. Where did that come from? All those schools; the ports. There were schools there; there were houses; there are houses there. It was hard then, and it is hard now, but one thing I have noticed …
Mr Giles: With a quarter of the budget.
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is right. One thing I have heard is it is not a money issue or a process issue; it is about your attitude. I have heard this, and it strikes a cord with me. An Aboriginal man said to me: ‘I am having real trouble. You mob’ - like I belong to some kind of tribe called the Country Liberals, but I happen to belong to the liberal conservative side. He said: ‘We used to fight with you mob, but we enjoyed having those arguments because, at the end of the argument, we were still standing together but we knew exactly what each other’s positions was, and we knew what to do from that point on. But, this new mob, we thought they were going to be real good and they were going to do all of this special stuff for us. They had told us that for a long time. But, the trouble is, the words are like they are with us, but their feet are a long way away from us. Their words are with us, but their feet are standing in a different spot. It is like they are ashamed of actually standing with us’.
It is confusing, and they do not know where they actually stand. That is a really hard thing for good, honest people who just want to know you are speaking the plain truth, and you are going to say ‘I disagree’, or ‘I agree’, or ‘This is as far as we can go’ – and you actually go that far, rather than gobbledygook that is designed to confuse even the more educated, let alone those having to grasp these ideas and this emotional stuff through culture and language: ‘What the hell is going on? I think I trust you, but I do not know. After 10 years, we are in a worse position’. However, you probably do not see that.
I believe we need to bring ourselves back to another place when we are dealing with this issue. I am not going to leave this. I have made a decision; I am staying around for some time, because I cannot leave while this is going to be presented before us and we just keep skating around it. I am going to stay and work on this. I have two pictures.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for showing and helping me understand some things, as a parliamentarian. I have appreciated some of the conversations I have had with different members of the Chamber. Member for Barkly, I have enjoyed some of the conversations we have had. I believe there is a place we could actually go to. I really appreciate the role the member for Braitling has played in our shadow Cabinet.
These matters are alive and well. You may judge us whichever way you want to judge us, but you had better get it right. There are things happening on our side; we are taking this seriously, we are not going to back away from this. I am not going to be put off by a discriminatory or prejudiced view which may suit those making the judgment. However, we are not moving from this spot.
There are two things I have seen which stay with me. One was when I was on the substance abuse committee with members of this parliament - some have left – where the member for Macdonnell led a delegation. We were at Nhulunbuy, in a room, and there was a group - all non-Indigenous, but they spoke in that bureaucratic language about programs, transformation, and partnerships. I do not think they used ‘stepwise’ but they were very much aware of problems. They were going to take strong action. They talked about implementing x, y and z. They were targeting, etcetera - all that kind of stuff. After we had asked them some questions they then wanted to take the opportunity to tell us of a really new approach they wanted to take. They started describing this theoretical framework that would allow them to engage in a new and innovative way with a social problem which was quite clear. I do not think programs fix anything; people do. We put our faith in programs and in money, but it is people who actually make change. I will get to that in a minute.
Anyway, they pumped this stuff up. It was just so complex, so big and broad, and their eyes lit up about ‘How good this would be if we received this money. You could get if from the feds, you could get it from the Territory government. You can go and lobby for us and we will get this money and run this program. This great air castle could be brought here to Nhulunbuy and it would make all this change to all these social problems’. To the credit of some of our members who had been together for some time and travelled all over the Territory, we smelt something.
What it was about was a program to keep those involved in this industry, in the industry. That is what it was about. How did we work that out? Because in a while you get to know people, and you can judge their motives if you read people, listen to them. I was starting to get a sense there was something funny going on. The question I asked was: ‘If you are serious about what we have seen and you really want to engage and walk in partnership, how much of your thinking, funding, and component preparation is devoted to the learning of the language or the culture so you could actually understand the people you want to help, and they understand you? How many here can speak any word of the language of the target group?’ Not one of them! Nor was there any consideration for any language or any cultural training, yet they wanted to impose some abstract concept that was going to bring about some kind of profound change, in language we scarcely understood. It was about the program which would make bugger-all difference, but would cost a heap. I withdraw, if that is offensive.
I contrast another picture I saw last year. I went to Brother Pye’s funeral and listened to the eulogies. What struck me, as the man was being wheeled to the back of the hearse, was there were tears of joy, celebration, and sadness. He was a man who had done so much, achieved so much, with the help of a few people. They did not even have sunscreen in those days. You would have been stinking hot out there in the sun, with no air-conditioning, out there in the backblocks building all kinds of things. They built something in the people. They physically built schools and bakeries and market gardens. With how much money? What is the difference?
I am stuck with that. What is the difference? What a wealthy country we are; that we think we will just shovel more money into it with the mistaken delusion the program is going to fix a political problem. Oh no, no, the problem is the stuff that is troubling the people in the northern suburbs. It is a political problem. So, more money: ‘Fair enough, we will spend more money and we will fix the problem’.
How is it that Brother Pye and the likes of Brother Pye and others, who have worked with nothing have done so much, and we with so much, have been able to achieve so little? That is what this motion is about: at least do an honest assessment. Perhaps members have come in now to engage in a debate; I hope that is the case.
This motion deserves support because the purpose of this is to get to a point where we match the money up to the quality of a program which is going to effect change. Then, we can get this analysis and be able to redirect and reshape the program. The program serves the need; the need needs to be addressed. We have some money; we have to ensure that money produces something. We must be an incredibly wealthy country if we do not even need to do a proper assessment, because the outcomes are not desirable, nor are they improving. You may think they are; I am convinced they are not. You need to do that assessment.
I do not know how you would resist this motion, but you have, obviously, by the indication of the one speaker from government. I have gained this impression you have found a nice secure little spot to stand and so no. Well, we are not going away. I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing on this motion. I have spoken in support alongside you on a number of occasions when you were with the government. Now you are an Independent, we look forward to doing much more of that.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the members for Blain and Braitling for understanding where this motion comes from; from a position of trying to help the most disadvantaged people in the Northern Territory - the people who have become an industry for the survival of lots of people now. The key factors of Aboriginal disadvantage now determine what kind of cars you have, how many houses you have, where you live, who your friends are, where your children go to school, and what kind of food you have on the table.
I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition and my parliamentary colleague and friend from a very long time - the member for Braitling. We go back to ATSIC times. He has shown his compassion. What he has seen in his tours of remote Aboriginal communities, where he lives in Alice Springs, and when he is travelling through to Tennant Creek has really played on his emotions, and made him realise this motion is a serious motion about transparency. It is about allowing a process to happen that is transparent to Indigenous people and Indigenous organisations, so they can see where their money is going. and what is happening to their money.
I want to reiterate on something the member for Braitling said. It is all very well to stand inside this House and say there are millions of dollars being put in to help; certain millions being put into education, and into child protection. The children out there have no safety. The children out there - Territory children - are still living in poverty. Our Territory children are still living in overcrowded houses. Children are living in the long grasses of Darwin.
There are people - not just Indigenous, but non-Indigenous - sitting outside the House of people - the very House we sit in and debate. With what we put inside the Northern Territory, you have a homeless, non-Indigenous man sitting outside every night to protest to this parliament that he has nowhere to go, has nowhere to sleep. It may be up to this House to give him a room inside parliament. After all, this is the House of people. We should be looking after these people.
I was disappointed that the Minister for Central Australia did not even debate this motion. Of course, I go back to the time when we were all in government - the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Indigenous Development and I - and how it was a real concern to the three of us while that the government was not spending money in the right areas. It is obvious you have quickly changed your minds, and now believe the government is putting the money in the right places, even though, you knew - and you still know today - from visiting your families and your people on the ground they are not putting in the money. You might be putting the money in the Top End, but it is not coming to the bottom end.
I will go back to using the analogy of the hose that I used to the Minister for Indigenous Development when she talked to me about this motion. The reason why I put this motion to the House tonight is, it is like when you take a hose to water a garden and it has a couple of kinks. There is no pressure coming out on the hose, therefore, the water is just trickling. In order to get the pressure up on the hose, you need to go back and take all the kinks out.
That is the very reason why this motion was put tonight. You keep saying you have put in 100% at the top, but people are still struggling with health, education, housing and child protection down the bottom - renal failure, 5% going there. It is about undoing the kinks in the middle. It is about discovering what all the arms of the NGOs are doing to deliver the appropriate service. That is all this motion was about.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the Country Liberals for supporting this motion and thank the members for Blain and Braitling.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of a Standing Committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee
and Related Matters
Establishment of a Standing Committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee
and Related Matters
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
- 1. The Assembly establish a Standing Committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee.
2. The committee is to inquire into all areas of Indigenous expenditure including allocations made by the Territory government and made by the federal government which are both administered by the Territory government and the federal government.
3. The committee is to report on a regular basis, but at least quarterly, and must at the very least in each report:
- (a) match said related expenditure allocations with actual expenditure; and
- (b) evaluate the outcomes achieved from the expenditure.
4. The committee is to be made up of those people who recognise themselves as Indigenous people and are current members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
6. The Speaker provide all funding and human resources necessary for the committee to actively do the tasks set by the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, in moving this motion, I argue for the establishment of a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee. There can be no question regarding the value of such a committee. As the former Minister for Indigenous Policy, I can testify to how little is known about where the money is actually being spent, and how effectively it is being spent.
In 2009-10, the Northern Territory budget will involve the expenditure of over $4bn, including $1.5bn in Health; $808m in Education; $447m in Local Government and Housing; and $279m in Planning and Infrastructure portfolios. That is an enormous budget for a jurisdiction of a little over 200 000 people.
The reason the Territory budget is so substantial is because the federal government provides substantial funds for the Territory government to counter acute Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory. Exact figures escape me, but the Territory received around $300 000 more per person than New South Wales received from the federal government. As I said, that money is to counter acute Indigenous disadvantage.
The problem is, there is very little evidence of progress on the ground. The stream of federal money dries up before it reaches the communities for whom it is provided. The Commonwealth and Territory governments have, as far as practicable, a philosophy of providing universal access to health and education services across Australia and, in addition, the responsibility to deliver those public services into the regions.
Indigenous people make up approximately 30% of the Northern Territory population and are significantly over-represented by numbers in remote and rural communities in comparison to the urban settings such as Darwin or Alice Springs. That is why a significant proportion of the Northern Territory’s annual budget funding should be directed to meeting the needs of Indigenous people in remote areas in the Northern Territory. I can tell this House it does not happen and it should.
The Henderson government tries to hide that nasty little secret behind the findings of its Indigenous Expenditure Review. It claims the review shows the Northern Territory government spent 50% of its funding on Indigenous Territorians who make up 30% of the population and, hence, it is directing additional money it receives to Indigenous people. It does not mention the review includes the amount of money spent gaoling Aboriginals in its calculations. The federal government does not give the Territory government extra money to tackle Indigenous disadvantage by imprisoning them.
The money is for tackling the underlying causes which result in so many people ending up in prison. The money is provided for education, housing, health and infrastructure. The Henderson government insults Australian taxpayers when it claims it is putting the extra money to good use by locking up people who it neglects, by imprisoning people who it fails to provide with an education, a safe place to sleep, and a future stake in the Territory. Wander the leafy streets of the northern suburbs of Darwin and look at the huge amount of money being poured into underground power lines, then go to the remote communities where power may be on, or may not be.
Federal money given to ensure remote communities enjoy access to basic amenities is effectively being used to increase the property values of homeowners in the northern suburbs. That is pork-barrelling of the worst kind. It was SIHIP which finally drove me to leave the Henderson government in despair. I insisted on trying to get to the bottom of why millions of dollars were pouring out the door but no houses were built. Aside from a couple of honourable exceptions, my Cabinet colleagues did not give a damn about the flood of money being pocketed by the alliances; tens of millions of dollars earmarked for remote communities wasted.
Equally distressing was the government’s refusal to take the issue seriously. They did not bother to make any serious inquiries about why no houses were being built or where the money was going. The disgraceful misuse of taxpayers’ money to line the pockets of well-heeled consultants, when it was meant to be used to build houses in remote communities, is the perfect example of why we need this committee.
The fact that $50m was squandered before a single house was built shows the Henderson government cannot be trusted to deliver for Indigenous Territorians. If I had not walked from the government, that waste, the graft, and abuse of taxpayers’ money would have continued unchecked. Indeed, as I stand here today, only two new houses have been completed - two new houses. Now, there are grave concerns about the quality of homes to be built and the refurbishments to be done.
I am hearing of homes being built without verandahs; of four bedrooms becoming three bedrooms; duplexes replacing freestanding homes. In short, we are hearing of a massive squeeze to get to the promised targets. Can we truly stand here as politicians and allow half the work to be done to these houses? This is occurring despite the fact the infrastructure component of SIHIP has already been hived off. By the time SIHIP is finished, the bill will be into the billions.
That is why we need a permanent watchdog guarding Indigenous expenditure. It will have picked up the disgraceful misuse of money earlier in the process. If I could have demanded the alliance explain why no houses were being built, it would have protected the interests of Indigenous Territorians and taxpayers. Its very existence would have been a powerful incentive for the alliance to deliver value for money.
Let us not forget the Henderson government fought the public disclosure of facts about the SIHIP scandal all the way. It would not say how much money had been spent, it kept throwing out false dates when housing would be built, and it refused to admit the depth of the crisis. You can bet your bottom dollar there will be a lot more jumping up from that side to talk to this.
Now, we have all the indications of a repeat performance. I hear of refurbishments which fail to pass the basic needs of people who live in these homes. Natasha Robinson wrote in The Australian:
- In one house where Ali Curung local Martin Spratt lives, the total refurbishment consisted of a new stove, a new fan in the kitchen, new tiling in the bathroom, and the painting of interior walls.
How disgraceful is that for $75 000 per house?
- Kitchen benches were not replaced, windows were still broken, floors were bare concrete and the outside of the house was not painted.
- Nearby, in the home of Jo Beasley, a new stainless steel bench had been installed in the kitchen, but windows were still broken and their security screens damaged.
Such stories have that familiar ring; they make me despair. They also convince me of a need for a Territory Indigenous affairs expenditure review committee. While the Northern Territory government makes claims in regard to Indigenous expenditure, its own members and ex-members shed more telling light upon the situation. It is apparent the government rhetoric about money being spent on closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage is not reflected by the actuality of present allocations.
I have said before, Labor talks constantly about Aboriginal people but what it really is good at is spending Aboriginal money. There is money being spent - always money, rivers of money - but it never seems to reach the people on the ground. There is genuine and heartfelt concern in the community for the plight of Indigenous people, and a genuine want in the community to see things improve for them. That is why there are commitments at a Commonwealth level for additional resources, and the Territory government makes statements on delivering against disadvantage.
The community fears that Aboriginal youth and children are destined for very limited opportunities in life and to endure life inflicted by poor health, poor education, and limited life expectancy if additional resources are not provided. It is our responsibility, as members of this House, to ensure there are programs delivered on behalf of the community to address disadvantage.
I wonder, also, whether the funds are being committed to the Indigenous business development program. Has there been investment in Indigenous tourism operators? Can we expect more tourists coming to the Territory because we have the real content tourists want; that is, Aboriginal people? Do we have the training and education programs in place? Is the money being spent? Are the millions of dollars needed being delivered on the ground in schools, teachers, and training? The only way we can be sure is if we have the magnifying glass on those programs and those figures.
Do we have real investment in remote communities where there are opportunities for Indigenous people in the pastoral industry? Is there money for land and sea rangers? How can we care for country, if the country does not care for us? Where is the support for renewable energy technology? How do we make communities sustainable and viable if the money is not coming? Where are the police to keep us safe? Where is the investment in protection for women and children on the communities from violence?
While the minister and this government do not recognise it, there was something very amiss with government expenditure for capital investment. One of the things this government jumps up and down about is that people should buy their own homes and to lease their land for 99 years. It would be good if the Northern Territory government could pay the Tiwi Islanders what they owe for a couple of years. Apparently, you refused to pay the Tiwi Islanders.
In 2004 and 2005, three communities - Lajamanu, Groote and Wadeye - received half of all the money. With recurrent expenditure, the inequity has been even more disturbing. An in-depth analysis of funding received in East Arnhem Land and West Arnhem Land over 2004-05 and 2005-06 reveals East Arnhem Land was getting five times more per capita. A broad brush comparison between East Arnhem Land and the desert region showed a similar discrepancy.
That is why we need a permanent watch on how this government spends money on Indigenous affairs. This motion proposes that a new parliamentary committee be established. Its role will be to investigate, review and make reports to parliament on government spending on Indigenous programs, report on government’s rural and remote service delivery, and examine all infrastructure development in the regions.
It is proposed the committee will be made up of a selection of members of the Assembly, in particular Indigenous representatives from all sides of the Chamber. I call upon the members for Stuart, Arnhem, Arafura, and Braitling to join me on this committee. I ask them to think about the words they have been spoken in this House. The member for Stuart has said:
- Many indigenous people in the Northern Territory want a bigger stake in building the society that makes up the Northern Territory.
- We need to build this trust and promote it through considered laws and policies of this parliament, and bring forward an open and fair dialogue for all Territorians. We need to build this trust by investing in the infrastructure of these communities to a standard that will help to build a better life.
Yes, we do need to be delivering for our constituents.
The member for Arnhem has said:
- The future of the Northern Territory’s young people is of deep concern to me and one of the guiding reasons why I decided to enter politics.’
Well, minister, support this call for a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee. Show your concern for the welfare for the youth is met by the commitment to ensure programs are delivered to Indigenous people. Join me in this committee.
The member for Braitling has said in this House of government:
- … you must take responsibility and you must take real action – real, meaningful and deliberate action. I stand ready to support you in taking the action necessary to ensure ongoing development of the Territory.’
Well, I ask that question of him, and call upon the member and the opposition to take real action and support this motion.
Member for Arafura, you have been a member of this government for a long time. You have been a backbencher and a minister, a strident speaker on Indigenous policy. I call on you to support this motion to bring Indigenous expenditure into the open for all to see. It is well known that the rural and remote members of Assembly have been consistently critical of application of government resources to urban electorates. This committee provides a review platform and an opportunity for the government to answer those concerns.
In a separate item before the Assembly I call for the Territory government to prepare a unique Indigenous expenditure budget paper. The role of the committee, the subject of this motion, will be to review that budget paper in the first instance and, then, on a regular basis to further inquire into the distribution and use of government resources. We need to achieve acknowledged benchmarks, in particular, for example, with regard to outcomes and the health and education portfolio areas. These achievements need to be measurable; such as community health and literacy and numeracy.
In common balance, the proposed committee would have the equivalent standing to the new review committee established at the Council for Territory Cooperation. The Indigenous expenditure subcommittee would be a working example of how a parliament should balance, in a jurisdiction as disadvantaged as the Territory, with the competing needs, the appropriation of funding, across the communities. Only fear of exposure of the truth would keep the government from supporting this committee.
I say to the Indigenous members of this parliament that fear has been used as an excuse to ignore the rights of our people many times before. It would be a travesty if we allowed fear of the truth to become the latest excuse for failing to fulfil our duty to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion. I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with:
- The Assembly recommends the Council of Territory Cooperation inquires into Territory Indigenous expenditure made by the Territory government, and administered by the Territory government on behalf of the federal government. The council will report to this parliament six monthly. The council will commence inquiries in the second quarter of the financial year 2010-11.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to sign the amendment and have it circulated.
Mr WOOD: And have it printed, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have that done fairly quickly, please?
Mr WOOD: I understand much of what the member for Macdonnell is talking about. The issue of Indigenous spending has been the subject of quite a few reviews. We had the 2006-07 Indigenous Expenditure Review. There has also been a Senate inquiry. It concerns me, in debate, we can sometimes all become experts on figures. I certainly am not expert on figures.
The two motions have raised some serious issues. For me to get up and give an educated analysis of some of the figures which have been raised is quite difficult. However, I did go to the summary. This is the document which the Auditor-General looked at in 2006-07. It is subtitled the Auditor-General’s Report to the Under Treasurer on Indigenous Expenditure Review for 2006-07. It said:
- The audit of the IER involved the sampling of expenditure data across selected agencies and accompanying order procedures included:
- (a) examining the systems and methods used to allocate direct and indirect cost to Indigenous programs;
(b) determining the extent to which service delivery to Indigenous groups is identifiable;
- (c) to the extent to which service delivery to Indigenous groups is not identifiable, identifying the approach by which costs are determined as being related to Indigenous activities and forming a view about the validity of the approach adopted;
- (d) assessing the reliability of the systems used to capture, store and extract the relevant data; and
- (e) forming a view about the validity and reliability of the approaches adopted.
- In addition, revenue data and Commonwealth Grant Commission information held by the Northern Territory Treasury were reviewed.
- I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.
- Auditor’s Opinion
In my opinion, the Indigenous Expenditure Review for the financial year 2006-07 presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial and statistical information that is attributable to the Indigenous residents of the Northern Territory.
I then go to the back of this document and I find there is a summary. It is only a short summary. It refers to a table 21, and it says:
- Table 21 shows a summary of key results on a like-for-like basis between the two reviews. The key points arising from this review are:
Indigenous-related revenue declined by 1.5 percentage points between 2004-05 and 2006-07;
In the table, it also mentions Indigenous-related revenue in a percentage form. In 2004-05, Indigenous-related revenue was 45.9%; in 2006-07, it was 44.4%. Indigenous-related expenditure in 2004-05 was 50.1%; in 2006-07, it was 52.4%.
My reading of those figures, based on those matters I have read, from our Auditor-General, certainly gives you the impression there is actually nearly two-and-a-half times the amount of money spent on Indigenous issues compared to non-Indigenous expenditure and, in actual fact, we spent more money than we actually received on Indigenous-related issues.
The member for Macdonnell raised some issues about whether these figures would be a true indication of what is actually on the ground. That is not easy for people to judge. I am no expert when it comes to pulling the Indigenous Expenditure Review apart, especially if you look at who the people are who were on it. There are some pretty substantially qualified people who put this review together. The review was refereed by Professor Kenneth Wiltshire, JD Story Professor of Public Administration, University of Queensland Business School and former member of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and Mr Saul Eslake, Chief Economist ANZ. Northern Territory Treasury also held discussions with Commonwealth Grants Commission staff concerning the commission’s assessments. These are some pretty qualified people who have looked at this particular issue which we are discussing today.
Be that as it may, I believe there is an opportunity for us to try to clear up some of these issues once and for all. You will hear one side say it is not right, and the other side say it is. I could probably say all this points to the fact the government is spending all the money it gets.
However, in light of the fact we now have a Council of Territory Cooperation, there is an opportunity for people such as the Auditor-General, for instance, to be asked to come before that council and give us an understanding of how this review came to its conclusions.
We need to really hone down and see whether some of the - you might say - allegations the member for Macdonnell has made, have some basis in truth or they do not. One of the best ways to do that is to try to get neutral, non-political people to come to a bipartisan board where questions can be asked in relation to Indigenous spending in the Northern Territory.
It is an important issue; there is no doubt about it. Just as people can tell you a bad story on one side about Indigenous issues, I can tell you some good stories. I have to be a little biased; I lived at Daly River for a long time. Have a look at the housing at Daly River; it is fantastic. Nauiyu is a great place to live, but it has social issues like every other place. But housing? It has some of the best housing in the Territory. There is a big youth centre. It has good facilities; it has a good primary school. I think anyone …
Mr Elferink: How long have they been there, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: It has been there since I went there in 1971. It had the most modern houses of any Aboriginal community ...
Mr Elferink: So, they built them?
Mr WOOD: Hang on. They are basic houses, as far as I know, funded by the United Nations. Sir Paul Hasluck opened Daly River in about 1956. They have always been one of the leaders in housing ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, that is right, and we did nothing. From 1978 to 2001 we ate babies; that is what we did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr WOOD: Whose discussion is this?
I am saying there are some good stories, and there are some bad stories. I believe we have to keep things in balance. Not everything is bad.
When we are talking about Indigenous spending, do we include Royal Darwin Hospital? The Darwin hospital is for everyone. The road which goes to Darwin hospital is for everyone; Indigenous people use it. I would be feeling uncomfortable if we started to divide up roads according to how many Indigenous people used them and how many did not. I do not think we need to go down that path. You have to remember money spent, sometimes, is for all of us, whether we are black or white, because we all use the road. It is very difficult to debate those comparisons of whether that is money used for Indigenous Territorians or not.
There are some issues the member for Macdonnell has raised. I believe going down this path of using the Council of Territory Cooperation - the mechanics to that can be worked out inside the Council of Territory Cooperation. Whether it is a subcommittee, or whether it is a full committee - it might be a full committee wishes to do it. I do not want a committee based on race. In fact, I would have objected to this original motion based on item No 4; I do not think that is healthy. People in this parliament should not be basing their membership on their race, but on their ability, or as simply members of parliament. We are all concerned money is going in the right direction.
I have a friend who is now retired; I used to go to horticultural college with him. He did other things later in life, and one was to work as a consultant - if you can call it that - for the Commonwealth government. His job was to come to the Northern Territory and check Commonwealth grants. He would go to Batchelor College. They might have received a grant for something, and he would physically have to follow where that money went, who collected the wages, and what the outcome was. I sometimes believe that is how much we have to focus on some of these issues. Perhaps there is a particular focus the council could look at: where the money is going, and follow the money trail. There must be evidence where money is spent. Treasury would be on to people straightaway if they did not know where money was going.
Even though we are going to be dealing with technical terms when it comes to dealing with Treasury, surely, when you boil it all down, you know if the Commonwealth gave X amount of dollars for sporting and recreational facilities, let us see where that money went.
We know departments sometimes take the cream off it, the 10%. I have always had a concern about that. Maybe that is some of the issues we can debate. Schools might want a classroom worth $0.5m; they get $450 000 because the department has taken a slice of it. That may be an issue we can also look at. Is too much being taken off and not enough going to where it was meant to be delivered?
I believe they are the things the Council of Territory Cooperation can look at. My opinion is the first person to get in is the person who audited this expenditure review, the Auditor-General, and ask him his opinion and where the council should head. Again, that is only my opinion. The council might have other ideas when it comes before them.
It is an issue which has been around for some time. It is an issue which has been in the newspapers; which gets political. However, if it is about money, numbers, facts, surely we can get down to that. Money does not disappear unless it is for illegal purposes; money has a trail somewhere. The reason I have asked for this to be in the second quarter of this year is because that takes the pressure off Treasury. Treasury now will be getting ready for the budget and the Estimates Committee. It would free up Treasury people. In other words, they will have an opportunity to come before the Council of Territory Cooperation and be asked questions. It will give an opportunity for the council to look back 12 months, because those figures will then have been produced for the budget. It will also give an opportunity, each quarter, for the council to follow where money is actually going. When it has been given to the Territory by the Commonwealth, for instance, they can see where that money is going. That is the reason I have looked at that timetable because I thought that made the most sense.
How the structure of the council will work with this - whether it is a subcommittee or whether it gets people onto it, whatever - will be a matter for the council to decide.
I am putting it forward the amendment because I do not agree with the motion. One of those reasons was, basically as I said, item No 4. However, I believe this is an opportunity, at least, to allow the member for Macdonnell, who is a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation, to take up some of the issues of concern, to test the validity of some of the statements she has made, and to allow all of us to have input into that. I do not think it matters whether members are Indigenous or non-Indigenous. What we need to do is to see whether money is going to the right place. If it is not, then we should be asking why. If it is, we can tell people it is. If not enough of it is going, we can ask if too much being taken off for departmental purposes when it should be really going more into on-the-ground facilities out there in the communities.
The member for Macdonnell also said things such as Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land get five times more funding per capita - I think she said - than people in her area in the Centre. Whether that is true or not, I would not have a clue. Perhaps that is an area that can be tested.
Madam Speaker, what the member for Macdonnell has moved is a reasonable request that we track down where money is being spent. Council has the ability to do what she asks without going into an inquiry as such. She did mention it would, under her motion, be similar to the way the Council of Territory Cooperation operates. I believe the CTC could do it. I put forward that as a motion for support.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, to my astonishment, I find myself on my feet speaking about this issue tonight. The reason I am surprised is because of the sudden and somewhat surprising amendment to the motion the member for Nelson has introduced. Not surprising is the fact he wants to send it to the Territory council of cooperation, but more to the point, I had no notice of this amendment. Whilst we move amendments on the floor of the House from time to time, I have just taken the liberty of speaking to the member for Macdonnell who was equally as surprised by this amendment on the table ...
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding me!
Mr ELFERINK: I can only go on what she tells me, and that is what she just told me.
Ms Lawrie: Well, been outed then.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I will tell you why. Even if there has been some discussion between the members for Macdonnell and Nelson, the members on this side of the House, including the members of the Territory council of cooperation, have not been negotiated with …
Ms Lawrie: You said she was equally surprised.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a council of cooperation that he talks about. I tell you what is really going on here, Madam Speaker, and this is the part that does concern me. The effect of this motion – and by the way, this Territory council of cooperation does not need a reference from this House; it can choose to do this all by itself. So, what is the member for Nelson actually doing? I will tell you what I hope is not going on here, but I am starting to suspect the only real motivation I am seeing is the member for Nelson wants to have the motion amended to avoid one thing; that is, this going to a division in this House and forcing the members on that side of the House, particularly targeted by the member for Macdonnell, from having to vote and divide the House.
That is a proximity issue I am concerned about because the member for Nelson has not told me or the member for Katherine, as far as I am aware, or anyone else on this side of the House, that he was going to be introducing this particular amendment. He does not need to; this matter could be voted down and still he could have the Territory council of cooperation look at all of these issues. That is a matter for the Territory council of cooperation; it is self-referencing.
What this amendment will achieve is get rid of the motion the member for Macdonnell has moved in this House, which stands in its own right, and does not require amendment. It does not require a reference to the CTC. As a result of that motion, the members opposite - including the ministers who this motion is directed at - will not have to vote. That concerns me because what I get out of that is there no requirement for this amendment to occur, but it does have the effect, ultimately, of masking the very issue the member for Macdonnell is trying to highlight; that is, political trickery.
Clearly, there have been discussions between government and the member for Nelson on this. I pick up from the interjections from the Treasurer that she knew all about this amendment hitting the table. She clearly understood it, so they have been discussing it amongst themselves and with the member for Nelson …
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely. And the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: And the member for Macdonnell, so you say. I pick up on that interjection again. Clearly, I will take that as an admission that the member for Nelson has been discussing this with government.
The member for Macdonnell has informed me otherwise and, if I have misunderstood or she has said the wrong thing or whatever, so be it. Whatever! The fact is if they are talking to each other and this side of the House is not in the loop. We are not being incorporated into the loop.
This is one of the criticisms I have about the Territory council of cooperation; that its structure was predetermined. The fact the ministers were not compellable was predetermined. We were given an ultimate package which we had no input to, and it was either ‘like it or lump it, cooperate with us’. That is the very thing the member for Nelson says he despises, but he goes and does it anyhow. Now, we have an admission from the Treasurer that she has been talking to the member for Nelson ...
Ms Lawrie: Of course, I have.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Why is the member for Nelson not talking to us, and why are you not talking to us on issues that are going to the Territory council of cooperation? You do not take it seriously. You come in here and think what is available to you is nothing other than a cheap political stunt. That is how you see this council ...
Ms Lawrie: It was not your motion, and it is not achievable.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The point is we have to deal with an amendment - an amendment you had arranged with the member for Nelson and no one else. That is what this trickery is about. I believe the member for Nelson was sucked in. I believe this was suggested to the member for Nelson: ‘Here is a good idea; we will flick it off to the Territory council of cooperation’. The member for Nelson does not see what the government is actually trying to do; that is, prevent a division in this House because the people who are targeted by this particular motion, the people who are being singled out by the member for Macdonnell, are being used in such a fashion so they do not have to vote. The member for Nelson got sucked in.
That is the great irony of this whole exercise. He believes this is the council of cooperation. He is being smoothed and told it is all sweetness and light but, the fact is, on every opportunity, they will use the member for Nelson, with his approach, for their own ends to protect their own ministers. Every time an issue comes up in this House they do not like for public debate because it might embarrass one of them, they will just flick it off to the Territory council of cooperation because the member for Nelson is Mr Smoothy.
The fact is, if they are going to talk, and trying to expect the council of cooperation to work - and I heard the Chief Minister talking about the Territory council of cooperation and saying this is a great new era. Well, if this is how you do politics in the great new era, then you have not changed a thing. You are using the member for Nelson for your own ends ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, true. That is exactly true.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, this motion should stand in its own right. The member for Macdonnell may choose, in whatever way, to deal with this, but I believe the motion should stand unamended and the member for Nelson, if he wants the CTC to look at it, then bring it to the CTC and we will discuss it there.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, it is good to get to my feet, because that was a whole lot of rubbish by the member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: No, it was not. Are you going to divide on this?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Let me put on the record what is taking place here. Absolute disgrace. This is a very important motion that has come before the House, and …
Mr Elferink: Yes, and you are supporting an amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … we want to have an opportunity to speak to it and explain our thoughts on it.
There are two important points I need to emphasise in what I am about to say. The first one is it is about process - process that looks at how government works, at transparency, and at accountability. I commend the member for Macdonnell for bringing this motion to the House.
The second point I raise in my discussion is that our government is a government for all people, black and white, young and old. Our government, my colleagues, are here to represent each and every Territorian. We recognise, very much so, the disadvantage that faces Indigenous people across the Northern Territory. We recognise the high incarceration rate of Indigenous people in our gaols. We recognise the need to ensure our children are going to school. We recognise the need for more housing in the bush. We recognise the need for better infrastructure in roads and bridges. We know this, and each and every member in the Henderson Labor government works very hard to bring these issues to the forefront.
We also recognise we have decades of neglect, as I said in my response to the previous motion, of both federal and Territory governments in regard to Indigenous people across the Northern Territory and in remote regions. Not one member of this side of the House would shy away from wanting to improve the livelihood of Aboriginal people - not one member. They do not have to be black to have a concern for the people of the Territory who are disadvantaged. They do not have to be poor to have that concern. They do not have to be young; they do not have to be old. This parliament needs to recognise that the moment we focus on a race debate, thinking that only one race can sort out their own problems, then we have already given up on a future filled with hope for all of society.
What is important about this motion is we needed to find a way forward. It was important the member for Macdonnell brought this up. In my discussions with the member of Macdonnell, it was based on, how we progress this. I will tell you now, members for Macdonnell, Braitling, and Port Darwin, this side will not be divided on our race. We want to overcome these disadvantages, but we want to do it together.
When we go back to the process, as I touched on at the beginning, the process is about government bureaucracy, Treasury and methodology, and how we change the system within. That has to take place. It takes time. It is hidden; it is not in your face. However, it is in our face. We work with it every single day.
That process is one where we want to see the change in equity, fairness, and services. The methodology, and how Treasury uses that, is what we, on this side, have been voted in to work on. It is our role as ministers of this government to do our best to make those changes, and to improve the process. We can do that by being vigilant, by recognising there are flaws, by knowing we will not always get it right, but we keep on trying. We will do that; we are doing that. We are the first jurisdiction to have the Indigenous Expenditure Review. It is by no means perfect; however I can tell you we now have a blueprint, a formula, a method we can examine, build on, and improve. We have led the way. No other jurisdiction has even had any inkling, or made any steps towards that.
It was the previous Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who pushed for that Indigenous Expenditure Review. The Council of Australian Governments has insisted every jurisdiction go down the same path. We will be able to, within this process I speak of, compare, contrast, and compete, but that is going to happen at a level we cannot take out every day and explain to the community. However, each and every single one of us on this side who has a responsibility for an agency, a responsibility to improve the lives of people, know that fact. Do not for a minute forget it. That process is so important …
Ms Anderson: We do not forget it, you do. You have forgotten it that quick, just like lightning – flash!
Ms McCARTHY: Do you want to hear this, member for Macdonnell?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It is first about that process but, second, it is about recognising we need to work together not based on race. We will not be divided on this. We are working together on it.
Madam Speaker, it is good the member for Nelson brings forward this amendment so it can be taken to the Territory Council for Cooperation so it can be scrutinised by the members on the council; so that council can decide the shape in which it goes forward. Our government supports the amendment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this amendment on. I do not support the amendment, but I do appreciate you brought it on. The reason I do not support the amendment is because I do not have sufficient faith in the Council of Territory Cooperation to deal with this issue. I do not believe it allows the opportunities for more than the current members of the CTC to be able to participate in the oversight of the expenditure. I do not believe it allows for historical expertise to be a part of the review. However, I appreciate the intent of the amendment of the member for Nelson.
There are other ways this can be done, and placing extra work on the CTC will further bog it down. For those reasons, I will not be speaking about it, but I will speak about the motion when the motion comes up.
Madam SPEAKER: You only get one chance to speak.
Mr GILES: I will not be speaking on the amended motion?
Madam SPEAKER: No, since the amendment was moved, you can only speak on both items in the one period of time.
Mr GILES: A point of clarification, Madam Speaker. Once we vote on the amendment, do we come back to the original motion?
Madam SPEAKER: It depends if the amendment is accepted, then you just move the amended motion.
Mr GILES: If it is not, I get to speak?
Madam SPEAKER: No. There are two questions before the Chair and you are speaking to both the amendment and to the original motion.
Mr GILES: Thank you for the clarification Madam Speaker. I thought we were just speaking to the amendment, not to the amended motion we had not passed.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for bringing the motion on in the first place. It is a very important motion which helps us get to the bottom of where Indigenous money is going in the Northern Territory. It will help us tabulate the funding that is coming in, the funding that is going out, and look at the outcomes we are receiving, the value for money on the outcomes actually being achieved, or the failures that are being achieved.
I understand today there has been much talk about travel I have previously done. One of the important things I learnt in the travel was the role of good governance and the committee structure through British parliament, in particular. I have further learnt more information about the committee roles and the federal parliament. I understand the scrutiny role the committee structure plays in parliaments, democracy and the democratic ideals. It is important this committee the member for Macdonnell proposes is not just set up for the sake of the committee, but has some teeth to scrutinise what is occurring in the Northern Territory in the parliamentary process. I really think this is a body that will have teeth, that will allow us to make improvements. Yes, we may be critical of government, its policies and programs and where it is going, but that can only benefit the Northern Territory as we seek to reform the directions we are heading, or discover the failures of why bridges are not being built in Palumpa, in the member for Daly’s electorate.
This is what it is all about. We know there are failures across the board, whether that is in SIHIP, child protection where 75% of the children are Indigenous, economic development, job creation, or alcoholic and substance abuse. There are problems everywhere. The way these things are treated in other jurisdictions – and this is where the Territory falls down if we do not have that oversight and scrutinising approach once it leaves this Chamber or after the government has followed its policy and program guidelines.
I have just pulled some information off the Internet about the House of Representatives in federal parliament where they have a Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That is not a political beast. I understand there are different politicians from different parties on that committee. There is Bob Debus from the Australian Labor Party, Andrew Laming from the Libs, and Kevin Andrews who is the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jodie Campbell from Labor, Kerry Rea, Kelvin Thomson, Chris Trevor, Jim Turnour from Labor, and Danna Vale from the Liberal Party. This is a committee set up to oversight or provide scrutiny on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, and it is a very important committee.
It is the same thing in the Senate. We have heard about Senate reports here. The Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities is another important committee in the federal parliament, this time in the Senate, that provides that oversight role, and looks into matters and provides recommendations. It is all for the benefit of good governance, good democracy, and setting the agenda for the way things go forward. We may not all like what comes out of these committees - whether it is the Senate or the House of Representatives. Sometimes, they have joint committees from both Houses of parliament.
However, it is important we test what we do and provide greater direction for the government. This is what I would consider is not bipartisan, but a part of working together to improve the outcomes on the subject matter at hand; this one being Indigenous affairs, of which we speak.
The membership of the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities is Senator Scullion from the Northern Territory, Senator Crossin from the Northern Territory, and Senators Adams, Johnston, Moore and Siewert from the Greens. It is an important process they play. We had a look in the parliament of South Australia, and they have an Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee - a separate committee in South Australia. In New South Wales, the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage inquiry was conducted by the Social Issues Committee. There are other committees set up in other jurisdictions. These things are around the country, but I will not go through them all.
A precedent has been set for committees to be set up as external bodies of parliament, but reporting to parliament to provide oversight and direction we should have. This is an opportunity, not really for government to abrogate responsibility, but to put things to committees to investigate the best way forward, or to review performance in something. In this case, look at the expenditure in the Northern Territory. These are things we should be embracing as a parliament, as we move forward into the future. It is difficult for a unicameral parliament to run that oversight. While I am not suggesting there should be two houses of parliament in the Northern Territory, especially given our population, I do think it is a prime time for us to move towards greater committee status, to look at what we actually do. Moving back into the political side of things, clearly, Labor has it wrong.
I see this committee as an opportunity, as I said, to extend the bipartisan approach of this parliament in looking at how we are getting things wrong. The member for Arnhem was standing on her platform, but the content of what she said - briefly just then but also in a previous motions and other times in this Chamber - has signified the government knows they do not have it right. That admission has been made. The member for Arafura, at times - and today in debate about the Territory council of cooperation - reflected that things were not always going right. The failures with SIHIP was one prime example.
This is an opportunity for us to all come together and work together to help Indigenous Territorians. While it may, at the outset, be an Indigenous Expenditure Review, this could be the platform by which we could drive reforms in this parliament into the future, and we should be taking this more seriously.
On the question about division on race, I am not sure if they divide on race in Labor. We do not in the Country Liberals; we are here for everybody. I understand there may be some concern about this committee being reflective of people who identify themselves as Indigenous in this Chamber.
At first when I saw that, I thought it may have been an issue. However, on reflection, and talking to a few people, I thought it was an opportunity for people who have been involved in this area for a long period of time and may, presumably, have a greater interest in this area and want reforms. However, more importantly, we will present a unified Indigenous coalition, trying to improve things in the Northern Territory. I saw that as an opportunity for us to drive forward, so I take offence - even though it is not my motion – at the comments of the member for Arnhem. This is an opportunity for us to work together and signal we mean business, and want improvements in this area.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion put forward by the member for Macdonnell. I thank the member for Nelson for his amendments. I will not support it for the reasons I have said; I do not want to overburden the CTC. I am not sure if the CTC will take this seriously with the balance of government members in the CTC. This is something we need to move forward on, sooner rather than later.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I invite defeat of my amendment. I thought this would bring the House together. I invite defeat of my amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You just need to withdraw the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw my amendment.
Mr Elferink: All right. We are back to the original motion. Right, next.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank those who spoke positively about the committee. I specifically commend the member for Braitling who has a holistic view as to why this committee should be set up. It was not a race-based committee; it was a committee of knowledgeable Indigenous people to talk about the issues of their own people. We are the people who go out to the communities, live inside the houses, see the kids being neglected, the alcohol abuse, the poor health, and the poor education outcomes. I thought, through that motion, it would be better served by the Indigenous members of this parliament from both sides.
You could see by the motion it had nothing to do with numbers, because the numbers were greater on the government side than it was on the side of the crossbenches and opposition. It was genuinely to look at what expenses were put in to remote Aboriginal communities and what the real outcomes were.
If you have a look at child protection, for example - we spoke at length last week on child protection. One of the questions we would like to ask the government in future - maybe at the next sittings or even tomorrow – is, if you are not dividing the Territory on culture and race, then why did you put nine Indigenous social workers or child protection workers out on nine communities? Who is creating positions based on culture and law? That is one of the questions that needs to be asked of this government in this Chamber. It is very serious, as the member for Braitling was saying, that this was a bipartisan committee to have a look at the real expenses going into remote Aboriginal communities with the poverty, the poor education. The government can talk about how much they are putting into education; we know for a fact they are not getting the results.
Just last week, the Chief Minister himself, questioned by the opposition on NAPLAN, said it is Indigenous people, little black kids, who are dragging the Territory down on NAPLAN testing. It is an absolute embarrassment for the Chief Minister to blame the poorest little kids in the communities he does not resource - and never has resourced, as an Education minister, the education system properly. I can see the member for Karama screwing up her little silly face as usual. I say to her: what about the poverty-stricken people in Karama; the homeless you deprive as a local member.
With this debate, Madam Speaker, I thought the committee was an interesting committee that could have helped the government lead the way. It would have led the way across the nation. It does not lead the way in fixing Aboriginal disadvantage across the nation; all it does is just rip off Aboriginal money.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 19)
(Serial 19)
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is certainly interesting that this bill follows the two previous debates. It goes to the heart, I guess, of the differences between the government and opposition in the way we see opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. The government does not support the bill.
In July 2008, as a result of an appeal by the Territory from a full Federal Court of Australia decision, the High Court of Australia upheld the validity of the Fisheries Act but ruled that licences issued under that act did not authorise a person to enter waters over Aboriginal land. This decision is commonly know as the Blue Mud Bay decision, and affects approximately 80% of the Territory’s coastline.
As a result of this decision, all fishermen, whether commercial or recreational, must hold a land council permit to enter these waters. Temporary permits issued by each of the three relevant land councils are in place. This government is in negotiations with the three land councils and stakeholders in order to secure an agreement which will provide a permanent and seamless fisheries licensing system, applying in all Territory waters, whilst meeting Indigenous aspirations in relation to economic development and management of sea country. This bill is an amended version of a previous bill introduced prior to the hearing of the Territory’s appeal to the High Court, which was flawed and not passed.
The current amended bill purports to insert into the Aboriginal Land Act a new section which provides for a general exemption form holding a permit to enter and remain on waters situated between the low and high water mark over Aboriginal land. The Aboriginal Land Act provides for access to Aboriginal land and relevantly provides that, except in certain defined circumstances, persons shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land without a permit issued by a land council or the traditional owners for the area.
It is clear from the Blue Mud Bay decision there is no distinction between dry land and land covered by water within the boundaries of Aboriginal land. This bill proposes a general exemption may be granted in favour of the public generally, or a class of persons defined in the instrument, and may be subject to conditions to be issued by traditional owners or land councils. However, this proposed amendment would not apply to the non-tidal rivers overlying Aboriginal land, although the Blue Mud Bay decision applies equally to any waters over Aboriginal land. As such, the scope of this bill is inconsistent with the High Court decision.
In addition, and most importantly, the timing of this bill is poor given the fact this issue of access lies at the very heart of negotiations currently in progress. To pass this bill while negotiations are progressing would be insensitive, impolite and would damage the progress of these important negotiations. It may well be one of the outcomes of negotiations is the amendment of the Aboriginal Land Act. However, any amendments to deal with access should emerge as part of a whole negotiated package and should not be made on an ad hoc basis.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, is it not wonderful how we tie Aboriginal land permits with fisheries licences. Having read the original Federal Court decision and the subsequent appeal decision by the Full Bench of the Federal Court, I have not read the High Court’s decision because I know they upheld the Full Bench of the Federal Court. There is no doubt the validity of the operation of the Northern Territory’s Fisheries Act was an issue.
There are two separate issues operating here. We are talking about a permit and an ability to allow for the land councils to issue a permit to a class of people. I find it astonishing, considering the excellent approach so far taken by the Northern Land Council in relation to the intertidal zone over which they now have exclusive possession under the Land Rights Act.
I find it surprising government would be resisting this because all we are doing is offering them another option. We are not taking anything away. We are, by this bill, attempting to give something to the traditional owners; that is, a power they do not currently have. Would they be tempted to use this power? Well, it is interesting because, if you look at their current approach to the intertidal zone, it is - and I have been briefed from the land council on this issue - they are aware they have an obligation to ensure the permits are in force. That is what the Aboriginal Lands Act requires.
This obligation is being observed in the loosest possible fashion the land council can lawfully apply. If a person is approached by a person who has the right to demand the production of a permit, what they will accept is somebody who produces an application form and signs it and gives it to them. That was the briefing I was given – it would have been about 12 months ago - on how they are dealing with this. Consequently, they have, essentially, given a carte blanche access right to the intertidal zone over which they have exclusive possession.
What the land councils have demonstrated - and I am on the Parliamentary Record saying this even as recently as a month ago in Wadeye when I addressed the Northern Land Council and congratulated them for their approach to what they are doing in the intertidal zones. They now, as exclusive property owners, have the right to exclude everyone. They have chosen not to, but they are still stuck in this situation where they are still obliged, under legislation to, in some way, demand a permit, or expect a permit to be produced. The legislation anticipates a permit being issued to a person on that land, so they are deliberately reading it down in the most lax way they possibly can.
This amendment would enable the land council to simply deal with that issue they are currently dealing with in a much more straightforward fashion. We issue a permit to a class of people which could include up to the general public as a whole.
Why is that bad? They are in negotiations; this is going to get to that stage. It is interesting, in the two-and-a-half seconds the Treasurer was on her feet, she did not explain how it could affect negotiations. It has to be part of a holistic package, she said. Well, come in here and tell us where we are at. Describe the negotiations, tell us where you are going, tell us how much this is going to cost. Is that really what is being negotiated out here between government and the exclusive holders of the intertidal zone? Is it just down to money? If that is the case, why is this an offence to that process? To simply come in here and say: ‘It is an offence to the process, go away, we will get back to you later on; trust us, we are the government’ is exactly what has us in trouble so often.
I do not particularly trust this government because they do not have a particularly good track record of trustworthiness. As far as I am concerned, I have heard nothing from the Treasurer this evening in relation to this bill which, in any way, would change my mind but to support the bill. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, her defence of what she is doing was enfeebled to the point of being terminal.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): How disappointing, Madam Speaker, but certainly not surprising, that the Labor government and, I suspect the member for Nelson, have agreed they will not support this bill. After all, we and people in the Territory know what is going here. I urge all those who are listening to this broadcast and to those who read the Parliamentary Record of this place to take note of what is occurring in this House today.
A couple of weeks ago, the member for Nelson wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition and said in that letter, or very similar to this – they are not the exact words: ‘If I do not see merit in a bill I will vote against it or, if I see merit in a bill, I will abstain from voting’. He was, of course, referring to bills brought to this place by the opposition.
Today, we will see the manifestation of that approach to bills brought to the House by the opposition - and this is just the first one. It is the very first example of a bill - and I am quite sure, given the member for Nelson has not even bothered to comment on it - they will not support.
I should just go on to qualify the things I have just said. During the November sittings of parliament in Alice Springs, I had a conversation with the member for Nelson regarding this bill. Mind you, that was after a couple of other failed attempts to meet with him to discuss the bill in the months prior to the sittings. In any case, I gave the member for Nelson a briefing on this bill and asked him to support its passage through the House. I thought this was what normally occurred in this parliament and similar parliaments in Australia and across the world.
I guess this game is all about numbers, and I was counting the numbers, in effect, garnering support from the man who holds the balance of power in this House for legislation that takes a sensible approach to the issue of permits on Aboriginal land. It is sensible legislation. I know it is sensible legislation because many people have told me so - from lawyers, to those affected, to people on the street and, of course, the member for Nelson.
Let me go back a step or two, as it might be easier to run through this chronologically. To explain a little further, after my first conversation with the member for Nelson in Alice Springs, he advised me he had sought a briefing on my legislation from the government. Yes, he sought a briefing on my legislation from the government. How does that work? I had trouble getting to meet him prior to this because of his increased workload as a result of becoming this government’s new minister for everything. The member for Nelson sought a briefing from the government on legislation I was introducing.
On top of that, even before that briefing, the member for Nelson had already spoken to the government because - and I know this to be the case - he was already raising with me reservations about the passage of the legislation due to ongoing, so-called sensitive negotiations with land councils over Blue Mud Bay. Let me put that another way. The member for Nelson went to the government - or the government went to the member for Nelson, I am not sure which way it went - to find and agree on reasons not to vote for this legislation.
I asked to be included in the briefing the government was providing for the member of Nelson. I heard all about the reasons this legislation should not go ahead, and I put forward my case with respect to why it should. The end result was this: the member for Nelson said, during a subsequent conversation with me in Alice Springs, he could see what I was trying to do with this legislation and that it made sense and he would support it if the land council supported it. Two things have come out of that, and I will come back to that in a moment.
First, let us just recap what this legislation is all about. It is about giving a little certainty. It is about giving traditional owners and land councils additional tool under the Aboriginal Land Act of the NT. It does not derogate from, but adds to, the capacity of traditional owners and land councils to determine how they issue permits to enter Aboriginal land. Currently, Aboriginal land permits are issued to individuals. This bill adds to that division by providing the legislative means to issue permits to groups or classes of people.
At this point, let me go on record as saying I am grateful the land councils, particularly the NLC, have taken a very generous approach to issuing permits to individuals who would like to fish the waters affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision. I thank for them their good faith decision to allow amateur fishermen access to those waters. I hope they continue to do so.
Back to the legislation. It is innocuous legislation and, I would have thought, quite non-controversial. It does not bind anyone to do anything. I mentioned previously the legislation could have been a tool for TOs and land councils to issue permits to a particular class of people. There is no mandate contained therein to give permits to a class of people. It just would have sat there and been a new provision available for those TOs and land councils who wanted to use it to issue permits en masse - simple as that.
There are traditional owners out there who are becoming frustrated by the lack of urgency afforded to the Blue Mud Bay negotiations by this lame government. They sit and wait and wait and nothing happens. There are some progressive TOs out there who want to open up the economic potential of their piece of the Territory. They want to determine their own future, and this legislation may well have been something to embrace to that end, rather than being seen as something evil or ill-conceived, or whatever else the Treasurer wanted to call it.
I want to get back to the two issues that arise from the member of Nelson agreeing to support the legislation only if land councils supported it. First, unless the member for Nelson did not read this bill or understand it, it has thrown his entire position on this bill into the hands of the land councils. ‘I will support it if the land councils do’, is what he said. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I believe the member for Nelson did read and understand this bill. The reason I can comfortably say that is because he said to me he could see what I was trying to do with the legislation and it made sense.
The second point is, by premising his decision to support the bill or not based entirely upon the opinion of the land councils, the member for Nelson has successfully subjugated himself to the whims of the land councils. The member for Nelson has become a person who no longer thinks freely, or makes decisions on his own assessment of the merits of legislation.
In order to asses the support of this legislation by the land councils, I wrote to them. Sadly and rather disappointing actually, I have not had a response from any of the affected land councils. Consequently, I have been unable to provide the member for Nelson with a statement of support from the land councils he said he needed in order for him to support this bill.
How things change, Madam Speaker. Around three weeks ago, the member for Nelson wrote to the Opposition Leader declaring he would not support opposition legislation in this House. It is here we reach into the world of ‘what if’. I am quite comfortable in talking in ‘what ifs’ because it is only a matter of time before those ‘what ifs’ become cold, hard reality. What if the land councils had written back to me and declared their support for this bill? The question I have for the member for Nelson is: would you have supported this bill today, or would you have reneged on the undertaking you gave me in Alice Springs in November last year? Does the member for Nelson see the implications of what he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition those few weeks ago?
Right now, the member for Nelson can hide behind the fact I did not receive support from the land councils on this bill. His blanket refusal to support sensible legislation only on the basis it came from the opposition is an abrogation of his parliamentary responsibilities, and his responsibilities to his constituents; the very people who voted him into the position of being Independent, and deciding on a course of action in this House based on merit, and not some arrangement he has with the Chief Minister.
In this case, who would have been hurt by your decision not to support this bill? I suggest amateur fishermen would probably be the people who stood to gain something from the successful passage of this bill. I do not hide from the fact this bill was introduced with amateur fishermen in mind, although not exclusively, for there could well be other classes of people to which land councils or TOs might want to give blanket access to their lands. As previously mentioned, Aboriginal land permits are issued to individuals, and the land councils have an informal arrangement in place to facilitate the issuing of those permits. TOs can still issue permits to individuals as well, but what if - and I suggest there are groups of TOs out there who fall into this category – TOs want to allow access to all amateur fishermen? They still have to go through the cumbersome process of issuing individual permits.
This bill could have streamlined that cumbersome process and, at the same time, given a greater degree of certainty to amateur fishermen. The member for Nelson and government members have killed that idea quite successfully today.
This is an opposition which supports fishing in the Northern Territory, and we will continue to support the industry when we are called upon to govern this wonderful place. This is an opposition which also supports the empowerment of Aboriginal people and their right to determine their own future. This is an opposition which supports the notion that Aboriginal people should be given the tools to encourage and facilitate the vast range of economic development available to them.
Government members and the member for Nelson are apparently incapable of seeing past their noses, and I am sad to see fishermen in the NT, in particular, will have to wait for this tired, lazy and tardy government to complete its negotiations with land councils ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would allow this particular item under current debate …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. You know at 9 pm members are given an extra 10 minutes if they require it.
Mr ELFERINK: If it takes longer than 10 minutes, that is what I am arguing for, and I am …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have standing orders …
Mr ELFERINK: I am putting a motion to this House. You either deal with it by …
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave, Madam Speaker.
Leave not granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we are coming to 9 pm. Do you wish to continue until 9.10 pm, or up to 9.10 pm, or would you prefer it to go onto the next General Business day?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, I should be able to finish by 9.10 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, you may continue.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We have to wait for this tired, lazy and tardy government to complete its negotiations with land councils before we can change. The contrary position is the position of the Country Liberals; we are proactive and seeking solutions to the problems as we see them. This bill is an example of that. The question I have swirling in my mind is this: when the Blue Mud Bay negotiations are complete, is it only then this government will swing into action to introduce legislation which will allow for a freer and more streamlined approach to Aboriginal land permits?
In closing, I feel I need to raise two further points used by the member for Nelson in his letter to the Opposition Leader as justification for not supporting bills. First, he quoted our system of parliament, the Westminster system. The thing is, the Westminster system is not built around parties; this is something which has been added. The Westminster system is built on people being elected to parliament and, as such, these members represent their constituencies and vote accordingly. When we look back on the evolution of Australian parliament, this was built on people making laws, getting the support they needed, and laws being passed. What the member for Nelson has done is not extend support for the Westminster system but extended support for a partisan-based system which, ironically, he said he wanted to see change. I shall not dwell here as this is a matter for the member for Nelson, although I encourage him to take a look at what I am referring to. Should we not be striving for the best laws?
The second point I want to raise in these closing remarks was that of legislation needing to be costed and dealt with by departments before it comes into this place. Again, there are two issues here. First is the people who write our legislation, the Parliamentary Counsel, also write the government’s legislation and do so with the same level of diligence and integrity, regardless of whom it is for. Second, this bill does not have a financial implication on the government. It does not have a departmental implication, as government neither gains nor loses anything in the passage of this legislation. In fact, this bill simply gives land councils the option to grant groups permits. I know informally there are traditional owners and land councils out there who are interested in having this ability.
Thus, putting aside matters of integrity and people’s word, there is no basis on testing this bill against the member for Nelson’s stated position to the Leader of the Opposition to oppose this bill, other than a want to support the partisan position of those opposite and make life easier for the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson knows, in all good conscience, this bill is not about bringing down his agreement. This bill is about putting in place a law that could make fishing in the Territory much more certain and allow the traditional owners and land councils an extra option if they wish to pursue it.
Madam Speaker, I have not vilified the member for Nelson. Instead, I have operated in good faith and with integrity. I simply hope for the same from the member for Nelson, especially since he has indicated his support for this legislation previously. In opposing this bill, I assume he will be abstaining from voting on it. I hope, if he has listened to this debate he will reconsider his position.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
__________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement
Members for Arafura and Araluen
Pairing Arrangement
Members for Arafura and Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: I have received a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Araluen. It is for the rest of today and tomorrow. It is signed by the two Whips.
__________________
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Ms Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 11 Ayes and 11 Noes, under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the question is found in the negative.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we now move to the adjournment. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I condemn the attack on public servants which was contained within the CLP’s dissenting report to the Council of Territory Cooperation inquiry tabled earlier today. The Chief Minister spoke earlier of his disgust at the cowardly attack from the member for Port Darwin on the Under Treasurer, a public servant who has no right of reply …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have already ruled that word unparliamentary in the past. I ask you to do so again.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: The Chief Minister spoke earlier of his disgust at the attack from the member for Port Darwin on the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, a public servant who has no right of reply. As Treasurer, I also feel compelled to put on to the record …
Mr Elferink: There was no attack.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I actually commended her, if you read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, she is making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting! Member for Karama, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: As Treasurer, I also feel compelled to put on to the record my disgust at this slur, and completely reject the claims made by the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin suggested the Under Treasurer avoided answering questions, but his claim is absurd; it does not stack up. The extract from Hansard that he included in his report simply does not support his case. Quoting from his report:
- It would have been clear to the Under Treasurer what the question implied ...
He is admitting that he was implying something rather than asking something directly ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin is, essentially …
Members interjecting.
Madam Speaker: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin is, essentially, complaining that the Under Treasurer failed to read his mind. No one should be expected to read his weird mind. I believe any reasonable person reading the extract from Hansard will come to the conclusion the Under Treasurer was doing exactly the opposite of avoiding the question. She was doing her very best to answer questions …
Mr Elferink: Then why did I have to ask her three times?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: She was doing her very best to answer questions the member for Port Darwin has admitted were implied. His suggestion that, somehow, she was avoiding questions out of loyalty to the government is a slur on her professionalism ...
Mr Tollner: No one would be loyal to you mob, would they?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: Jennifer Prince has been in Treasury well before the election of a Labor government, and has served well governments of both political persuasions. She has served the Territory since 1979. She is widely recognised as an outstanding public servant, not just in the Northern Territory Public Service but Australia-wide. She is an outstanding leader of the Northern Territory Treasury. I know Treasury staff feel privileged to work under her.
Her expertise has proved extremely beneficial to our Territory over many years. Her expertise in public finance is crucial in our attempts to get the best deal out of Canberra we can. Her economics expertise has played an important role in the Territory having the strong economy we currently enjoy. Fair, frank, and fearless advice provided to governments of all persuasions is at the heart of the public service charter.
As Treasurer, I value the frank, fair, and fearless advice Jennifer Price, as Under Treasurer, provides me. She quite simply does not deserve to be on the receiving end of such a slur, especially when the member for Port Darwin knows she has no right of reply.
This was an attack on all public servants, especially those who appear before parliamentary committees. The message is clear: if the member for Port Darwin does not like the factual answers they provide, he will hide behind dissenting parliamentary reports to attack …
Mr Elferink: I said this on radio, in public outside of this House, months ago!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: He will hide behind …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: He will hide behind dissenting parliamentary reports to attack their credibility and professionalism. I call on the member for Port Darwin to publicly retract this slur. If he refuses to do so, I call on the Leader of the Opposition to do so on his behalf.
The Under Treasurer was not the only public servant under attack from the CLP in their dissenting report. Sixty-four public servants in the division of Local Government would be very concerned the CLP has suggested scrapping their division. We know the CLP went to the last election …
Mr Elferink: So we do not do anything in government because we might upset a public servant by redeploying them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr Elferink: I will have shortly, I hope.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: We know the CLP went to the last election promising to sack 800 public servants. He has form and the 64 public servants in Local Government may well know his intentions. This is not the first time the member for Port Darwin has attacked public servants. In September 2008, when talking about the Auditor-General’s report he said:
- It reflects a great malaise which seems to be occurring in the public service ...
Further, in October 2008:
- Unfortunately for Territory taxpayers the dramatic increase in public service numbers has not been reflected in the quality of service delivery.
The member for Port Darwin’s intentions are very clear. He has no respect for public servants, he attacks their professionalism, and he wants to sack them. Shame! Retract your slur.
_____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the friends and the family of the late Mr John Lloyd. I understand the member for Sanderson is going to do an adjournment speech on Mr Lloyd. I recognise his widow, Mrs Audrey Lloyd; her daughter, Gwyn Balch, and her husband, Steve Balch, a former member of the Legislative Assembly; and her brothers and their partners, John and Kae Lloyd; Morgan Lloyd and Colleen Francis; and Owen Lloyd and Belinda Small.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, recently the Territory lost one of its truly unsung pioneers. I speak of Clarence Richard Alma Lloyd, or John Lloyd as he was known to most.
John Lloyd was a husband to wife, Audrey, for 60 years. He is the father of four, grandfather of eight, and great-grandfather of eight. He was a father-in-law to the former member of this House, Stephen Balch.
John was born in London in 1923, and he lost his mother at a very early age. As was all too often the case in those days, he had to leave school at 14 and after several jobs he joined the British Army during World War II. He was involved in one of the most significant, dangerous, and world-changing events, the landing in Europe on D-Day. He went in shortly after the first troops as a radio operator/driver. Such was his skill and commitment, he was the only person in his regiment trained in double transposition cipher, which was a special wartime code only a few were trained to interpret. Morse code was a skill he retained throughout his life.
After the war, he returned home to England after approximately three years on active service in Europe and, soon after that in 1948, he emigrated to Australia where he lived in Adelaide. It was whilst in Adelaide that he met and married the love of his life, Audrey, who, having been a wartime nurse had also emigrated to Australia from the UK. A year later, in 1949, he took the opportunity of a post in the frontier Northern Territory to join the Northern Territory Administration as a public servant. At that stage, Darwin only had a population of around 3000. He spoke very fondly of those early days and the fun that could be had in a small outpost town.
Compared to today, conditions were primitive. His first house was a Sydney Williams hut in Larrakeyah. There were no mod cons there: a kerosene fridge, no fly screens, no fans, and no air-conditioning. One can only imagine how difficult it was to raise a family in those conditions, given the things we have at our disposal today.
Since his arrival in 1949, he witnessed every stage of Darwin’s evolution from that outpost wartime town, into the current modern city it is today. As a public servant, he gave long and distinguished service to the early Territory administration in his roles at the Northern Territory Finance Branch, the Northern Territory Lands Branch, particularly dealing with early lands administration. He also gave service to the early Territory Legislative Council and, subsequently, the Legislative Assembly. He took great pride in the fact his name was ‘on the permanent record’. Just if he was watching today we are about to make sure, for one last time, it again goes on the permanent record ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: John Lloyd was someone who gave much back to his community. In the late 1950s, he became a regular member of Darwin’s Christchurch congregation and, together with a small band of regulars, spent nearly every Saturday and many evenings after work over several years building the original church hall. This venue was used for annual balls, Midnight Mass and Sunday school services. It is my understanding Cyclone Tracy took that hall and what remains of Christchurch Cathedral in Smith Street now is the front of the building, with the rear of the cathedral and the old hall gone.
When the rectory in Katherine had to be connected to the town sewer, John was there digging the trench, and he also worked in the church in Batchelor. In the stone porch still standing in the front of Christchurch Cathedral in Smith Street, a stone John fitted to the wall to replace one which had worn away can still be seen to this day; a legacy to his hard work at that establishment.
He had a keen interest in history and genealogy, and he catalogued as many of the graves as he could in Darwin and the Katherine area for the genealogical society. His wife, Audrey, was very involved in many theatre productions with the early Cavenagh Theatre, and John, who was not one for the stage, was always busy behind the scenes building and painting sets and making sure things went well behind the scenes.
He was a regular at the Arafura Games, data entering results of events, and at the Darwin Rugby League where he created and managed the early database of players to track their registration status. He moved to Darwin River around 1981 to enjoy the rural lifestyle, and was a regular in the bushfire fighting efforts in the rural areas on numerous occasions.
He was a very proud returned soldier, but he detested war and never liked to speak of the action of war. He said, on many occasions, one of the greatest gifts he received was that his eldest son was never called up to go to the Vietnam war. John was a member of the Citizens Military Forces in the early days and used to join the march with great pride each Anzac Day.
John Lloyd was a man of great personal integrity and sense of duty. He was bound by principles; his word was his bond. He was an incredibly loyal and reliable man devoted to his family. He had an unshakable pride and love for his children. However, he was a modest man but with a huge heart and one of the most reliable, punctual, and giving men you would ever have the pleasure to meet.
He was a great storyteller and he loved many forms of music. But the bagpipes and Celtic music held a special place in his heart.
John, or Grandad, as he was affectionately known to his whole family, was a gentle, spiritual man who had a deep connection with his religion. He loved his status as the elder of his tribe and he often used to say: ‘Gee, it is great being old’.
He was such a man of contrast. While he would stand patiently outside a shop waiting for ages for his wife to finish shopping, he hated lining up for anything and detested filling in forms. Maybe this is derived from the tedium of lining up and filling in forms whilst in the military. He was such a gentle man who never had a bad word to say about anyone, and delighted in some of life’s simple pleasures such as being with his family. Every evening, he would sip a scotch and he always looked forward to a glass of nice red with his dinner when sitting around with family.
He loved the country of his birth, but from afar. He often said Australia and the Northern Territory, in particular, gave him much greater opportunity in life than he could ever have hoped for in England. However, whilst he was a staunch monarchist, he was fiercely proud of Australia and took great pride in being a Territorian.
It is from people like John Lloyd we get our ongoing values. He has been a role model for the three generations who followed him. The freedoms and the lifestyle we enjoy today are the result of John and other great citizens like him. He was an inspiration, not only to his family and friends, but to all of us. According to John, Darwin was, in 1949, a great place and, indeed, it is a great place today. But one can only imagine that if all of today’s citizens had the same qualities John Lloyd had, what an even greater place this city would have been today.
John was a quite achiever who never sought recognition or accolades for his efforts in his community work. His legacy will be the quiet leadership and inspiration he has given to us all.
I pay tribute to his family, as they were part of his journey and now contribute to our community in a similar way John did. To Mrs Audrey Lloyd and your family, your daughter Gwyn and her husband, Steve; sons and partners, John and Kae Lloyd, Morgan Lloyd and Colleen Francis, and Owen Lloyd and Belinda Small, and to grandsons, Robert Lloyd and Mark Balch, who are all here tonight, from me, on behalf of the community, please accept our condolences on your and the community’s loss. Vale, John Lloyd.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you our most sincere condolences of the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also pass on my condolences to the family, in particular Gwyn and Steve Balch. I have known Gwyn and Steve for many years, especially Steve with his work in the House and the Chamber in the past.
I now have several issues to deal with in this adjournment debate and, consequently, I will have to deal with those quickly. First is the Territory economic review. It is small wonder the Northern Territory Treasurer has come into this House trying to stir up a hornets’ nest, quite unnecessarily, around the Under Treasurer, when what she is trying to mask is this little gem on the Treasury website:
- In the December quarter 2009, Darwin’s annual rate was 3%, compared to 2.1% nationally. Darwin’s annual inflation rate has risen since the low of 2.5% reported in the June quarter of 2008.
It goes on to say:
- Housing remains the largest contributor to annual inflation, contributing 1.72 percentage point to growth in Darwin, and 1.14 percentage points to growth in the eight capital cities. In Darwin, the increase in rents (11%), and electricity costs (21%) accounted for the majority of the increase in the housing category.
This is the Treasurer who told Territorians but two years ago on a Stateline interview that the required release of land in the Top End was not going to be more than 300 per annum. Clearly, even at that stage, she was wrong. Despite the opposition, as well as other parties, calling for the Treasurer to release more land, she failed to do so - and continued to fail to do so when, in that same interview, she said Bellamack would release 700 blocks in the next couple of years. Bellamack has only just, in the last few months, started releasing land.
This is an inflation rate which is driven by housing costs, which is caused by the poor decision-making of this government - and nothing else. The other inflationary driver in the overall housing category of 21% was electricity costs. This is before we factor in next year’s increases. Clearly, this government is entirely responsible for Darwin’s inflation rate which is now substantially over the national average.
To compound the pain for the residents of Darwin, in the same review average full-time weekly earnings in Darwin was $1211.50. The Australian national average was $1250.30. So, we are well behind the Australian average in average income; we live in the most expensive real estate in the country because of this government’s decision-making process. It is getting more expensive because this government still is not releasing land in a sufficiently comprehensive manner - compounded with increasing electricity prices.
All the Treasurer wants to do is whinge about the dissenting report from the CTC. Whilst we are addressing this issue, the first point I have to make is, if the Treasurer is so concerned about public servants in front of parliamentary committees, the answer is simple - she appears in front of the parliamentary committee, and I will deal with the Treasurer. But no, not once did she choose to come into the parliamentary committee and avail herself of an opportunity to explain the muck-up this particular Treasurer has made of the Territory budget year in, year out. We are carrying a $0.25bn deficit at the moment, and this Treasurer does not concern herself with it, to the point where she wants to defend her fiscal credibility. So, she sent in the Under Treasurer.
She also made a very salient and important point; that the Under Treasurer is a servant of the government. Absolutely, that is correct. She was actually, if memory serves me, appointed by the former government. She was the Under Treasurer under the former CLP government and she continues to be the Under Treasurer in this government - a good and loyal servant of the government.
I point out to honourable members the point I was trying to make in relation to those comments was it appears the Under Treasurer was doing what she is normally used to doing; that is, the process we see in estimates. When we ask questions in estimates, sometimes we have to ask the same question a few times to get answers out of people. Normally, we do that of politicians in committees. However, while politicians are busy hiding and they trot out their public servants - what? - we are not supposed to make observations about the answers we get? We are just supposed to blithely accept them?
I have always asserted - and continue to assert - in this House we must bring critical thinking to bear, even on what our senior bureaucrats tell us. It is through that process we can actually demonstrate we are in charge.
Madam Speaker, I will actually quote the exchange. This is after the Chief Minister promised a full and open approach in this committee. It was going to be different to estimates. In estimates, it is generally acknowledged you have to pull the information out, but this was going to be different. This information was going to be volunteered in the same way information is volunteered to ministers - or should be volunteered to ministers; it should be offered up.
That in mind, in that context, the exchange between the Treasurer and the committee as to where certain infrastructure funds were to be drawn from was a case in point. The issue I am talking about is having to draw information out of public servants for the committee:
- Mr Elferink: What are the sources of those funds?
The funds I was referring to was the fact that, all of a sudden, there was an off-budget spend announced in that committee by the Northern Territory government for infrastructure that had been passed over to the Northern Territory government as a result of a stuff-up in SIHIP. So, I say:
- What are the sources of those funds?
Ms Prince: Are you talking about extra government funds?
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Okay, by that stage, if the Under Treasurer is anywhere near as professional as I believe she is, and the Treasurer believes she is, she already would have known what the question was relating to. She would have known; that is what a professional does. The answer from Ms Prince was it was about an extra budget allocation.
- Mr Elferink: From what part of the budget was the budget allocation made? Was it in the budget process or was it from the Treasurer’s Advance?
Now, there is no doubt I am asking specifically about the Treasurer’s Advance. Answer:
- There was some additional funding provided towards the end of the past financial year.
Pause:
- Mr Elferink: Yes, from what source?
- Ms Prince: Was it provided through the Treasurer’s Advance?
She asked the question. Finally, she said:
- Yes. I think it was.
I went on to say in the dissenting report - and this is important:
- The question to determine that the money was being drawn from the Treasurer’s Advance was avoided twice and until it was framed in such a way as to be only answerable with the answer originally sought. It would have been clear to the Under Treasurer what the question implied …
Because she is a professional:
- … but the answer was not readily forthcoming. Whilst loyalty to the government of the day is commendable, it is not what was promised by the Chief Minister.
The Under Treasurer, in my assertion, was doing what normally occurs in these processes. I can tell you, if they think those sorts of answers are sufficient to run government, small wonder they are completely in the dark. The fact is it is commendable that public servants are loyal to the government of the day; they are the elected government. However, this is a brave new world in which we occupy this space. What I am trying to encourage the Chief Minister to do by these comments is not try to stir up a hornets’ nest about me attacking the Under Treasurer; I actually commend her for doing her job professionally. However, what I am trying to extract from the Chief Minister is his promise the information brought to the council of Territorians would be forthright and fully open, as though they were actually reporting to government what was going on.
Madam Speaker, that is where the Chief Minister has failed. This is not a failure of Jennifer Prince; it is not an attack on her. It is simply an attack on government for not having the guts to turn up and answer for themselves in front of that council.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, methinks the member for Port Darwin protests too much. He is digging himself out of the hole he dug himself. It was a disgusting slur on the Under Treasurer, and he should be condemned for those words.
My adjournment tonight is to give a report to the House in relation to my recent trip to Japan. It is an objective of the Henderson Labor government to grow the Territory’s economy. One of those major projects which the Henderson Labor government has been very successful with is the INPEX project. The previous Chief Minister and this Chief Minister actively went out and presented a case to the INPEX company to come to Darwin, and have been very closely working with them ever since that initial meeting.
We certainly are interested in major projects in the Territory. Members might have seen today in the Northern Territory News a story about INPEX seeking expressions of interest for up to $1bn worth of work on the gas project. Those expressions of interest have been posted on the NT Industry Capability Network website, and Sean Kildare, the general manager of INPEX in Darwin, is quoted in the story saying the $1bn worth of works is confirmation of the commitment INPEX has to the project, and the project coming to Darwin. It is an important milestone in the project. Everything is moving very much on track; however, there is a fair way to go with the project. We are still keeping a very close eye on it.
The government is speaking to INPEX on how best to ensure Territory businesses get the most out of this project and can take full advantage, and how private individuals can take full advantage of this project. Planning around those opportunities is ongoing, and I look forward to reporting back to the House on that.
I will discuss the trip itself. I travelled to Tokyo, Japan, with George Roussos, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr Kevin Peters, General Manager of the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. Whilst I was in Japan, I had a few objectives. One was introducing myself; have that personal relationship with our key business partners. That personal relationship is an important aspect of doing business in Asia.
Whilst I was there meeting with those key players, pushing not only the INPEX project but also other projects and opportunities which exist in the Northern Territory. We have quite a number of offshore projects with Japan but, obviously, there are some onshore projects we would like to see them participate in. Whilst with the various companies, I was stressing the importance of the industry participation plan we have signed with INPEX which obliges their subcontractors and contractors to use local industry, and abide by all those facets of the industry participation plan. I was also there to build on the relationship set by previous ministers, and certainly by the Chief Minister.
Whilst in Tokyo, I met with the president of JGC, the Japan Gas Corporation. They are a huge contractor. The consortium they are with builds something like 70% of the world’s LNG plants. It is absolutely incredible. There were some 3000 people in the building that work for JGC. I met with Mr Yaegashi, the president, and his senior staff. At the moment, they are the onshore feed contractor, and they provided a very good presentation. They certainly are aware of the interest we have in the success of the project, about the IPP, and our strong push that local business gets a decent share of this project.
I met with Mr Jimmy Ijima, the President of ConocoPhillips, and his senior staff. Again, we were looking at opportunities for expanding ConocoPhillips’ involvement in the Northern Territory. It was good to hear his wealth of knowledge about LNG across not only Asia, but the world, about the market and what opportunities exist. Jimmy Ijima is a good friend of the Northern Territory, and I am sure that friendship will continue.
I met with INPEX, and I was delighted to be able to meet some of the most senior people in the organisation. Mr Kuroda is the president of INPEX. I also met his most senior staff member in Australia, Saya Ito, the managing director, and also Mr Okada, who is commonly known as ‘Mr Darwin’ because he was the gentleman within INPEX who presented Darwin as the most logical place to bring the gas project to Australia.
That was a very good meeting. INPEX is, hopefully, a very good friend of the Northern Territory and we look forward to that relationship continuing.
I met the Vice-Minister of the Department of Economy Trade and Industry (METI), was Vice-Minister Takahashi. He has been recently appointed with a new government. I pressed home with Mr Takahashi that we want to do more business with Japan. We want to expand the projects they have in the Northern Territory. They are looking at a range of security over energy supplies, not only with LNG, but uranium, precious and rare earths and other projects like that. I extended an invitation for Vice-Minister Takahashi to come to the Northern Territory and meet with the Resources department and other departments here to look at other opportunities. METI is a 25% shareholder in INPEX so they are linked to that project as well.
Also I met with Teddy Takeuchi, a journalist from Asahi Shimbun, which is the second largest newspaper in Japan with some six million readers daily. He is coming out to Australia; he will be out here next week. He is bringing another journalist to the Northern Territory. They will be doing a four-page feature on Australia, and we are hoping that it will be quite a mention of the Northern Territory. Teddy has a close relationship with Australia as his wife is Australian. We look forward to his and his colleague’s visit to Australia.
I met with the Australian Embassy staff, the Deputy Ambassador, Dr Brendan Hammer and also Derek Brown who is the Counsellor for Resources and Industry. It was great to be able to talk to them about the opportunities that exist. One thing that left me with the stark image I had coming away from Tokyo was everyone was saying when they think of Australia, they think of the Northern Territory because we are up there, we are in the face of industry, we are in the face of all the resources sector, we are presenting our case to come and do business. That was great to see. That was reiterated by Courtney Buller, the Austrade’s Investment Commissioner. She was saying exactly the same thing: the Northern Territory is punching way above its weight and is up there trying to do business.
I took the opportunity to go to the Tokyo Electric Power Cooperation. They actually take Darwin LNG gas. I had a tour of the facility, which is massive. Our generation capacity in the Northern Territory is 400 MW. Their generation capacity in Tokyo is 62 000 MW, so it is absolutely incredible.
I thank George Roussos. He now has a good insight, and he knows the people to meet when they come over here. Thanks to George and Kevin for accompanying me on this trip. I look forward to the various people I met coming here to the Northern Territory, and to us being able to sell more opportunities, to do more business, to grow this economy, to create jobs, and create a greater lifestyle here for Territorians.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I compliment the Litchfield Football Club which is a soccer club - in particular, the parents and girls involved in the Girls Under 13 team who are trying out to be included in the Northern Territory team going to compete in the Australian championships in Canberra in April this year.
The girls and their families are very busy fundraising. If they are successful and selected - and I hope they are – the trip will cost approximately $1500 per girl. Then, there is the cost of the supporting family members who need to travel with the team. The girls have been running sausage sizzles and, only this past weekend, they raised nearly $1000 towards the travel with a couple of events. One of the sizzles was held at the Coolalinga shops. On Sunday morning, I helped cook and serve sausages. In total, about 300 sausages were sold, which was quite extraordinary. They have also been running a raffle and guess the number of lollies in a jar as ways to further increase their fundraising.
I extend my congratulations to the following girls for their initial selection: Emma Boeck, Charlie Malady, Kaitlyn Sawrey, Maley Grose, Peta Harman and Dana McAlear. I congratulate also all the parents who are helping Mary Boeck and the club to support all the girls and their families to travel to Canberra. I applaud the club, as they also have a senior women’s team in the competition. While I have never played soccer before, I am tempted to join them on training days to see if I can mirror the famous Ple.
I also congratulate Dimity Jessup from the rural area who has recently been appointed to the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, which is a great achievement. Being a member of the round table will provide Dimity and the other members an opportunity to provide government with advice and insight into current youth issues, and to assist in the development of youth policies, programs and services. Some of the other matters the Youth Round Table will look at could include drink-driving, public entertainment, empowering youth, peer pressure, and youth mental health issues.
I am sure Dimity will take to the table the issues confronting youth in the rural area, including issues such as public transport, lack of a safe community swimming centre, lack of recreational activities, and supporting youth in the transition from primary school to middle school, which is a difficult time for youth aged, sometimes, only 11 years old. I wish Dimity well in her appointment, and hope she achieves much success and brings a lot of benefits to youth in the rural area.
I congratulate the following students in the rural area on the achievements they have attained recently. These achievements demonstrate the dedication and commitment these students have given to their studies and community service. They are role models, and I am sure they will continue to do well at school and in all of the activities they are involved in - whether it is school work, sport, citizenship, or community activities.
Congratulations to Bronte Pearson from Bees Creek Primary School on receipt of the Administrator’s Medal for the Best Territory Junior Scholar. Congratulations to Ashlee Modra from Taminmin College on receipt of the NT Board of Studies Vocational Education and Training Award. Congratulations to Stevie-Rose Stoll from Taminmin College on the receipt of the Group Training NT Most Outstanding School-based Apprenticeship or Trainee. Stevie-Rose also picked up the Australian Computer Society ICT Award for her studies and work in graphic design.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, congratulations to all the students, and also to the junior soccer players.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the achievements of a couple of Year 12 students from my region. Cassie Williams, daughter of Greg and Vicki, achieved the top mark of Nhulunbuy High School for 2009 and, for that, in January I was pleased to present Cassie with a School Dux Award to recognise her achievements. I wish Cassie all the best with her gap year before venturing to Brisbane in 2011 to take up studies for a degree in biotechnology.
Just last week, I learned that Yilki Guyula from Yirrkala CEC, was not only the top Year 12 student at her school, but she was also recognised as the Territory’s top Year 12 Indigenous student from a remote school. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the special reception held here in Parliament House which our Education minister attended, along with Mark Sweet from Telstra, where Yilki was named of the recipient of the Telstra Remote Indigenous Award. As local member, I look forward to attending a special graduation ceremony planned soon at Yirrkala Community Education College, where I can also present Yilki with an award.
I spoke with Yilki’s mother, Nalwarri Ngurruwuthun, on the morning I received the news. She is, understandably, proud of her daughter’s achievements and, in turn, Yilki acknowledged her mother - a former principal of Yirrkala CEC, principal of Yirrkala Homeland School and, now, senior cultural advisor with Yirrkala Homeland School. She acknowledged her as her role model. It is a wonderful story.
In turn, I hope, as this government commits and invests at record levels in remote schools and in Indigenous education and Indigenous children, that Yilki will be a role model for other children at Yirrkala and encourage others to complete their schooling.
I go back to Nhulunbuy High School, and also acknowledge Dominic Bulters and Sophie Liley as the very worthy recipients of the 2009 Citizenship Awards which I sponsor each year at the school. Unfortunately, I was unable to present these awards as I chose to travel instead to attend, for the first time, the end-of-year presentation night for Shepherdson College at Elcho Island, which clashed with the Nhulunbuy High School presentation night.
My evening at Elcho was certainly memorable. It was evening full of colour, dance, song, and happy and proud students, with equally happy and proud families. Highlights of the evening included the screening a couple of wonderful films. One, which whilst humorous, dealt with serious subject of bullying, and the second dealt with a dream-like story about a lippa lippa or a canoe, and told the story in English with Yolngu Matha subtitles. The work on both films was done by students - the acting, directing, scripting, editing, and translating - with the support of teachers and tutors. They were very impressive pieces of multimedia work. The other highlight of the evening was the staff of Shepherdson College dancing up a storm with their rendition of the late Michael Jackson’s Thriller.
On Friday, 29 January, I attended the annual Group Training Awards night held in Nhulunbuy. Congratulations to all apprentices and trainees who were recognised for completion of various stages of their apprenticeships, as well as those singled out for outstanding performance. I place on the Parliamentary Record the names of the following apprentices and trainees who did receive an award for outstanding performance. Basically, the apprentices in the region in and around Nhulunbuy are divided into two groups. We have those who are classed as the Rio Tinto Alcan apprentices and trainees, and those who are the township apprentices and trainees - with Rio Tinto Alcan, obviously, being the largest employer in the region.
For Rio Tinto Alcan: Stage 1 acknowledgement was given to Senad Jahic in Certificate III in Engineering Mechanical; Stage 2 Outstanding Award was presented to Jake Mapstone, who is at Certificate III level in Engineering Mechanical; Stage 3 recognition was given to Christopher Lynch, who had just completed his Certificate III in Mechanical Engineering; Stage 4 recognition was given to Adam Dobson, at level Certificate III in Electrotechnology; and Trainee of the Year for Rio Tinto Alcan was Tyron Maher, having completed Certificate III in Business.
The Town Apprentice of the Year went to Luke Tabone at Certificate III level in his Automotive Heavy Vehicle apprenticeship. Town Trainee of the Year was Zoe Shepherd in her Certificate III in Business. School-based Trainee of the Year was Myphemial Bond, having completed Certificate III in Business. Indigenous Trainee of the Tear was Solomon Renata at Certificate II in Engineering.
Town Mentor of the Year was Pat Brazel from Laynhapuy Homelands; and the Rio Tinto Alcan Mentor the Year was Paul Creek from the Metal Fabrication Shop.
I have attended many of these awards evenings over the years and have to say that I was really pleased to see more Indigenous trainees than in previous years, supported by employers like YBE (2) Pty Ltd, Deltareef, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Laynhapuy Homelands. Employers working with organisations such as Group Training Northern Territory have a vital role to play in providing training opportunities and career pathways for our young people, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous. Females continue to be under-represented in the trades, but congratulations to those young women such as Emma Mitchell and Cecelia Bulters, who are working successfully in their chosen trade in the electrical area.
I also acknowledge and offer thanks to Paul McConnell from Group Training Northern Territory in Darwin, who was an excellent MC for the evening, as well as Sally Woodhill, the East Arnhem Group Training Northern Territory Manager, along with Robyn Ironside and Rachel Mortimer from the Nhulunbuy Group Training Northern Territory office for organising such a successful evening, and also to Rio Tinto Alcan for their continued generosity in hosting this event for all apprentices, their families and host employers.
On a sad note, I place on the public record my condolences on the passing of one of my constituents, Mr Tom Renton. In an effort to give a bit of a snapshot of Tom’s life, I read from Nhulubuy’s local paper, The Arafura Times, which in July of last year published an article about Tom on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Tom Renton was born in 1924 in Cairns.
- Tom’s father was a cabinetmaker, and due to the onset of depression, Tom had to help augment the family’s income by delivering tins of kerosene using his bicycle.
In World War II, Tom enlisted in the Army and trained as a signaller at Bonegilla School of Signals. He was posted to Townsville and then to Papua New Guinea. One of Tom’s interesting roles was climbing up tall trees in the jungle, stringing signal lines in the canopy.
- Continuing on life’s journey, he trained as a carpenter and went to Darwin in 1970, where he landed as a taxi driver.
In 1972, he came to Nhulunbuy as a relief taxi driver and never left. He served as the janitor of Dhupuma College and later transferred to Nhulunbuy High School when Dhupuma closed. For many years, Uncle Tom was a staunch volunteer for the Gove Lions Club.
Tom’s state of health had declined in recent months, such that he was relocated from Nhulunbuy with his wife, Fe, to the Darwin Hospice and Palliative Care Unit in early January. I know how hard Fe worked to nurse Tom at home, and that she did so with much love and devotion. I was really pleased to have been able to visit Tom and Fe twice in the last couple of weeks, but it was sad to see him quite literally fade away. Indeed, this was heartbreaking for Fe to watch, who was by Tom’s side day and night. I know Fe took great comfort in the knowledge that in his final weeks, Tom was in the very best of care, with highly professional and caring staff looking after him, and in surroundings which were peaceful and comfortable.
Tom slipped away in the early hours of Wednesday morning last week. I have yet to hear when the funeral is, but I know it was the intention that Tom be buried in Gove, a place that he loved and lived in for so many years. Fe, my thoughts - and I know the thoughts of the many people in Nhulunbuy who knew Tom - are with you at this very sad time. Vale Tom Renton.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about one of my very best friends, Brian Ah Mat. Brian Ah Mat is well known to many people in this Chamber. I know he is a very good friend of both the members for Stuart and Braitling. Also, the member for Drysdale is associated with and knows Brian Ah Mat quite well.
To all of those who know him know he is a champion character, a dead set true Territorian, a good footie player, good sportsman, bit of a drinker and a partier, fine family man - rather large family. I have lost count of the number of children he has – 9, 12, 14, 18, I do not know. Maybe the member for Stuart can give us a more information on that. He has a range of children all over the Territory, much loved by all of them; keeps in touch with all of them, and cares for them greatly.
Brian Ah Mat played football for Pioneers, I believe, in Alice Springs, was a St Mary’s champion here in Darwin, and was a basketball legend. Up until only a few months ago, he was the highest point scorer in a single game in the history of Darwin basketball.
About a month ago, Brian had a fall at Cyril Rioli’s daughter’s birthday party, I believe it was. He slipped on the steps and fell and split his head open – a rather terrible fall - and he was rushed into hospital with a very serious head injury. He had been a coma for something like three weeks. Doctors took rather large chunks of skull off his head, took a piece of his brain out that had been mashed up. About two weeks ago, he came out of the coma and he seems to be on the road to recovery; it is too early to tell yet. There is no doubt about it, whatever way it goes, Brian is going to be in the hospital for several more months.
Obviously, his family is having the worries of losing a husband, a father, an uncle - all myriad of families associated with Brian right across the Territory are losing sleep with worry about the guy. His immediate family are, obviously, having trouble paying the bills and doing the day-to-day things. Some of his very good friends got together, and I am very fortunate to have been involved in some of the discussions.
A Brian Ah Mat Appeal is being launched by a few of his friends. It is being hosted by Michael Long, the AFL great and one of the Territory’s favourite sons - also a best friend of Brian - and Adrian Moscheni, another AFL great who played SANFL. Adrian Moscheni and Michael Long have got together to launch this Brian Ah Mat Appeal to help his immediate family get over this initial hurdle.
Obviously, there are problems not knowing what his physical condition is, as to whether he will be entitled to any insurance. However, life goes on, things need to be paid and, for that reason, a few of the lads got together and decided to help out.
Because Brian is such a popular person around the Territory, there is a range of organisations which have become involved. The Northern Territory AFL, the St Mary’s Football Club, the Darwin Basketball Association, the airport management crew where he worked - he was a groundsman at the airport, Karen Sheldon Catering, and the Foster’s Group are all chipping in to assist with this appeal.
What exactly is happening is that, in the next three games of the AFL final series, there is a range of efforts being put in to raise money to assist Brian. There is a corporate box up next to the TIO box. I understand the cost to enter that is $50 and there is a maximum of 110 people who can get in there. That will include some alcohol and soft drinks and a little finger food for anybody who wants to go to any one of the next three final games. Additionally, people can donate money at the gate of the football, or they can do it through their basketball association, or through the airport crew.
Many people are pulling together to do this. This is quite a big thing for the AFL, as well, and nobody knows how much money will be raised. A decision has been made that, if they raise excess funds, then a fund will be started, in any event, from which to assist people in the future such as football players or people closely associated with the AFL or the like who do come to some sort of grief, as Brian has done, so we can help them through those troubled times.
I thought it worthy to inform the House of this event. As I said , he is much-loved person by so many Territorians. I have to say completely apolitical too. He gets on very well with me, as I know he gets on very well with the members for Stuart, Braitling, and Drysdale, and a range of other people. We like him because he is a top bloke.
It would be great if people listening to this broadcast can spread the word - chip in just a little here and there for a wonderful cause to help out a wonderful bloke’s family in a time of great need for them. It is a great initiative, particularly by Michael Long and Adrian Moscheni, to come through with this, launch this appeal on and kick start what I think will be fantastic fund for the future to assist people in times of need when they particularly need help and some financial support just to get them over those initial problems.
I encourage everyone to get out to the AFL anyhow. It promises to be a great final series. Good on the AFL, good on the people involved, and let us all pray that Brian makes a safe and speedy recovery.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing the Brian Ah Mat Appeal to the notice of the Assembly. For me, Brian is one of those lovable larrikins. He goes out and has a great time and is a top bloke. I actually played with Brian Ah Mat in Alice Springs in 1987 or 1988 when I first came back from Adelaide in my first year at Pioneers. He is a great footballer and a great all-round bloke. I encourage everyone who hears about the appeal to get on board. I thank the AFLNT, Michael Long, and Adrian Moscheni for the initiative. It is a great initiative and, as the member for Fong Lim said, it is there to help Brian and his family with the immediate needs he has. It is also to help those footballers further down the track who are looking for support and help as well. All round, it is a great initiative and I thank the member Fong Lim for bringing it to the House.
I also say thank you tonight to the many people who worked tirelessly and assisted efforts during the recent flooding in Central Australia. Most of the communities in the Alice Springs district received more than three times their average rainfall in the space of 48 hours. In particular, the Arlparra or Utopia district was particularly hard hit by the floods. Sadly, two people lost their lives in the floodwaters of the Sandover. I extend my condolences, as the local member, to those family members, particularly to the Jones family who I know quite well. Some time ago, I had a lot to do with them. I pass my condolences on to those families and the friends of the two men who, sadly, lost their lives in the floods.
In relation to the flood, the Sandover River rose quickly. If you have ever been out that way, it is just amazing to think of that river in full flood; it such a huge river - so wide - and it does not very often become flooded. It would have been an amazing to be there and see an amazing amount of water.
With the Sandover River rising so quickly, seven outstations were isolated. All credit to the Emergency Service people who got the emergency drops of food and medical supplies out there very quickly, particularly for the two outstations that were very isolated. Those supplies were delivered by chopper; a great outcome and a great effort by the Emergency Services people. Five other outstations had food ferried across the river at the safe crossings.
I thank staff from the Utopia clinic, in particular, Ricky Tilmouth and his organisation from the shire office, and also the community members across the homelands for their great efforts during such a difficult time.
In Wilora, in my electorate of Stuart as well, there were 10 houses in the community that were badly flooded during the same floods. In two of the houses, the water was a metre deep. The occupants were moved to houses on higher ground, along with the aged-care facility, with the assistance of the Ti Tree Police and Emergency Services. All houses have had the required maintenance, and residents have returned to their homes. It was a good opportunity for me to get out there not long after the floods and visit the community of Wilora - or Stirling as it is also known. The police report all the houses have had the required maintenance and residents have returned to their homes.
During my visit, the residents were very keen, particularly the ladies at the women’s centre, to show me the many photos they took of the floods. Inspecting the houses, it is hard to imagine - even flying over Wilora this week to Darwin, to see the amount of water still sitting there - the flow that must have been going through that small community because there were fences just pushed over like matchsticks - an amazing amount of water. To all the residents at Wilora, Stirling, in my electorate, well done. It was a difficult time for you as well. They are, I suppose in one way, proud to have those photos to show how much water went through that small community.
Going to the south-west of Alice Springs, the region received less rain than other parts. The biggest issue there was the amount of water coming down some of the rivers, particularly the Finke which caused several washaways. To those people there, congratulations and well done on going through such a difficult time and bonding together to pull through it.
When the floods affected the Pigeon Hole area, again in my electorate, through the VRD region, there were an extra 100 people in the community on sorry business. The road was cut between Yarralin and Pigeon Hole and, if you have ever driven that road, you can see it is not too hard to do. You would not need much water because it is such a rough part of the Territory. I also thank the GBM at Yarralin who made an outboard motor available for those people who wished to leave Pigeon Hole and return to their communities. Also, to the local shire staff at Pigeon Hole, particularly Elmor Anzac and the staff at the Nitjpurru Health Clinic, in particular, Lorraine Johns, for their efforts during a difficult time.
I thank the Minister for Local Government, the member for Arnhem, for the recent announcement through the Special Purpose Grants of a grant of $350 000 to the Victoria Daly Shire for a community hall and flood shelter at Pigeon Hole. Obviously, where Pigeon Hole is located along the Victoria River, regularly face the floods and the rising levels of the Victoria River, which come up very quick. Through my time as local member, they have consistently been asking for this particular facility, so it is just great. I congratulate and thank again the Minister for Local Government for announcing and providing $350 000 for a community hall and flood shelter at Pigeon Hole. That would go really nicely next to their new airstrip the Northern Territory government has also provided.
Turning back to the floods in Central Australia and the Utopia region, many people worked tirelessly to assist during the floods, including Ray Musgrove the OIC at Arlparra Police Station, and his colleagues, Senior Constable Paul Harvey and Constable Thi Nguyen. Also, Acting Senior Sergeant Darrell Kerr coordinated operations at the Alice Springs end, while Senior Constable Owen Auricht coordinated efforts in the Kulgera region. Sergeant Justin Harbour and officers at Ti Tree also deserve a special mention, as do Senior Constable Nick Burns and his colleagues at Pigeon Hole, Harry Scott, the Shire CEO at Arlparra or Utopia, and Robert Romaldi and his staff in Emergency Services in Alice Springs.
It was my pleasure to be able to go to the local Emergency Services headquarters in Alice Springs in Wilkinson Street and put on morning tea for Rob Romaldi and his staff, and some volunteers. We know they do a fantastic job, particularly the volunteers. There is a great quote on their website, which I would like to place on the public record in recognition of the great work volunteers do, particularly in our Emergency Services. The quote is: ‘Ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. What a fantastic quote, and I really do think that sums up the efforts of those volunteers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the rain was certainly welcome. In the Central Australia region, particularly in Alice Springs, yesterday was one of the wettest February days in years. Looking at the ABC website, it says 61 mm of rain fell in Alice Springs airport yesterday - just in one day; the most since January 2001. The town’s average monthly rainfall for February is 41 mm - that is for the whole month - and what we saw in Alice Springs yesterday was 61 mm in one day. It is an amazing amount of rain. We are expecting more stormy weather in the Alice Springs district, and I am sure all the crew down at the Emergency Services headquarters in Wilkinson Street are on edge and ready to get out there again with the volunteers and support, and provide a very important service to the community.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I talk on two points. First is the Seniors Forum that was held Monday. I thank the member for Daly for mentioning it twice in the last two days in this House. It is a very important opportunity for our seniors in Palmerston to get together. The Palmerston City Council gathers together different agencies, puts on a bit of a morning tea and it gives the opportunity for the people in Palmerston to voice their concerns directly to people who should listen.
What I am a little annoyed at is the assertions by the member for Daly that I, the member for Drysdale, did not care, as I did not turn up twice in two days. The member for Daly has recklessly made that assertion, full well knowing I sit here in parliament with an arm in a sling and but one free arm, having only last Friday had keyhole surgery for a shoulder repair. That would reasonably make people think that I was not available, instead of going out and being borderline slanderous in this parliament that I did not care for my constituents.
To the contrary, I do much, and I attend many of these events that occur. Monday, I was still rather medicated, only a couple days out of surgery and, unfortunately, not in a fit state to attend. It is a shame the member for Daly would come in and make such slurs, because it does actually reflect very poorly on his character.
My electorate officer, Donna Ellice, was there representing me in an official capacity. The Palmerston City Council was made aware of it well before the event. I did mention it at the halfway point. It was an oversight by Alderman Geoff Carter that he did not mention it in the first part of his talks; however, he did correct that. Mr Terry Mills, Leader of the Opposition, was also there briefly, but he was represented by his electorate officer, as was the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler.
Leading into parliament, we all know it is busy, but we were well represented. It is shameful that the member for Daly would come into this parliament and throw slurs which are truly unfounded. It will reflect badly upon him in the community.
Then I heard the member for Daly gloat about the great job they have done in setting up the seniors hospital bus run. I will stand here and say categorically: fantastic effort! It is a brilliant plan, and you have done well to introduce this. You are the government, it is your job. You have done a fantastic job, and congratulations! The residents do appreciate it. It is a shame the member for Daly gloated on the figures stated at the Seniors Forum on Monday. The numbers were between 80 and 90 people, not 100-plus as stated by the member for Daly - neither here nor there; only a few people. I know the service is well used.
Let us have a history lesson; a true representation of the spirit of people in Palmerston, and the founding efforts of the people who have brought about the service which is now in place. It goes back to 2002, when a lovely lady by the name of Judy Joyce, former alderman and Deputy Mayor of Palmerston City Council, began lobbying both the Northern Territory government and the Palmerston City Council to start this shuttle run to the Royal Darwin Hospital. Off her own bat, Judy Joyce started this campaign. Unfortunately, she did not get support from the government or the council at the time.
Judy Joyce, in conjunction with the former member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham, began a volunteer-based service. The hospital run has been operating since 2002 as a volunteer-based service, providing a great service to many senior Territorians in Palmerston. Then, it was run by a handful of people: Rod and Judy Joyce, Pam MacLeod, Brenda Lang, Diane Tennyenhuis and Paul Dahl. They received funding mainly through the member for Drysdale’s office - a member of Country Liberal Party - and the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. When Steve Dunham lost his seat, the operation of the volunteer bus service went across to the member for Blain’s office, the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills. It was still in conjunction with the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel, and funds were supplemented to help with fuel costs of those volunteer drivers.
I take the time now to briefly mention the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. They have donated thousands and thousands of dollars to various community events around Palmerston. The Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel was set up by John Wilson - nicknamed ‘Pastry’, with Margot Cox assisting. Fortunately, on the death off Mr Wilson, Margot took over and has continued to this date to do the Palmerston Shopping Centre Community Wheel. She is a fantastic lady who will reach out and do whatever she can for the community. She has been formally nominated for Australian of the Year. She has done a fantastic job. She continued to support the volunteer drivers until the recent takeover by the government, which has been long awaited.
Of recent times, the volunteer hospital service operated out of the office of the member for Blain. It has been run by Maggie Schoenfisch, Margaret Lee, Margaret Pinney, Jenni Suckling, Irene Schreiber and Pam Smith. They were servicing about 80 seniors in the Palmerston area throughout the time. It is a true representation of Palmerston’s great spirit and community orientation to help each other out. Maggie Schoenfisch is Palmerston’s Australia Day winner for 2010; a great lady with a huge heart who does her best for every person in the community.
It was a shame they were not mentioned today when the member for Daly gloated about how well the government has done with the hospital bus service. It had a very humble beginning with volunteers under the guidance of Judy Joyce. It should be recognised it was started by volunteers. It has been demonstrated clearly there is a continuing need by its support. On behalf of those seniors, we thank the government for the service. It is a much-needed service; however, it is the volunteers who started it and we thank them very much.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, during the November 2009 sittings in Alice Springs, I stated I would report to the Assembly in February 2010 regarding the intersection of Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive in Alice Springs. I agreed to investigate traffic congestion and safety matters around the Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection, take into account consideration of local stakeholder views, report to the Assembly at the February 2010 sittings and, subject to the results of the investigation, commit to a time frame for commencement and completion of any works to be undertaken at the intersection during the February sittings.
At that time, I provided some background on traffic volumes and crash statistics in relation to the intersection. Traffic counts had been undertaken at the intersection in 1997, 2005 and, again, late last year. The traffic count in October 2009 identified traffic volumes passing through the intersection during peak times to be between 10 000 and 11 000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Lovegrove Drive. The average annual daily traffic count for Larapinta Drive has remained relatively static for the past decade, and recent traffic data confirms a growth rate of less than 1%. This traffic growth rate is not expected to change from the current trend for Larapinta Drive in future years. This is consistent with the strategic planning documents for Alice Springs, including the Alice Springs Land Use Structure Plan.
The crash data for this intersection show there have been 13 accidents in the last 18 years. Five of those crashes involved injuries, with three incidents requiring hospital admission. Two crashes occurred in peak hour, and 11 in non-peak hour, with 10 occurring in daylight hours.
An investigation into the traffic congestion and safety matters around Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection has been undertaken. Surveys to determine traffic volumes and vehicle movement patterns during peak and off-peak times have been carried out. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure operational staff have been extensively involved in the investigative work, and have carried out consultation at the local level. Alice Springs Town Council executive technical staff also provided input regarding the perceived traffic issues at the intersection. Those surveys indicate the current road traffic arrangements are sufficient; however, as this intersection is a key location in the local road network in Alice Springs, I am advised the intersection can and will be improved.
The investigation has recommended proposed improvements works at the intersection, namely some geometry changes to curb lines, road signs, and traffic islands. These works will affect existing services and structures and will need detailed design. I have asked my department to commence survey of the site in an effort to finalise the design process. The proposed improvement works will be made publicly available, and I anticipate works will commence on-site in the middle of this year, with works to be completed by September 2010. Of course, we will ask motorists to be patient during the roadworks, and will program the works to provide as little impact during peak traffic times as possible.
Whilst I am confident this solution will ease traffic delays in queuing at the intersection, I reiterate that road safety is everybody’s business. I urge people to take care at all times when they are out and about on our roads.
I also take the opportunity tonight to talk about the National Archives held in Darwin. On 9 November 2009, the National Archives announced it intended to close its Hobart, Adelaide, and Darwin offices over the next three years. The Darwin office in Millner was set to shut its doors at the end of its current lease in September 2010. Concerns at this closure have been raised by many interested parties, and there has been considerable disquiet throughout the research and information management communities.
The Henderson government was opposed to the loss of the material, which holds significance for many Territorians. I had raised my concerns directly with the federal government. Yesterday, they listened to Territorians. The Rudd government announced the National Archives of Australia will maintain face-to-face services in Darwin. The federal government announced that Australia’s National Archives play a vital role in keeping the political, social, and cultural history of Australia alive.
This is great news for many Territorians including members of the Stolen Generations. The Millner archive holds records very significant to them about themselves, their families, and their country.
I thank the member for Solomon, Damian Hale, for his lobbying on this issue. In the announcement, Mr Hale said:
- Instead of closing the Darwin office, the government will work to co-locate with similar institutions.
I welcome this approach. I have tasked the CEO of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport to work collaboratively with the Director-General of National Archives. I believe we will find a suitable facility in the near future. One option being explored is the co-location of Northern Territory government records with the federal archives. This will keep the records in the Territory and help researchers and interested parties access records of interest.
The announcement ensures the archive can provide high-quality services in Darwin for all Territorians. We will continue to work with the federal government and the National Archives to ensure these important records are maintained for access by Territorians. I will keep the House informed of progress.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016