2008-10-22
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you that at 11 am there will be a condolence motion for the late Mrs Hilda Muir. Should a member be speaking at that time, I will interrupt so that we can move the condolence motion forthwith.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this report.
Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Alice Springs Masters Games which were, once again, a huge success. With over 4200 competitors, Alice Springs was certainly buzzing. We also had a record number of local competitors - well over 1200 – and, with over 35 sports, there was something for everyone.
The Masters Games proves that age is no barrier for competing and enjoying your particular sport. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit most sports and present many medals. I have to say one of the highlights for me was being able to present the Games patron, Dawn Fraser, with her silver medal in swimming. This Australian icon made her return to swimming at the Masters Games, and it was a thrill for many to see her in the pool again. She has assured us that she will be back in 2010. I also presented a 97-year-old lady, who still competes in the swimming, with a medal, and I presented a medal to an 82-year-old lady who had just completed the 5 km cross-country event. This epitomises what the games are all about.
For the first time, there was an AFL Masters Games, with the Alice Springs team competing against Darwin. I had the pleasure of playing in this match, which Alice Springs won, of course, and it was great to see one of the AFL legends from the Northern Territory, Michael Long, out there for the Top Enders. The man of the match was Dick Kimber, our own legend from Alice Springs. Dick was thrilled to kick a goal for the Alice, albeit only 10 m from the goals, and I believe he celebrated accordingly that night. Dick also competed in quite a few swimming events - not bad for a man of 68 years of age. A local Alice Springs identity, Wayne Kraft, donned the boots for Darwin together with many ex-footballers from both ends of the Territory. This event was a big success and drew a large crowd at Traeger Park. Given the success, I believe it may be included in future Masters Games events.
The Alice Springs Masters Games is a major event and it takes a huge amount of organisation to stage such a successful one. Congratulations must go to the people behind the scenes, such as the volunteers - all 550 of them. The volunteers include the ambassadors, umpires, time scorers, sports coordinators, and many more who give up their time and even take annual leave to work tirelessly for the week of the games to ensure their success.
I visited the Masters Games headquarters at the convention centre and saw firsthand the hard work of the volunteers. I met with Kathy, Wolf, and Ray who were part of the transport team, and Brian Webb, who is an important part of the media for the games. To Peter Hoey, the Chair of the Masters Games Board, and the board members, the committee members of the Masters Games, and the staff of the Major Events, congratulations to all of you.
The local business people who provide support and sponsorship for the games, both monetary and in-kind, also make a huge contribution to the games success. The Masters Games Daily, which was printed by volunteers with over 7000 copies distributed daily, is an example of the in-kind sponsorship provided, with the paper, printing, etcetera, part of the sponsorship.
I had the pleasure of hosting a thank you luncheon for the 23 business sponsors and, once again, they showed their generosity. Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers had kindly signed their Masters Games T-shirts, which Daryl auctioned at the luncheon with the proceeds going to the Breast Cancer Council, with over $1000 raised.
Lincoln Jenkin, from the Foster’s Group, also gave a talk about what the Masters Games sponsorship means to their company. Foster’s has been sponsoring the Masters Games since 1986, and all indications are they, with the other sponsors, will be on board again in 2010.
Madam Speaker, work is already under way for the 2010 Alice Springs Masters Games, with most participants already pre-booking their accommodation. Alice Springs really shone during the Masters Games week. I congratulate all the people of Alice Springs on another fantastic games event.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation. He is correct; the Masters Games in Alice Springs was a fantastic event. I could only visit and view some of those sports for a handful of days while I was in Alice Springs. They were fantastic – the people, the spirit of everyone who came to Alice Springs shines brightly for the rest of Australia; the way games should be held. The spirit in which they are run is truly fantastic to see in today’s climate.
They call them the Friendly Games and I can tell you that the people who were there were friendly - although some wore rather brief outfits while playing cricket! I am glad none of our members participated in bikini cricket. It is a time where fun is joined with great sportsmanship. It is great sportsmanship when you see a 97-year-old lady compete in a 50 m swim and take what seemed to be forever to do it. That lady still had the strength to climb up the steps out of the pool, and the crowd appreciated every stroke she swam. It was an amazing event. That was just before Dawn Fraser swam. I saw that as well, and I was very impressed.
The volunteers did a fantastic job; the grounds around Alice Springs were immaculate. They were so well manicured the SCG would have been proud. I commend everyone involved in preparing for the games, in running them, and everyone who competed in the spirit of the games. This is truly the Friendly Games and I look forward, personally, to participate next time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, two minutes is all I have, and two minutes is probably what it would take to run the 400 m – and that is why I pulled out! No, it is not.
The games were great. As Damien Ryan said to me last night, he felt for the first time ever that Alice Springs people took ownership of the Masters Games. Meeting all the volunteers and all the locals, I say that is exactly what it was about. There was a great feel about Alice Springs and it was most enjoyable to be there.
There were a few politicians who participated. The member for Fong Lim actually stood on the football field during the AFL match; the member for Braitling missed a sitter in the cricket - I am not sure why he was fielding; I did not see the member for Drysdale, but I gather he was giving out medals; the member for Araluen has continuously shaken some sort of silver or gold or bronze so, obviously, she won something in some participatory occupation …
A member: Golf.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right; I think it is called golf. The ex-member for Greatorex was involved in table tennis. I played with him, which did not help – we lost quite easily. There were many people participating, including politicians, which is good. It shows we are and should be working with people and showing the way, especially for older people, to keep participating in sport. We should remind ourselves that, as we get older, we should try to keep fit. That is what the Masters Games promotes.
There are possibilities with The Ghan, for instance. As there are many people in the Territory who are involved in the Masters; perhaps they could put some extra carriages on the train on the Saturday or Sunday before the games and take teams down, and the same to come back. We could use The Ghan as part of the promotion for people in the Territory to get to the Masters.
We need to look at the price of accommodation. It certainly goes up a long way when these games are on, and it needs to be looked at ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their contributions and their involvement in the games over the last week. To all members of the Assembly who participated, thanks for coming down and being involved. I also acknowledge the Chief Minister for the opening, and the Minister for Central Australia. The member for Barkly also participated in presenting quite a few medals; it was great to get him down there and he also attended the luncheon.
I thank the Mayor, Damien Ryan, for his and the council’s work over the week. They have done a fantastic job in not only preparing the facilities but in many other ways.
I will take up those issues the member for Nelson has raised regarding The Ghan and accommodation prices.
All in all, particular thanks to Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers, two great ambassadors for the games. They are people who are very popular and well accepted by the Alice Springs community. Well done, and I look forward to 2010.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the minister has endeavoured to put a question before the House at the opening statement as he said: ‘… this report be noted’, I presume he was referring to his report only. Is it the case, under this new system, where there is actually a question before the House in ministerial reports that we are going to be putting the question after each report, or at the end of the three reports?
Madam SPEAKER: It has been the custom, as it will continue to be the custom, to put the question at the end of all ministerial reports. I refer to page 43 of Standing Orders 96A, Ministerial Reports No (5):
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was just that I did not quite understand the language. He simply said ‘this report be noted’. I appreciate that the government at least is trying to dress this farcical exercise up as a question.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report today on the 2008-09 School Environment Grants Program. These grants encourage young Territorians and their school communities to engage in positive action on environmental issues. School-age children receive a lot of information about matters affecting the environment, and it is important for them to be empowered to take personal action to make a difference. It is also important that students learn about our unique Territory environment in an interesting and a hands-on way.
Hundreds of young Territorians benefit from the School Environment Grants, and the Territory will benefit into the future from the knowledge that our young people gain about conservation and biodiversity. This year’s projects include:
Angurugu Community Education Centre on Groote Eylandt for their Caring For Our Local Environment project.
ANZAC Hill High School in Alice Springs for Our Place proposal;
MacFarlane Primary School in Katherine East for their native bush tucker garden;
I make special mention of Alawa Primary School in Darwin which received two grants, one for the purchase of solar panels for their school farm, and the other to create a cane toad-free haven for lizards and frogs.
Madam Speaker, I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I congratulate each and every one of these schools on their motivation, imagination, and commitment to our environment.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement regarding the School Environmental Grants. It is always good to support this kind of activity in the primary school, in particular, given that is where children start to form their views and attitudes towards life. If it is in the primary schools, middle and upper primary school, that is an ideal place to start. I believe it is from children that we actually learn things regarding looking after our environment, recycling, and turning off taps.
Schools have done audits using resource material that we used at the Minerals Council, called EnviroSmart. The children used to take tasks back to the government asking for dual flush toilets instead of single flushes. I recall the Adelaide River Primary School used to have all the children put their names on their Poppa drinks so that, if an empty Poppa container was found on the ground, they knew exactly which child had dropped it. That way, through peer pressure, the children started to clean up their school and make it look nice. In fact, Adelaide River Primary School won awards for environmental matters.
Schools such as Bees Creek Primary School, for example, have an organic garden which the children maintain and attend to. They have outside help from Chris Nathaniel, who is well known for his horticulture, agriculture, and organic gardening and produce. They are very proud of that garden. Taminmin High School has an agricultural component. I was there the other day and was shown around by Greg Owens. They are doing a terrific job there. I do not know, at this stage, if they have put in for any of the School Environment Grants but, if there is one school that should benefit from government assistance in regard to environmental research and management to encourage the children to work in this field and to protect and promote our environment, that is definitely one of the schools. I will be going back to that school to get further briefings and, if there are ways we can get additional grants for Taminmin High School for the agricultural program, then I would commend that to the minister. I thank her for her statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government on its environmental awards. It is important that young children, especially in school, have some basic knowledge about why the environment is important. We need to ensure we balance that. Life is not quite as simple as having a garden in a school. There are other issues later in life they will find come into play in regard to protecting the environment. It is good to see that we are helping young children find out more about the environment.
I remember science days at Humpty Doo Primary School, where we used to have Water Watch programs. We would look at macro-invertebrates. You would see on the faces of the young children how interested they were in something they knew very little about; that the water quality would affect these small insects, these small macro-invertebrates, which they did not know anything about until someone had come along and shown them. They looked through a microscope. They were able to find out things that they otherwise would not have known about. It is important that the government promotes environmental awareness, especially in today’s climate.
Madam Speaker, I made an omission in my previous statement. The minister for Sport is a wonderful footballer. He did participate in the Masters Games and I am sorry I missed him in my previous notes.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for Goyder and Nelson for their comments. When I was on the Tiwi Islands last week I went to one of the schools there where they were doing a study on the environment and the vegetation of the Tiwi Islands. I congratulate that school.
We are unique in the Northern Territory in the sense that we do try to get our children to understand the environment so that the Territory has a safer future - for us as oldies in the future, so that we have young kids looking after the future. This will only create healthy children, a healthy Territory and a healthy future.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the immense contribution that carers make in our community. Carers play an integral part in making it possible for many people to continue to live in the community. Without their contribution and dedication, many of our frail, aged people, people with a disability, and people with a chronic illness would simply not be able to stay in their homes. It is timely that we consider the effort of these members of our community with Carers Week being celebrated from 19 to 25 October, with particular focus on Carers Day, which was on Tuesday. I was pleased to launch Carers Week on Monday.
The enhancement carers provide to the lifestyle of others cannot be reflected by statistics, but the official statistics do tell part of the story of Australia’s committed army of carers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has estimated there are 2.6 million carers who provide some assistance to those who need help because of disability or age. This may be to a family member, a friend, or as a paid carer. This is quite an amazing statics, because that is one in every eight Australians. There are approximately 26 000 carers in Territory and around 6000 of these are Indigenous carers living in remote communities. We are very aware - not only government but those who work with carers across the Northern Territory - that there are many in these communities who do not realise that they are actually carers; those who take on the role of caring for someone who is aged, or people who are living with kidney disease or with mental health in our remote regions. We are very aware, especially in this week of Carers Week across Australia, that we need to ensure those people have support and assistance, and recognise that they are carers.
Those who provide care to people with a disability are more likely to be older and/or have a disability themselves. Nationally, 24% of primary carers are aged 65 years and over, while people over 65 years make up only 13% of the total population. Of course, these figures do not and cannot detail the commitment and the compassion of our carers - that is immeasurable.
The Northern Territory government introduced the Carers Recognition Act in 2006 to acknowledge and recognise the role of carers as an essential partner in the caring role in our community. The act requires organisations to consider carers when making decisions regarding service planning and delivery for clients. Evidence increasingly shows that involving families and carers in service planning and delivery improved both the consumer and the carer’s wellbeing and outcomes. The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme provides assistance with the cost of living for carers. It includes concessions on electricity, water, rates, driver’s licences and spectacles.
In the Northern Territory context, working with carers and families presents unique challenges not necessarily encountered anywhere else. Engaging Indigenous carers and consulting those involved in an individual’s environment in accordance with traditionally family and kinship structures in remote and often isolated communities is one such challenge.
The Northern Territory government funds a range of support for carers including respite care, centre-based day activity programs, counselling services and training and support. Older carers benefit from the Northern Territory government/Australian government Respite for Older Carers program which provides respite options specifically for our older community members, and support for planning for the time they will not be able to continue to provide care.
During the recent election, the Chief Minister committed to providing $20 000 towards Carers Week. I am pleased to say that this commitment has been fully honoured. This funding was provided in recognition of the important work that carers undertake every day within our community. I urge all Territorians to get involved in Carers Week activities and to actively support the carers they know.
Carers NT represents unpaid carers in the Northern Territory. They suggest that people may wish to acknowledge the work of carers in their communities by making the effort to spend some time with them or to give them a call. This is quite a simple thing we can all do to say thanks to the carers in our community who are supporting family and friends.
Madam Speaker, I give my personal heartfelt thanks to all our carers who selflessly give of their time and energy to help others to continue to live in the community.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. The opposition joins with her on passing on our heartfelt thanks for the work carers do - often underestimated. I do not think it has been until relatively recent times that organisations and governments had actually tried to particularise or calculate the benefit that carers make or give to the community. It is a fitting ministerial report and Carers Week should be appropriately acknowledged, both in and out of the parliament.
Two questions arise from your report though, minister. You referred to the ABS statistics that 26 000 Territorians were carers. Then you said that not everyone recognised they were a carer. The question is: how is it measured, and to what extent are those who do not recognise or consider themselves carers taken into the figures? Or is that a separate figure, and what is the estimate in that regard? Second, you referred to $20 000 given by government for Carers Week. What for? How is it expended, and where exactly does it go?
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opposition spokesperson’s heartfelt thanks. I am sure carers across the Territory will appreciate that the parliament and every parliamentarian is aware of the work that goes on in our communities across the Northern Territory.
In relation to your first question on how is it measured, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimation is 2.6 million, whereas one in eight Australians is the figure we have taken. The estimation is based on Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures. My inclusion of the Indigenous carers who are, perhaps, unaware of their position as carers is an acknowledged fact. It is not statistical evidence; it is based on basic knowledge …
Ms Carney: So, it is in addition to the 26 000?
Ms McCARTHY: Yes. I can relate to people I know within the constituency of Arnhem who just would not think they are carers, caring for their aunty or their grandfather. They do not realise that they are considered as carers.
Regarding the $20 000 for Carers Week, that is a contribution to carers for their barbecues, for their programs that they have held this week. It is our contribution for them to use in whatever way they see fit.
Ms Carney: For the week?
Ms McCARTHY: Yes.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That on Thursday, 23 October 2008, the Assembly:
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst I suspect I know the reasons for this motion being put to the House, the minister, on standing in this place, has simply put the motion, sat down and invited further debate by sitting down. It is a matter of courtesy to this House that such motions be delivered with an explanation as to why they have been introduced. I suspect I know why. I suspect it has a lot to do with the arrival of President Ramos-Horta next Thursday. However, the procedural …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, we are referring to tomorrow.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I can help with the clarification for the member opposite. I am aware that on Monday you alerted the Opposition Whip that in order for members to attend the funeral on Thursday of ‘Aunty’ Hilda Muir, for whom we have a condolence motion today, we would be recommencing at 3 pm and, accordingly, make up the hour by forgoing the normal dinner break. The Government Whip has been communicating that to the Opposition Whip as a reminder. That is why I did not go to some length and detail because there has been communication through the Whips.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, whilst I accept that, that explanation took about two minutes. That is all that was really required.
However, that these procedural motions are brought before House and there is an absolute expectation that they will pass without so much as an opportunity to discussion them, is just another liberty that this government likes to take in this House. Motions of this nature need an explanation when they come to this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I close the debate by saying …
Mr Tollner: Close the debate – well done!
Ms LAWRIE: I put the motion and there were no other speakers …
Mr Tollner: Close the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I put the motion and there were no other speakers so, under debating rules, I am closing the debate.
The government clearly communicated the reason why we sought to change the proceedings on Thursday. It is to attend the funeral. The timing of the funeral was the family’s decision. This is not about ignoring procedures in the parliament. We went through the Whip. If, in future, that is not sufficient, then by all means, I will have a conversation with the member for Port Darwin about what process would satisfy the opposition. However, we have stuck to convention by going through the Whip.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to set up a modern pecuniary interests register for members of the Legislative Assembly and those closely connected to them. The new scheme will replace the existing scheme implemented by way of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act 1982. It was an election commitment of this government to review the old scheme and introduce an up-to-date transparent system for the registration of pecuniary interests and for public inspection of this information.
Due to the nature of our work as parliamentarians, as legislators, as the managers of public funds, and as policy makers, it is necessary to suppress certain privacy considerations and to require members of the Assembly to disclose specified personal and financial information. The interests that have been disclosed are designed to ensure there is an open and transparent system of government. They are designed to identify and avoid possible conflict between the member’s public duties and their private interests.
The review was delegated to the Standing Orders Committee. This committee considered the matter and arranged for a draft bill to be drafted. On reflection, however, the proposed new scheme was considered to be too complex and would have required many members to obtain the assistance of professional accountants to comply. The committee subsequently arranged for a simpler bill to be drafted, which was largely based on the Commonwealth’s House of Representatives provisions.
The Chair of the committee submitted this revised bill to government with a view to having it approved for introduction. With the exception of two amendments that I will discuss in a moment, the government has accepted the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee and its revised bill.
In order to ensure that the new scheme is as wide as possible, the government has put forward a bill that imposes disclosure obligations in regard to the pecuniary interests of MLAs’ de facto partners. Under existing legislative definitions, this extends to de facto same sex partners. The current scheme imposes disclosure obligations in regard to the financial interests of an MLA, a spouse, a de facto partner and to dependent children. The bill recommended by the committee only extended to the financial interests of a member, a spouse and dependent children. There seems to be little justification in making the disclosure provisions narrower than they already are. A modern, transparent pecuniary interest register should extend to the interests of all people the member is closely connected to, and where there is a possibility of a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest.
The second difference between the bill that has been introduced and the bill that was recommended by the committee concerns the conditions upon which the register of members’ interests is to be made available for inspection. The committee’s draft specifies the register to be available for inspection under conditions laid down by a committee of members’ interests from time to time. Conceivably, at some stage in the future, such a committee could impose both cost and time restrictions that would place significant obstacles in the way of reasonable and open public access. To ensure the open and transparent intention is maintained, a minor addition has been made to this clause so that the conditions of access laid down by any future committee have to be reasonable, and that the information should be generally available to the public unless there is good reason to restrict its availability. Both amendments proposed by the government will result in a broader, more open scheme.
In regard to the committee that determines the conditions upon which the register of interests is to be available for inspection, I note that the federal parliament sets up a specific Committee of Members’ Interests to undertake this task. The former Chair of this Assembly’s Standing Orders Committee suggested that the establishment of a new dedicated committee for this task is unwarranted in the Northern Territory. He further suggested that the existing Standing Orders Committee could undertake the role.
The essential components of the proposed scheme are as follows:
within 28 days of becoming an MLA, the member must provide a statement of defined pecuniary interests in regard to themselves, and in regard to related people.
directorships, interests as a beneficiary, landholdings, partnerships, debts, bonds, bank accounts, major assets, gifts, sponsored travel or hospitality, and any other interests
where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise.
The new scheme is straightforward, comprehensive, and easy to understand.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill establishes a Code of Conduct which sets out enforceable principles of ethical conduct and standards of behaviour for members of the Legislative Assembly. It is based on the Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 24 March 2004, and follows legal advice from the Solicitor-General regarding how to make the code more enforceable.
The government decided to place the code into law to ensure it was made more enforceable and to elevate its status in the eyes of the public. It is a policy position which the Labor Party has had for some time and which we enunciated in 2001. In June 2002, the former Chief Minister subsequently tabled the draft documents in this House titled Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
The document was referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and advice. The committee, with assistance from officers of the Department of the Legislative Assembly, researched the matter extensively, conferred with experts in the field, and undertook a public consultation process. Issues considered by the Standing Orders Committee included the following:
how the code was to be enforced. Rather than just have an aspirational document, the consensus view was the code should have legislative force with enforceable provisions.
available as a public document.
and, if established, treated as contempt. Lesser breaches could be referred to the Privileges Committee and, if proven, a reprimand would the likely outcome.
The Standing Orders Committee considered Codes of Conduct in Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. The content of the various codes varied widely. However, common elements include: disclosure of conflict of interest; bribery; gifts; use of public resources; use of confidential information; and responsibilities and duties of a member of parliament. Some other matters dealt with in the interstate codes include: obligations on the members not to abuse their freedom of speech; obligations not to mislead the parliament or the public; impartiality of members in relationship with lobbyists; the private conduct of members; post-parliamentary employment restrictions, and guidelines for use of member entitlements.
A copy of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, which had been tabled in the House, was posted on the Assembly’s website, and the public was invited to make submissions on the matter. The Standing Orders Committee received and considered submissions from the New South Wales Standing Ethics Committee, the Queensland Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, the member for Nelson, and the Auditor-General. It met with Mr Howard Whitton, the consultant who had prepared the draft code, and with the New South Wales Standing Ethics Committee.
Findings and recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee were set out in a report. The committee arranged for a revised Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards to be prepared, and it was this document which was submitted to, and adopted by, this Assembly in March 2004.
The committee recommended the Clerk of the Assembly seek appropriate legal advice on a number of issues which had arisen during its investigations and consultations and, following resolution of these issues, that a bill be drafted.
Advice was subsequently obtained from the Solicitor-General on matters relating to: consistency with provisions of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act; the enforceability of some of the proposed offences, because of the subjective nature of some of the concepts being described; the enforceability of the self-dealing provisions regarding MLAs and government contracts; and whether it was possible to enforce restrictions on former members’ post-separation employment.
Following consideration of this advice, Parliamentary Counsel was subsequently instructed to draft a bill implementing and enforcing the code, and to make the necessary amendments to the code. It is this bill and revised code that is currently before the House for consideration.
The proposed bill contains the Code of Conduct as a schedule. It establishes principles of ethical conduct and standards of behaviour for members of the Legislative Assembly under four main headings: integrity, accountability, responsibility and public interest. The code notes that it is not to be regarded as an exhaustive statement, and that members must use their own judgment to determine the appropriate course of conduct in situations not explicitly covered. This conduct should be in accordance with the general principles of ethical behaviour which are set out.
Part 2 of the code sets out the essential principles and standards. It contains 11 sections:
Integrity: members must act with integrity in the exercise of official functions duties and responsibilities.
Conflict of Interest: members must avoid conflicts, or apparent conflicts, between their private interests and their official functions and responsibilities.
Declaration of Interests: a member must not vote in any division on a question affecting a declarable interest unless the member has first declared the interest to
the Assembly. In regard to this provision, it is noted that a minor amendment has been made to the version that was prepared by the Standing Orders Committee
and subsequently adopted by the Assembly. The declaration of interest section defines such interests as including an interest in a contract with the Territory. A
provision which seems to suggest that a member could vote in a division concerning such a contract would be inconsistent with the absolute prohibition in section
21(3) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 which says that an MLA with a direct or indirect interest in a contract with the Territory shall not take part in
a discussion of the matter or a vote on the question.
Commitment: a member must not engage in any other employment or business activity that involves a substantial commitment of time and effort.
Honesty: members must act honestly in all their official dealings and must take care not to mislead the Assembly or the public.
Respect for Confidences: a member must respect the confidentiality of information obtained in confidence in the member’s official capacity, and not make
improper use of it to gain a private benefit.
Gifts: a member must not solicit or encourage a gift or private benefit from a constituent or other person with whom the member deals with in an official capacity.
Unsolicited gifts and benefits over a certain value will need to be disclosed under the disclosure of interest legislation.
Government Contracts: a member must not hold, either directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or arrangement for the provision of services to or for the Territory or
an agency or instrumentality of the Territory.
Accountability: members are accountable to the Assembly, their constituents and the public generally.
Responsibility: members must act in accordance with the principle of responsibility. That is, they must endeavour to ensure that their decisions reflect a proper consideration
of all relevant matters. They must also endeavour to foster respect for democratic institutions, rights and freedoms, and the principles of good governance including: respect
for the institution of the parliament; the rule of law; recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity; fairness and integrity in official decision-making; freedom of reporting
by media; a non-partisan public service; freedom of speech; and access to justice.
The Public Interest: in performing official functions, members must act in what they genuinely believe to be the public interest. The legislation provides that the Assembly may
refer an alleged breach of the code to the Privileges Committee and, if the committee finds a breach established, may deal with it as a contempt of the Assembly.
The principles and standards set out in the proposed legislative code are wide-reaching, simple to understand, and based on best practice after looking at what other Australian jurisdictions do. As the code notes:
It goes on to further note that:
The implementation of these clear and enforceable principles will be an historic day for the Assembly. The process to reach this point has been convoluted and time-consuming, but I am confident that members will agree that it was worth the wait and it was worth doing the job properly. Together with the new disclosures and interest legislation, this represents a new era in parliamentary democracy in the Northern Territory, entrenching an open, transparent and accountable system of government.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statements to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements the government’s commitment to legislation encouraging and facilitating the disclosure of information about serious misconduct or mismanagement in the public sector - also known as whistleblowing. The public sector covered by the bill includes local government councils, police, government-owed companies, and bodies established by an act for a public purpose. The bill intends to protect persons who make disclosures. It also establishes a framework, including appointment of a Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, for investigating the disclosures and ensuring that the appropriate action is taken where a disclosure is found to be valid.
Persons who make public interest disclosures play an important role in exposing serious public sector wrongdoing. They assist in ensuring that public organisations are accountable, and that officers in public organisations are accountable for their actions. The ability to make a public interest disclosure leads to higher standards of performance and increased public confidence in the public sector.
This bill is not a response to any lack of professionalism within the public sector; it is a demonstration of support for the principles of open and accountable government. The bill is a result of a long and extensive consultation process, including the release of the discussion paper and a discussion bill for public comment. The submissions received during the consultations were supportive of the aims of the legislation. We are grateful to all the people and organisations who contributed to the development of the bill through their submissions.
We consider the bill to be a comprehensive and appropriate legislative scheme for the Northern Territory. The proposed legislation provides that any person can make a disclosure about a public officer or public body. The information and identity of the person disclosing the information will be kept confidential. Furthermore, the person making the disclosure cannot be sued or dismissed from his or her place of employment for making the disclosure.
The bill comprehensively defines a ‘public officer’ and ‘public body’, ensuring there is wide coverage under the legislation of persons and bodies about whom a person can make a disclosure. A public body includes public service agencies, local government bodies, the police force, the university, public hospitals, government-owned corporations, bodies established under legislation for a public purpose, and other prescribed bodies supported by government funds or controlled by the Northern Territory. Public officers include the members of the Legislative Assembly and local government councils, members or employees of public bodies, and public office holders who are appointed by the Administrator or a minister. Some persons are excluded for public policy reasons consistent with the operation of similar legislation such as the Ombudsman legislation. For example, judges and the Auditor-General, and bodies such as courts, tribunals and boards with judicial or quasi-judicial functions performing deliberative functions are excluded. These persons and bodies are either independent of or accountable to the parliament.
The main features of the bill are as follows. Disclosures may be made by any member of the community who believes that a public body or public officer has engaged, or is engaging, or intends to engage in improper conduct in their public capacity, or has caused or threatened harm in reprisal for a disclosure.
Improper conduct is defined as conduct in the performance of official duties that would, if proved, either:
constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for dismissal involving bribes, improper inducements or other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of
public trust, or misuse of confidential information, or
Matters that are purely policy or personal, including employment-related grievances, will not fall within the legislation. The bill makes it clear that, to fall within the protection of the legislation, the disclosure must concern behaviour that is sufficiently serious to either constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for terminating the employment of the relevant officer, or behaviour that is substantial. That is the threshold for the conduct.
It is an offence to make false or misleading disclosure, carrying a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units, which is currently $44 000 or two years imprisonment. This reflects the serious nature of the disclosure and the possible consequences flowing from it. Further, the commissioner has the discretion to not investigate disclosed matters if satisfied that the disclosure is: an abuse of process, for example, vexatious; or contains misleading information; or the information is trivial or has already been investigated; or where the person making the disclosure had knowledge of the matter for more than 12 months before making the disclosure; or there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining relevant information.
The threshold test of criminal, or dismissible or substantial misconduct, together with the discretion to investigate, will ensure that inappropriate, vexatious or trivial disclosures will not be investigated. The bill provides that the disclosure can be made to either the commissioner or to the chief executive of the appropriate public body, except where the disclosure relates to a member of parliament. Disclosures which relate to a member of parliament must be made to the Speaker, who determines whether or not the matter should be investigated.
Where a disclosure is made to a chief executive, it must be referred on to the commissioner to deal with. This ensures that, in a small jurisdiction, the expertise for dealing with disclosures is maximised in the commissioner’s office. It also ensures consistency of procedures and decisions, and can prevent the doubling up of investigations where a matter may be reported to more than one chief executive.
For a disclosure to be protected under the legislation, it must, if true, show improper conduct, and must also be made to the appropriate person in accordance with the prescribed procedures under the act. A disclosure made in some other manner, for example, to the media or at a public meeting revealing information which would be confidential, will not be protected. Information that is an abuse of process or that the discloser knows is false or misleading will also not be protected. However, a person may make a disclosure anonymously and about the conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the legislation.
The commissioner has a duty to investigate disclosures unless they fall within the discretion as to vexatious, trivial, old matters, etcetera, or are referred to another body such as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General or the Police Commissioner. Investigations are private and, while there is no requirement to hold a hearing during the investigation, the commissioner may do so. For disclosures to be fully and properly investigated, the commissioner has similar powers to those of a Royal Commissioner, to require information or documents to be provided, or persons to attend for examination to answer questions under oath or produce documents. If a person is required to attend before the commissioner for examination, the commissioner may allow the person to be legally represented. The commissioner is also able to enter and inspect premises of public bodies and public officers for the purposes of conducting investigations at any reasonable time.
One of the critical aspects of the bill is the requirement for confidentiality. It is vital to protect the identity of the person making a disclosure as far as possible, as well as the information revealed during the investigation, to encourage people to speak out about improper conduct. Therefore, information collected during the course of, or as a result of, a disclosure investigation, not being information in the public domain, is confidential information. It is an offence to improperly disclose or use information, for example, to benefit or harm a person, with a penalty of 400 penalty units which is currently $44 000 or two years imprisonment.
However, the information may be disclosed in limited circumstances for the purposes of performing official functions under the legislation, or in proceedings in relation to an offence against the legislation, or for the purposes of consulting a legal practitioner.
The identity of the person who makes a disclosure and the identity of the person about whom the disclosure is made are further protected. The proposed legislation requires that information tending to identify a person should only be disclosed: with their consent; or in connection with a prosecution or reprisal action; or in obtaining legal advice; or where the commissioner considers natural justice requires it; or that the information must be disclosed to effectively investigate the disclosure or in the public interest.
A person’s right not to incriminate him or herself is provided for in the proposed legislation. Though the commissioner has power to require a person to produce documents, give information, or answer any question, any information produced in response to the commissioner that would tend to incriminate the person is not admissible as evidence in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, except in relation to proceedings for an offence against the act or reprisal action. This balances the person’s right not to incriminate him or herself. Restricting the use of information obtained during an investigation encourages persons who have information to come forward and give that information fully, protects the identity of the person who has made a disclosure so as to minimise the risk of reprisal action, and protects the rights of the person who is the subject of the disclosure.
Clause 14 of the bill sets out a range of protections for persons who make public interest disclosures. For example, a person who makes a public interest disclosure does not incur any civil or criminal liability or become liable for disciplinary action for making that disclosure. In particular, the protection extends to the disclosures made in breach of an obligation of confidentiality. Thus, confidentiality provisions in contracts of employment or under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act do not apply to the making of public interest disclosures.
There is also a provision from defamation actions. A disclosure of public interest information is to be treated as absolute privilege. However, the protections do not extend to disclosures that are an abuse of process or where the discloser knows the information is misleading or to their own conduct. Thus, if a person who makes the disclosure has taken part in improper conduct that they are reporting, then they are not protected in relation to their own conduct. The bill also protects disclosures by making an offence, punishable by up to 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment, to take or threaten detrimental action in reprisal against the person who has made or intends to make a disclosure, or has cooperated in the investigation of the disclosure, or has been a witness or provided information to an investigating official.
In addition to the offence of taking reprisal action, the bill provides a right of action in court for the person who is the subject of that reprisal action to sue for damages. It enables the person to apply for an injunction or an order requiring the person who took or is taking reprisal action to remedy that action. Further, the bill ensures that employees are not unfairly treated during an investigation of a disclosure. It enables an employee, under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, who has made a disclosure to request relocation because of reprisal action. A public sector employee also has the right to undertake the grievance procedure under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act where he or she has been relocated as a reprisal action.
I now move on to other important features of the bill. As mentioned earlier …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have much to go? It is 11 o’clock.
Dr BURNS: Probably another three to five minutes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I ask you to resume your seat and continue that after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 30 September 2008, of Mrs Hilda Muir, a very well-known Territorian and member of the Stolen Generations.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the galleries of family and friends of Mrs Muir. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, at completion of the debate, I will ask members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) express its deep regret at the death of Mrs Hilda Muir, a member of the Stolen Generations, whose life represented the tragedy and hope that so many Aboriginal
Territorian have experienced in the past, and a woman whose incredible optimism was a shining light to all who knew her, and
Aunty Hilda was a woman whose life sums up for us all the tragedy and hope that so many Aboriginal Territorians have experienced over the last century, and a woman who also showed us incredible optimism and deep love for family friends and community.
Hilda Muir was born, as she was later to say, at ‘a proper bush birth’ on Yanyuwa country not far from Borroloola in 1920. The day of her birth is unknown. In one of those great ironies of those past policies of enforced removal of children from their families, some eight years later, the day she arrived at Kahlin compound in May 1938, she was assigned an arbitrary birth date to celebrate – 26 January or Australia Day.
Her life at Kahlin could not be contrasted more greatly than that of her existence with her mother and family in Borroloola. It was a life that was undoubtedly affected by the pastoral industry of the Gulf and the Barkly, but one which was also steeped in traditional lifestyle, in travelling across country from Manankurra, her mother’s country, to the islands of the mouth of the McArthur River. It involved a rich ceremonial life and relationships with land and sea country that stretched back many thousands of years. It was country she was to be taken from for nearly half a century, country she was not able to be truly reunited with until she was 80 years of age, when she was accepted as a traditional owner of Yanyuwa country in 2000 under the law of her people, as well the Australian law of the land.
Taken by police on horseback to Katherine, then by train to Darwin, Hilda was removed from her mother, brother and sister, from her kin and country. She described it in her 2004 autobiography:
Life at Kahlin was extraordinarily grim. As she described it, starvation, isolation and punishment was the regime for children under the care of the state at this time. As she told Delsey Tamiano of the Koori Mail four years ago:
Madam Speaker, this regime existed here, in Australia, in the Northern Territory, barely a mile from where we sit today.
Today, we are just two days short of the seventh anniversary of this Legislative Assembly - in one of the first actions of the Clare Martin government - giving a parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations. It was something we did even though the Northern Territory was not constitutionally responsible for those terrible policies of the past. We did it because it was right, because we had a moral obligation to our fellow Territorians. I was incredibly privileged on that day to be able to tell some of Aunty Hilda Muir’s story to the Assembly. She was delighted to be asked. As I explained to her, telling her story would mean that her words would be here forever. They could never be taken away, and they never will be.
I have known Hilda - Aunty as I rapidly came to call her - along with just about everyone else here in Darwin for many years. I cannot remember exactly when, but it was almost certainly at an ALP barbecue or other such function more than 20 years ago. She would attend all such events, whether it was for bigwigs like Prime Ministers Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, or for a local branch fundraiser. I doubt that Aunty Hilda was a member of the party for any rigid ideological reasons; it was more that she saw Labor as being a party for ordinary people, for people from all walks of life. Above all, she was incredibly comfortable with everybody. I cannot remember her ever having a hard word to say about anyone. She would always ask after my kids and give them a hug when she saw them. She took a shine to my then Electorate Officer, Ryan Neve, who quickly got into the habit of running her home every Wednesday after she did her shopping at Hibiscus.
There was also a quiet inner strength to her - a strength which supported her throughout a life that was not always kind to her. She married the love of her life, Bill Muir, in 1940 but, less than a year later, was evacuated to Brisbane in the face of Japanese attacks. On her return to Darwin, she raised a large family only to face the devastation of Cyclone Tracy in her middle years.
Later still, of course, she was selected with Alec Kruger to represent the interests of the Stolen Generations in their High Court action, which was to end in disappointment in 1997 when the majority of the court ruled against them.
She was to write later:
Beyond the politicking, parliament is rarely a place of deep and abiding emotion, but telling Aunty Hilda’s story was one of those moments for me here in this place. It was a privilege to tell her story then, just as it is a privilege - although a sad one - to commemorate her life here today. As I said on that day in the parliament, Hilda ‘is one of the reasons why my heart tugs when I talk about the lost and neglected generation’. As I say today, Aunty Hilda is one of the reasons why we strive for a more compassionate, understanding society here in the Territory.
Perhaps after her passing, I would beg to have a small disagreement with Aunty Hilda. That long journey from Yanyuwa to Larrakia country she spoke of in her autobiography did not make Hilda a ‘nowhere person’. Quite the opposite. She became a woman who influenced the lives of many people in the Northern Territory and beyond. As a Yanyuwa woman recognised by her own people, she excelled in her life’s long journey. Her love of family and friends and of her community will truly live on. She lived a life that was marked by much sorrow, but she did not allow it to make her a bitter woman. The one thing that was denied her - to be able to see her mother again - I believe strengthened her commitment to her family and also strengthened her resolve to extend that love to the people around her.
Her surviving children, as well as her many grandchildren, know this and so do many other people in the Northern Territory and beyond. It was a great life - a life truly worth living and one which enriched all who knew her. I thank her for her kindness, friendship, and advice over many years.
Madam Speaker, I extend my condolences to all her family and friends.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to reflect on the strength of human spirit as reflected in Hilda. I cannot say that I knew her, but I knew of Hilda. I had spoken to Hilda on a number of occasions, and I recognised that sweetness and beautiful strength. It is fitting that we reflect on this because that example informs and nourishes us for the challenges we face today and into the future.
One of the most memorable occasions was quite recently when we addressed the issue of the apology here in this parliament. For those of us who have had the opportunity to dwell and to think deeply about these matters, we recognise it is a matter of healing, and of recognition of loss and separation. It is also a recognition that separation of a child from a mother, a family, a home, is not an issue that cuts between race; it is an issue of national significance. The way in which Hilda Muir carried herself through this issue has provided hope for this nation, in the attitude towards this significant issue that strikes deep into the heart of a person and of this nation. She provided us with hope and a guidepost of how we may proceed with these significant matters.
For those who are close to family, and close to heart, we know how loss of family and home affects - we only reflect on our own families. However, to lose family at the age of eight! We must also recognise that those of us who live in Darwin are all connected in one way or another. Those who have made this their home, and those who have become familiar to the family networks and the history of this place, it does not take too long before you feel that you are a part of the fabric. In that way, I feel that I am a part of that fabric and I say that with great respect, not to assume. I acknowledge that, one way or another, just as Darwin shows that we are all connected in one way, so, too, we are all connected to this very important issue of loss and separation in one way or another. That is why it is important to acknowledge the way in which Hilda Muir carried this matter as an example for us all to consider.
The loss and separation from mother and home is a wound difficult to heal. It is a wound that can only be mended if, together, collectively, we respond in order for that to be mended. The fact is that, when one suffers, all of us suffer - that is the truth. As people living here in the Northern Territory and as Australians, whether we are Indigenous or not, it is a burden and a wound that we all bear one way or another. It is quite touching to reflect on the story, and the identification of the passage of life as a journey that started in the Borroloola region, was interrupted at the age of eight, and that journey continued on. Here, today, we are speaking of the end of that journey.
For those of us who have faith, we recognise that this is just another step in that journey. For those of us who reflect on that aspect of that story, that journey which has been recounted, that the mother would look down the road to see whether the daughter was coming back, day after day, look out to see whether the daughter was returning and, all of those years later, was able to come down that road and that mum had gone.
I hope that Hilda’s mother, who waited and kept looking down the road, will now see her daughter walking up the road to finally meet her, and may that loss and separation be evaporated as she steps the next step on this journey into the loving arms of eternity where she may be reunited with her lost loved ones.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I support this condolence motion. It is a sadness tempered by the knowledge that we have witnessed the passing of a woman who has left the lives of all of those who knew her richer for having been with us.
Aunty Hilda Muir was someone who was a part of our lives and community in ways difficult to describe for many people who have more recently called Darwin and the Top End home. The Chief Minister touched on it with his words earlier during this condolence motion when he spoke of the many lives touched by Aunty Hilda Muir through the long journey of her life.
Growing up in Darwin, first in Nightcliff and then The Narrows, was a process for me of growing up within a network of different Darwin families and their different interrelationships. It was a learning that always seemed to me pretty natural and organic as a kid - often mediated through sports such as softball and football, where so many of these families would meet.
Later, I recognised these as far more complex relationships involving local Larrakia families, but also families whose traditional lands were close to Darwin, such as my mother’s family, the Tiwis, and other groups such as the Kungarakayn, Wadjigan and further afield to the Daly, the Alligator Rivers, and Katherine. Added to this melting pot of Darwin of the 1960s and 1970s were Greek and Italian families, together with Chinese, Filipino and Timorese.
An essential part of what it was to live here, something that was woven into the fabric of our lives, was the networks of families who were drawn from what become known as the Stolen Generations. This was a very real thing to my family. My father, Jack, as a small child had been removed from Central Australia and, after a time at the Bungalow in Alice Springs, ended up with other kids on Croker Island, before he wound up in Darwin and met my mother. He never returned to Central Australia, and my generation has never been able to properly reunite with his countrymen. This story is common. Darwin and the Top End then, as now, has a hidden history of these families, of my family and many others.
Aunty Hilda Muir, for me, was very much part of growing up, and she was Aunty Hilda to me from my earliest memories. As well as painful memories, there was the camaraderie and the respect amongst those generations of people taken from their families in the 1920s and 1930s.
I remember, for example, my father would regularly go to church with Aunty Amy Randall and Aunty Hilda and sometimes he would drag them home to one of his daughters’ houses after church. Dad, of course, would have a few beers. It was not that which Aunty Hilda would object to but, so close to going to church, she did not take kindly to Dad’s more colourful turns of phrase and would mildly reprimand him. Dad would always apologise to Aunty Hilda - he always called her Mum, even though she was only a few years older than him - ‘Sorry, Mum,’ and that would be that until the next Sunday.
As the history books now tell us, Aunty Hilda, with Alec Kruger, stood up for their generation of children taken from the families in their High Court challenge in 1995, which was to fail a couple of years later. The legal action was taken after the historic Bringing Them Home Conference held at Kormilda College in 1994. Aunty Hilda was one of the key people at this conference and she, with others of the Kahlin generation, set in train momentous changes in understanding the terrible chapters in our history. It led, as we know, to the unsuccessful litigation, but it also led to unprecedented parliamentary apologies to the Stolen Generations in every jurisdiction of the nation, culminating in the most historic apology from the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, in the Commonwealth parliament on 13 February 2008.
We remember Aunty Hilda today as one of the heroes of the Stolen Generations and the legacy they have left us all. What came from that conference was historic in itself, but it was also the first time so many of the Stolen Generations and their families had ever come together. It was a homecoming of great sadness for many, but also of joy and reunification.
I spoke a moment ago of the camaraderie and respect amongst those of the Stolen Generations. The sad part of this is that such solidarity was born of such tragedy. Perhaps, in large part, this was because they were the generations of children who had nobody but themselves to depend upon; they made their own families. This was best summed up by Aunty Hilda a few years ago speaking of her early days at Kahlin:
It was, as I said, a solidarity born of terrible tragedy. When future social and political histories of Darwin and the Top End are written, researchers will do well to listen to the words of Aunty Hilda. Although she was never reunited with her mother, Aunty Hilda managed to reunite with her countrymen and women on Yanyuwa country around Borroloola. It was an achievement tragically denied many others of the Stolen Generations, but something she certainly deserved.
In 2000, just prior to the land claim in which she would be recognised as a traditional owner of her adopted father’s country, she was taken to Manankurra, her mother’s country. It was like, as she said later, being ‘kidnapped back home’, as NLC lawyers and anthropologists took her on this surprise visit. The anthropologist, John Bradley, said the visit ‘was if country that should have nurtured her through life was making up for lost time’. Aunty Hilda was just as direct and she said:
Aunty Hilda, we know your spirit has returned to the lands of your Yanyuwa ancestors; that your spirit will imbue those lands with the power and lessons of your life, and will be reborn to give strength to future generations. But know, too, that your spirit will also dwell here in Darwin to nurture all of those you have left behind and those who come after you – your friends, your family. Farewell.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I too, acknowledge a wonderful woman and to share with the parliament that Nanna Hilda Muir, in the Yanyuwa way, is related. My term for her is noughie, which is my grandmother’s mother relationship. It was a really important time of Nanna Hilda coming back to country, and I will share the story with the parliament.
It is 80 years ago this year when her life changed - and I guess every one of us have moments in our lives where decisions impact so greatly. This was a young girl who grew up around Manankurra and the Sir Edward Pellew Islands with her people. They would go fishing, and she spoke language; she spoke the language of the Yanyuwa. She joined in with all the ceremonies with her mother, her grandmothers and her grandfathers. They travelled all through that country in dugout canoes. Nanna Hilda, like so many of my people, lived in the dugout canoes as they travelled from island to island, and sometimes those trips would take a long time. So, they made their own fire in their canoes and cooked their fish as they went. Nanna Hilda would hunt for sugarbag or go fishing.
She learned about that country just like so many of our mob, and the teachings of our people of the jungkayi of the ngimaringki. I want to share with the parliament from her book, Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It, that important day in 1928 and the lead-up to that day which saw her life change. It began near Vanderlin Island where she witnessed, and was part of a witness of something that happened - a very bad thing that happened.
I quote from her book:
This is Ida Hampton Ninganga’s story as it was recorded in the Yanyuwa language in 1991:
It was because of this horrible murder that occurred on Vanderlin Island that my Nanna Hilda then found herself on her way to the Borroloola Police Station with Ida and a young girl named Sarah. Ida, Sarah, and Hilda were then placed on a horse. They were placed on the back of that horse in April 1928, and they made the long journey to Darwin. Nanna Hilda’s mother took her to the police station because she thought her daughter was going to give evidence about a murder. She thought, by letting her daughter talk and tell the story about what she knew that happened on Vanderlin Island, that that was the right thing to do; that, somehow, this man Gilprey would be brought to justice for what he did and for the wrongs that he committed against a people, a family.
Nanna Hilda took that long journey on the back of a horse thinking that it was just like any other journey for a child in those days when they would go with family. There was a big mob of people who travelled to Darwin to give evidence in this court case. But, when they got to Darwin, it was Nanna Hilda and Sarah who were then taken away from the group. They were then taken to the half-caste compound, where a lot of other children who were known then as half-castes pulled together from their families.
Meanwhile, little Ida, who had also travelled on that horse with them, was taken to the court. As it turned out, the court could not do anything about this man, Gilprey. He was found not guilty because the courts did not take evidence from Aboriginal people. Think about that then, Madam Speaker. So, this man, Gilprey, got off, and Nanna Hilda found her whole life had changed dramatically. Here she was with so many other children of mixed descent, all because her father was white, and she never did see her mother again.
The people in Borroloola and the Yanyuwa people of the Gulf country waited for her to come back. My family always talked about the children who went away. So when Nanna Hilda came back, everyone waited for her. All the old people had waited so long for her to come home. That country welcomed her back, her people welcomed her back. Even though she could not speak language any more, her spirit was still strong with country and with the stories of that land.
I say to this parliament and to all Territorians that it was Nanna Hilda’s spirit of endurance, persistence and survival, with great dignity and love, that she could forgive and, in forgiving, she was able to build a life here, on Larrakia land, with her own children - all my Kuku and Kukurdis and then your children and your children’s children, who grew up here on Larrakia land. You were never, ever forgotten, and people of the Yanyuwa waited for you all to come home. So, this year, when our Prime Minister of this country stood up in the parliament of this country for all Australians and said sorry, we all said thank you.
Nanna Hilda, who was there for all of that, saw it all right to the end. She saw her country, she saw her people, and she heard this country, Australia, say sorry. She died peacefully, and for that I say thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I join with parliamentarians today to recognise a very wonderful Territorian, Aunty Hilda Muir. As a Darwin girl, my memories go back a long way with Aunty. I first met her 24 years ago when I was a 17-year-old, because I had the privilege to be raised within the Bonson family. Roseanne was a mum to me, so Nanna Daisy was nanna. I have grown up in the sphere of Nanna. On weekends, my little homing pigeon at the footy was going back to Nanna and sitting down in a deck chair.
My first job was as a cadet journalist at the NT News. I got a call from Roseanne and she said: ‘Nanna wants you to come and meet her sisters. They want to tell their story and they trust you. They will tell their story to you’. I saw my boss and said I have been asked to go and hear the story of some women who were raised in Kahlin Compound who were having a reunion for the first time. I called Nanna and said: ‘Nanna, the paper said can there be a photographer’, and she said: ‘I do not want them to make us look silly’. I said: ‘No, no, I will make sure it is okay’.
In July 1984, I went around to Nanna’s house where she was having a sisters’ reunion with Aunty Hilda, Ethel Buckle, Daisy Williams, Pearl Graham, Eileen Sambono, Evelyn Baird, and Suzie Markham. This is in the days before the term ‘Stolen Generations’ existed and when the stories were starting to be told. The NT News printed my story; the headline was ‘8 “sisters” remember’. I would like to read that story because I know Nanna would want me to when we are here talking about her sister.
Madam Speaker, that was when I first met Aunty. Over the years I met her many more times. I was always guaranteed a hug, and her hugs were deep, loving, warm hugs. Right through my adult years to today, I always loved the hugs from Aunty Hilda.
We have heard the speakers in the Chamber talk about the strength of her spirit and the deep kindness that Aunty had. As we have heard, she had every reason to be bitter, but she never, ever showed bitterness. She was an embracing, generous, kind woman, who loved Darwin, deeply loved her family and her many friends, and extended that family to the sisters, the girls she shared her Kahlin days with, and their families. I am so glad that Aunty finally told her story fully in her autobiography Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It. We will genuinely miss the Aunty that we know. She has left a tremendous legacy of tolerance, love of community, and genuine forgiveness.
I am proud that this parliament and our federal parliament have finally said sorry to the Stolen Generations. ‘Stolen Generations’ does not quite capture all of the hurt and all of the pain that some of us have tried to talk about today. Aunty was a very beautiful woman in every way, and I feel truly enriched to have known her through meeting her through Nanna. I extend my sincere condolences to her family and her friends.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also add my thoughts and condolences to the family of Aunty Hilda Muir. I said in an earlier debate in this House that one of the great epitaphs that you could receive in life is that you have lived a life well lived.
It is clear that the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families caused profound dislocation. The consequences of that dislocation still reverberate through our community and our families, not only here in the Northern Territory but throughout Australia. Having represented Aboriginal people for eight years in Central Australia, the ties with family and land have become a lot clearer for me during that period, and it is not something I am unmindful of, which is why I speak today.
A western philosopher, a German fellow by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche, said to suffer was to actually improve. That is where we get the phrase, ‘If it doesn’t kill you, it only serves to make you stronger’. I do not actually subscribe to that to a large degree because, although suffering is something that many people do, we all face challenges in our own lives. The truth of the matter is that some people, for some act of faith or act of God, suffer more than others. And the fact is that suffering does not necessarily make people stronger; some people die as a result of their suffering. I am sure that many people who look at the Stolen Generations can remember people who simply did not recover from the experiences of the forced removals.
Some people merely go on to survive with being debilitated emotionally or spiritually, and they live a life which is best described as mere survival, until that life peters out. Some people go on to find some sort of happiness, and that is where most people end up; they learn to reconcile - although not necessarily with the world but with themselves – and they go on to live a life. However, some people go on to use their experiences of suffering to elevate themselves beyond what normal people achieve, and Aunty Hilda Muir is in that class of people.
Some people go on to use their suffering as a force for good and for graciousness. Two characters sprang to mind while I was thinking about it – one was Martin Luther King, the other was Nelson Mandela who, through extraordinary grace, used the suffering and negative experiences of their lives to enhance the world. There are quite a few people who move on like that. They do not become internationally famous like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, but they still reach out into the world and touch thousands in their own circles. It is clear that Aunty Hilda Muir fulfilled that role, and she did it in an exceptional way.
People like that become a beacon of hope for their families and those people who know them, that families and communities orbit around them. Such is their presence that, when they do pass on, their memory alone can carry sufficient gravity to maintain and keep that family together, and keep that family orbiting around that person because they have provided such an exceptional example of what it is to not only rise above suffering, but to bring joy in the process. It seems almost paradoxical that it is possible to move from such misery and, then, find a life of complete meaning, communication and giving.
It is all well and good for us to make noble speeches in this House, but the fact is that Aunty Hilda Muir’s memory alone will resonate through her family for generations to come. She lived an exceptional life and she lived a life well. I only hope that, at the end of my life, I am able to compare my life in a small way to the lives of people like Aunty Hilda Muir and be able to, at least, claim that I, to a smaller degree, have also lived my life well.
Madam Speaker, my deepest condolences to the family. The loss of such a matriarch is always a profound thing, but her memory will serve as a beacon of light and hope for generations to come. I am proud to be associated and to live in a Territory where we still can produce such extraordinary people.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, Aunty Hilda was a generous and gentle woman, and she was a much-loved woman. I first met Aunty Hilda about 10 years ago, and she had a lot of time for a young man. She spoke quietly and always had something interesting to say, a story to tell and, most often, she spoke about her family.
I remember when we first said sorry in this House. I was not a member then, but it was something I was very interested in. I had many long conversations with Aunty Hilda around then about her own life. She was very modest, and I remember when the member for Wanguri spoke about her life in the Chamber during that sorry motion she was a little embarrassed. She thought our Chief Minister was passionate, wonderful and mature for what he did that day. Personally, that is how I would also describe Aunty Hilda.
She made it clear at that time that family was important to her, that she missed her mother, and there is no better tribute to Aunty Hilda than her family. Many are here today. My heart and thoughts, and I know those of my colleagues, are with you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also extend my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mrs Muir.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I also offer my condolences to Hilda’s family.
To pick up where I left off, I will now move on to other important features of this bill. As mentioned earlier, the bill contains special procedures for disclosures about members of parliament. This recognises members of parliament are, ultimately, accountable to parliament and to the electorate. As the members of parliament are public officers, protection is given to a person who makes a public interest disclosure about them.
The bill also establishes the office of the commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. It is not intended to appoint a stand-alone office holder at this time, but that the Information Commissioner will take on the responsibility for this legislation with additional resources.
The bill contains provisions to ensure that the commissioner can carry out investigations fully and without interference. The provisions protect the commissioner against the making of a court order which would: restrain the commissioner from carrying out, or compel the commissioner to carry out an investigation; or restrain the commissioner from reporting on, or compel the commissioner to report on, the findings of an investigation; or restrain the commissioner from making, or compel the commissioner to make, a recommendation in a report on an investigation.
It is also an offence under the bill to obstruct a person acting in an official capacity, such as the commissioner or member of staff, from carrying out their functions under the bill. Appropriate protections are provided for persons exercising powers under the act in good faith, including the commissioner and staff.
Furthermore, the commissioner and staff cannot be compelled to give evidence in relation to matters which have come to their knowledge in the exercise of powers or functions under the bill, except in proceedings for an offence against the act or where it is alleged the commissioner or a member of staff have acted improperly in an official capacity. This reaffirms the confidential nature of public interest disclosure investigations, which is critical to balance the broad investigative powers given to the commissioner.
I am confident that the legislation will contribute to the high standards of governance in public bodies. I am confident that public bodies will make a strong commitment to this legislation and accept the right of staff to make disclosures, and the need for such disclosures to be properly investigated and acted upon when sustained.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government accepts the censure.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly express a want of confidence in the Minister for Education and Training for:
1. lying to Territorians about sacking an award winning educator; namely, Mrs Margaret Banks;
2. not having the integrity of directly removing the CEO from the position, despite being met with on the very day she had Ms Banks sacked;
This is a very important motion. What saddens me is that members opposite would close their ears to the importance of such a motion - those who have, perhaps, not visited schools in recent times and understood how teachers are feeling at this moment.
It is a time when leadership is required, and we see the complete opposite in the Minister for Education and Training. Leadership is having the courage of conviction to address the issues of concern in education across the Northern Territory - not just Indigenous - and addressing those matters in a serious way. This is an issue that is affecting the whole continent. We have the most profound challenges in the Northern Territory and, at times such as this we have an appalling show of behaviour and attitude, and the lowest standard set by the Minister for Education and Training. I find it absolutely appalling.
I speak as one who has taken the time to walk with teachers, to try to understand how the heck we are going to get out of the problem that we are in, at the lowest point of morale that teachers are experiencing right here and right now.
To have a minister for Education whose second appointment …
Ms Carney: She has just left, Millsy. The minister has just left.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Very clearly, the member for Araluen does not adhere to standing orders. She should adhere to standing orders.
Ms Carney: I just thought people listening might want to know that the minister has done a runner.
Ms LAWRIE: No, the minister has not done a runner. You are offensive. A person has the right to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … get some information. You are a rabble.
Ms Carney: Oh, she is back.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Ms Scrymgour: You are a grub – absolute grub.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw that comment, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Before you continue, honourable members, I remind you that you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of members. Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I want to clarify that I went to grab some papers which I just printed out.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At a critical time in the Northern Territory, the annual report indicates a state of deep concern. The new National Assessment Program amplifies that further. I have had the briefings, and behind the words there is deep concern. This is not the time for the faint-hearted or for those who have shallow ethics and personal integrity, and are missing courage in a time when it is most needed.
If their rhetoric is true, and if those opposite genuinely care, they would be expressing concern about the lack of leadership. They would be raising the concerns themselves. You cannot say things in here for effect; it has to be followed through, for goodness sake. We are talking about young people across the Territory. I am unqualified to speak as I am from a different party; we guys are responsible for all of the sins of the world; we know nothing about it; we are unqualified. Well, get this straight: I know young people, and I know young people from remote and urban centres. I have spent enough time with those young people - I only have to hear a couple, but I have heard many - and worked alongside people who have given their life. They know that young people, whether they are in the urban centres or remote, have the same dreams of any kid, anywhere.
To gloss over it with statements made with the assurances that we care and not follow through on the ground, is appalling. This is a time for leadership. This is not the time to exit the building. This is not the time to make an appointment and fail to keep it because you now have another appointment. Those around you have some integrity. There are those who live by certain standards and they can tell whether the truth has been spoken or not.
You can have a person who is in a position of leadership standing before a community, and they can say whatever they like. Even kids can pick whether you are the real deal or not. This minister is not the real deal, because we have a situation here …
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is offensive to you because you are not the real deal either. You carry on as though you are genuinely concerned. You are not the slightest bit concerned about a darn thing. Check yourself.
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong – very wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Yes, well run your own censure motion.
Exiting the building, leaving the scene, walking out past the foyer - I bet you that was an uncomfortable time. But, perhaps for someone who is accustomed to living with dual realities it is not too difficult. You cannot meet because you have to go to the electorate office. This is the minister for Education in the face of the serious challenges that we all face: to scuttle out and depart and then front the media and tell a blatant and plain mistruth.
There are those around, Madam Speaker - the minister for Education and others - who know what is going on. The most extraordinary aspect to this is that there are times when there are certain actions of a government that opposition could respond to because we are required to, that you would find resident within the community - this strong sense of ‘Yes, you did the right thing.’ I do not find that. I do not find there are people who have judged Margaret Banks negatively. There are not people who found her a person who was offensive.
How was she so offensive to you? How was she so offensive? What did you find so offensive in Margaret Banks that warranted you walking past her, not having the courage to speak to her and, then, getting someone else to deliver your message? Why is it that you have said in this Chamber that there are times when government - this is that same kind of spin that means nothing – has to act with urgency? So urgent you cannot front, you cannot show the courage of your convictions, and speak to the person concerned? That is appalling.
I am not saying we are censuring you. We are saying we lack confidence in your capacity to attend to the challenges that we face. Walking past the CEO without the decency to stop and do the right thing is appalling. Further to that, leaving the building.
The teachers have expressed concern again and again about the way in which they have been treated by this minister and by other members of government. These are professionals. These are people who work in classrooms. Those who are educators know how difficult it is becoming with the raised expectation of how difficult it is to progress issues in education today with the demands that are being placed on them by the wider community. So much has been passed on to the classroom teacher. This is not the time to abdicate responsibility and neglect the need for leadership.
I believe it is two occasions that teachers have come to this parliament to speak to you, minister. Did you front at any one of those? No, you did not appear. This is a time to broker resolution, to try to get to the heart of this matter. There might have to be a bit of compromise, but it has to be a meeting of two. There has been no meeting. Getting on your high horse and yelling at teachers and their representatives behind the scenes is appalling behaviour.
You only have to treat a few teachers badly. Those who are representing other teachers – and do not frown at me as though you do not know what is going on; I know your antics. To treat teachers in such a manner has profound implications. You might get your jollies in exercising your power and authority and ‘don’t you know, after all, I am a minister, for goodness sake’. It is echoing some kind of deficiency you have yourself, and you are just wielding your authority over a couple of teachers who have come to represent the interests of the profession. It passes right through the network. I can tell you they are divided against you because they are, frankly, appalled.
They are making their best effort to try to hold up their obligation. It is a vocation; it is not just a job. They have been let down in their delivery of the most important business – as you have often said – in the Northern Territory. You have taken away some of that core strength that teachers need to operate in a classroom. You have neglected that moral authority that should come by inspirational leadership.
We have seen the absolute reverse. The second time the teachers appeared, you could feel that anger; you could feel that pain. It is a time when they wanted someone to help them get through it. Where were you? Where was the minister? At the beautician, getting her nails done - did not have time. On one occasion with the CEO: ‘Sorry, cannot sack you just now, I have to go to the electorate office and pick up a piece of paper. I do not have the time or the decency to stop - in fact, the courage - and do the right thing. I will send something through the mail’. In fact, I heard that the paperwork was delivered by a courier.
The next occasion the teachers arrived, once again, the minister was missing in action. In fact, we never see ministers turn up at any difficult situation, a time when they are most needed to see someone and help them - even to reassure them, even to show you have courage. You are at the beautician. That is appalling ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Oh, well, hairdresser.
Ms Scrymgour: Wrong. I will answer that.
Mr MILLS: Answer in your reply.
Then, there were a couple of other issues that have been raised. I tell you there are more issues than we have sufficient time to address in detail.
There is the impression gained through the answers to these questions, and the dishonest responses that the whole community bore embarrassing witness to, that the story has changed.
As a community leader, as a school teacher, as a father, I do not abide by lying. There is a register within this community that has the same response. Why would you? Why would a minister of the Crown lie? Perhaps it is covering up some state secret, or perhaps it is covering up something else - the incapacity to show leadership at a time when it is most desperately required. You have created the impression in here …
Ms Scrymgour: You are amazing - absolutely amazing.
Mr MILLS: Minister, you have created the impression that there is a need for urgency, as though we have to move decisively upon Margaret Banks so that we can fix education up. That is what you said in answer to the first question: there is a time for urgency. So urgent that you cannot tell the truth, so urgent that you do not have the courage to speak to the person concerned, so urgent that you have not had the time to detail the measures you are going to put in place.
What, precisely, will change now after you have had your little hissy fit? What precisely will change now in education? Now that you have managed to get yourself through this awkward period of having done what you wanted done - that is, get rid of this lady who was, perhaps, asking you questions that were a bit hard for you to handle - what precisely is it that you are going to change in education now? What changes would you, in fact, be making that were impeded by the presence of Margaret Banks?
The community is owed an explanation. If you have not had the time to tell the truth, we can move to the next base, because it has been established you are dishonest. Frankly, you are dishonest. I will call …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Well, that is dishonest. Frankly, you might easily skip over that, but that has to stay there and be dealt with. If you are going to try to establish that you are, in fact, honest and that everyone else who observed this and was able to add it up and have it plainly reported, is in fact wrong, you have a big job ahead of you.
Dishonesty against the minister is a very serious charge. A parent, a teacher who lies, is serious business. A minister of the Crown, a Deputy Chief Minister, is a very serious matter. You know the truth but, perhaps, you will say whatever you can now to try to slide over this …
Ms Scrymgour: No, I will not slide over it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Then, we get to the other matter which we need to touch on - the issue of honesty. Will you go any further and reveal what, in fact, the truth is regarding the Hewitsons? What matters of concern have been raised at Elcho Island? These are educators who I have seen referred to time and time again as the ones who led the way in the place that you want to take them. I have not taken away from the fact that there have been improvements in the delivery of secondary education; however, we need to assess the quality of that improvement, and whether it, in fact, does more than just create an impression. Is it a substantial change, or not?
You have celebrated them. There is even an award named after them. They were headhunted and they were sent to Elcho Island to improve Shepherdson College. I believe that is in your electorate, Deputy Chief Minister, Minister for Education and Training - in your electorate – and they had the commission to go into that school to raise the standards.
I believe the Labor government would know that it is easy to say things, harder to deliver, because it requires a certain amount of courage. To go into a school, and then be set the task of raising the standard, you are certainly going to be in a position where you are going to cause some existing orders to be challenged; some existing standards to be addressed and brought into line. You just cannot raise the standards by media release or glossy brochure. It is going to effect some change. Some questions need to be answered.
Is it the case, minister, at this school – you, the Minister for Education and Training and the Deputy Chief Minister, with these two recognised, celebrated and awarded educators who were hand picked to go into that school - in doing what they were asked to do, to raise standards in that school, caused some people to be a little unhappy because the old order was now being changed? Some questions were a bit hard to answer, such as: ‘If I did this amount of work, say, for three hours, and was expecting to be paid 30 hours, I found that a bit hard’ - you may know what I am referring to with this issues - and they go on and make some complaint to someone who is quite close to them; that being, our local member, perhaps someone we know very well, that being the Minister for Education and Training, the Deputy Chief Minister, who then acts in a way to ensure ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Scrymgour: They are not even in my electorate. Understand where the boundaries are.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I said …
Ms Scrymgour: And you can mislead. Tell the truth!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I said I understand it to be in your electorate.
Ms Scrymgour: No, you did not.
Mr MILLS: No, I obviously was incorrect. It is beside the point. Censure me on that if you wish. However, the point remains there are some very serious questions that you have failed to answer and I doubt whether you will, if you did not have the courage to speak to a CEO as you were walking past.
How is it that these questions of the role the Hewitsons played in that school became so offensive to that community that caused concerns to be raised, and those concerns were raised and were acted upon to the degree that an audit and a review was required, which resulted in the offending items being removed from that school - the Hewitsons? How could that be? And the minister knows nothing about it? Well, there is more to come on that, and I think you know. Or perhaps you hope that no more will come because there are some serious questions out there with regard to the involvement that you have had in that matter.
I hope that those questions are answered in a way that leaves you clean on this one. There are concerns within the system that there has been involvement which has resulted in something extraordinary: educators sidelined.
That is not to mention the Bartholomews who have raised concerns and have been sidelined, but that is another story for another day.
Madam Speaker, these matters are of genuine concern. We have not only had the failure to deal comprehensively with the teachers dispute, the failure to front, but it has gone from bad to worse. I cannot believe that this minister has the faintest idea of the impact of this appalling handling of the teachers dispute. To think of it as some kind of power play is grossly underestimating the effect of your mishandling. It is echoing into the classrooms. I have not seen anything like this: to have ordinary teachers across the Territory still motivated and mobilised to continue their protest to this government, calling upon this minister, obviously in vain, to hear them, and for this government to help them through. This government seems to think it is a power play but, in fact …
Mr Knight: You wanted to sack them. You wanted to reduce teacher numbers – 660 public servants.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Whereas, as one of your predecessors has described - and it sounds nice but, if nice things are to have any meaning they have to have some kind of connection to reality - nothing happens in education unless it happens to a child.
Your mishandling of the CEO, your failure to address the teachers, your capacity to mislead and to use words and cover your own tracks in a very clumsy manner, has an effect in education right down to the classroom. Whether they are kids in Palmerston, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs, Darwin, the northern suburbs, or any of our remote communities, it has an effect, rest assured. Maybe you have become so blind that you do not see the effect that your appalling handling of the CEO issue and of the teachers, has had on the sapping of morale of the teaching profession, which reaches into every classroom and to every child who is in every one of those classrooms.
We have another situation. Professor Helen Hughes dared to raise her voice of criticism and she was personally attacked and, then, a little while later she is agreed with. Anything that is taken as a personal attack is a demonstration of a serious problem with leadership.
Then, there is this rhetoric about reforms in education. New standards are going to be strived for in education, but we have had the abdication of any proper professional leadership, and we do not have the real investment in reforms in education. We barely hear anything from the minister regarding what is really happening in education, about the national curriculum, about how the realignment of senior secondary education is occurring, and how we are going to be led through this difficult time. We do not have any guidance or leadership on that; we just have reaction, spin, hype and dishonesty in this last appalling episode.
This motion goes to the heart of a concern; that we recognise the concerns in education need serious leadership. They need a level of courage that we have not seen from this minister, nor from this government. Those who raise their voices in opposition are dealt with one way or another, such as we have seen with Hewitsons at Elcho. That needs to be fully investigated and that is an investigation, I understand, on foot.
The teachers front up and demand and require an explanation and assistance in dealing with these matters, and behind the scenes there have been appalling shows of immature behaviour, or even lack of leadership or courage to address the teachers. We do not ever see that from this government. They never front up. They do not talk to the crowds that are hostile - whether it is the local government reform or the restructure of education. They never front up. When the teachers are crying out for someone to help them, they are not there, they are at the beautician ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: The hairdresser, sorry. The results in education; you can keep saying yes - well, you have finally said it is a disaster and we have a problem. However, when Helen Hughes said the same thing, she was lambasted and criticised publicly, but now you align yourself with the same message. That is also appalling behaviour. This is a reactive and dishonest approach to education. At a time when leadership is required, we do not have it.
The communication links between this minister and education and the wider community have broken down. There are many accounts of meetings that have been called for, that have not been kept by this minister. You need to show that you have the courage to continue on in these difficult times.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe we can continue on under this minister. I believe that this motion calling for a want of confidence in this minister should be supported in the interest of the kids in all those classrooms across the Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of misleading comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. This bloke stands in this parliament, hand on his heart, hitting the desk and preaching to people about telling the truth. He needs to understand about the interpretation of truth. I will go through what he was saying one by one. I welcome the opportunity to clear up some of the misleading comments he has made today.
The first one: your little mate who sits beside you, the member for Port Darwin, puts out a media release. He cannot wait for comments to come out of the media. Then he generates a media release accusing me of being at the beauty salon on the day when 20 teachers out the front with no notification, did not tell me that they were coming and protesting - and that was prior to my meeting with the Australian Education Union.
I have met twice, appropriately, with the Australian Education Union to discuss resourcing. That is my responsibility, Leader of the Opposition. You need to inform yourselves better regarding the administrative orders. I am responsible for working with the unions, looking at issues of resourcing in those schools. That is my responsibility. I have met with them twice: once with the Treasurer to work through what their concerns were, and then a second meeting with them to give them a firm commitment of addressing those resourcing issues which they wanted to put forward to me as the minister for Education. At that last meeting, I gave them a very firm commitment that I would take that list of resourcing issues to Cabinet.
It would be totally irresponsible of me, as the minister, to say: ‘Yes, two-page list, I agree totally with what you ask’, without going into that meeting or going out of that meeting without getting the proper costings done. No minister of this government can do that without knowing what those costs are on their existing budget. Looking at those asks the education union had put to me showed they were over and above what they had put on the table previously. At my meeting with the education union, I said very clearly that I was getting a bit sick of the goal post moving all the time because they continually kept saying resources, resources, resources.
I called them and said: ‘Come and sit down and let us work through what these resourcing issues are …’ - and it was not just about the bush, it was about town - ‘… so put your resourcing issues on the table, let us work through them. Let me take those resourcing needs that you have or you are putting to me to Cabinet. I need to have Cabinet’s deliberation and costings done. But I give you a firm commitment to work through and to make sure that government will address the resourcing issues, not over one year or two years, but let us look at how we can sign an agreement over the life of the EBA about how those resources roll out and how we can get proper costings, get the figures tested, to make sure that we build into an agreement - not the EBA, but an agreement between myself and the unions - to try to address those issues’.
At that meeting, clearly, they said: ‘We are not happy. It is the quantum. We are still going to strike’. I had a responsibility. At that time there were Year 12 students going into their pre-trial exams. There were also Year 9 students going into probably what was the biggest career expo. I had a responsibility to make sure that those kids were not going to be impacted on …
Mr Mills: Use work choices.
Ms Lawrie: What would you have done?
Mr Mills: That is not the point. Hypocrisy is the issue.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: You are a bunch of hypocrites.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are the hypocrite.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To say that I have not met with the union and, then out there that day - and I need to clear this up for the member for Port Darwin. On that day we had Cabinet and we left. My daughter had quite an urgent medical appointment, so I took her to that appointment. It was not a very good appointment because the outcome was that she was quite ill. I took her to that appointment. After that she had a waxing appointment, so I took her to that waxing appointment. I was sitting in that beauty salon while she went into her appointment, and I was spotted by a reporter, who I think has had a personal vendetta against me ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I have taken this up. I have taken it up personally because you chose to put out a media release, putting out misinformation about why I was not standing in front of those teachers ...
Mr Mills: You were not there, and you have never been there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Was I supposed to tell my sick child, my daughter, that I could not go with her to face the biggest of some tests that she was having - that I could not go?
Mr Mills: Could one of your colleagues not front up?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here is a man who talks about the responsibility of parents and is still attacking the minister after she explained that she accompanied her daughter to a medical appointment …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, Leader of Government Business.
Mr Mills: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you have the call.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I did not get notified that they were having the protest …
Mr Mills: What lines of communication are there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the afternoon, I had seen that there had been no appointments. I had cleared that afternoon so that I could take my daughter to her medical appointment and, then, to another appointment in the afternoon. The 20 teachers …
Mr Mills: There were more than 20 teachers. I saw your spies there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the 20 or 30 teachers - I think I was told up to 30. Not all of them were teachers, Leader of the Opposition ...
Mr Mills: So, you had your spies there? You organised for your spies to be there, but you could not be there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, when that protest was organised I had not - and I know that the Leader of the Opposition went down and carried on that I had not bothered fronting up. That was not true; I had not been notified. Also, there were allegations that I had been notified that that protest was happening and that I failed to turn up because I did not want to get in front of the angry hordes to address some of these issues. Well, I had not been notified. I had no information …
Mr Mills: How did you manage to get all your spies organised then, if you did not know it was going to be on?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … nor had I been notified that …
Mr Mills: I saw them lurking around. It was in the paper.
Mr Knight: The paper you do not like?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … that I had failed to turn up. Madam Speaker, I remember the ad being in it; it was the day of the protest when the ad was in …
Mr Mills: The paper comes out in the morning.
A member: You had time to arrange for one of your colleagues to go and represent you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because if I had been informed or invited to front the protest, I would have gone. Do you think that I would shy from my responsibility in addressing teachers in relation to resources? I have nothing to hide. I will go and talk to them. Unfortunately, on that day, there were a number of things - and I was not told …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, in terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion, as I said, I welcome the chance to set the record straight on a number of things. I have said before that there is no easy way to demonstrate the extreme urgency that is needed in the Territory’s remote Indigenous education reform. The Leader of the Opposition said it is not just about Aboriginal kids in the bush - so true. That is true. We have to ensure that we have the most robust education system, in our urban centres, our regional centres, and our remote communities. We have three different areas to ensure we have the most robust education system.
If the Leader of the Opposition wants to carry on, let us have a look at the last NAPLAN results. When you look at some of those results, we have some fantastic numbers coming from our urban centres. We can confidently say that any child in our Darwin schools or our regional schools performs as well as any child on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and that is a fact. That is a known fact, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that every child and every parent in our urban centres can be assured that we have a very robust and sound education system.
Looking at the data and some of the results in Darwin, I will give you an example: at one Darwin secondary school, 19 students achieved the highest possible band in reading; 41 students at that school achieved the highest possible band in writing; and 22 students achieved it in numeracy. We have some fantastic results in Darwin and our regional centres. So, where do we have the problems?
It is the urgency that I keep talking about; it is in our remote communities. We are seeing another generation of Aboriginal kids rendered absolutely illiterate and innumerate and, as government, we have a responsibility to ensure that we build the same robust education system in town as in our remote communities. An Aboriginal child in a remote community has the same right as any other child living in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I have said on many occasions that I will not stand by and do nothing about this. As I said during Question Time, there should be a collective sense of responsibility here. The opposition, in government for more than 25 years from 1978, totally failed remote Territory kids. Let us not pretend these bad results began to happen when Labor came to power in 2001. Sadly, there was a 25-plus year legacy of apathy and neglect that confronted us, particularly in remote education, in 2001. The glaring facts remain: not one kid who lived out bush graduated from high school in the entire time the opposition was in government. That is your legacy. I discussed the importance of these issues.
I discussed the importance of these issues with Ms Banks on numerous occasions.
Mr Giles: But do not talk about that because …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You have had a good education, have you not?
Mr Giles: Thank you, I have. Worked very hard for it, too.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes. We should allow all other kids to have a good education.
I look back on my education, Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell you, it was not under the CLP. I acknowledge Catholic Education and the education that I was fortunate to be able to receive ...
Mr Mills: Private education.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no. … on the Tiwi Islands and in Darwin. Every child in the Northern Territory should be able to have the same education that was given to me. If you look at any remote Aboriginal community and many of the elders who are out there, there is a 20-year gap between those elders who went to school and were educated under the mission system, to the little ones we have now, where the missions pulled out and we have a government system. It is an absolute disgrace that we have been allowed to have this happen. For a long time, it has been allowed to happen.
In 2001, a number of changes were made. Since becoming Education minister, I have said there has to be this urgency. We have to turn it around and we do have to put in a number of instructions. I have discussed, over a number of meetings, the importance of these issues with Ms Banks – Margaret. In the end, I simply felt there was no appropriate sense of urgency being generated at the top level. There is a great urgency needed to reform education, particularly remote education in the Territory. Ms Banks knew how strongly I felt about this.
With regard to Ms Banks leaving, she was appropriately advised, and there has been some misinformation about this as well about how Ms Banks was advised. She was advised by the Territory’s most senior public servant, the Chief Executive of the Department of the Chief Minister, Mike Burgess, that, as minister, I no longer had faith in her leadership of the agency. Simply put, she was advised her services were no longer required.
The Leader of the Opposition said that, on that Thursday, I did not even have the guts to talk to her. It is not my position. I made it clear to Margaret, on a number of occasions, how I felt. There was no sense of urgency in addressing some of the issues that were across the department, not just out bush, but also in our regional and urban centres. That was put very clearly to Ms Banks. Appropriately, I had expressed my lack of confidence in Ms Banks staying as the CEO of the department ...
Mr Mills: To her?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To the Department of the Chief Minister.
Mr Mills: There you go!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I told Mike Burgess that, as the minister, I had no confidence. This is coming on the back of - but you choose not to listen Leader of the Opposition - meetings where I had articulated to Margaret my concerns about where the department was going and what was happening and how the resources were being distributed.
As usual, in these matters, and out of respect for Ms Banks and her privacy, I put out a statement on my return from my electorate. I did not go down to my electorate office, as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, or misled Territorians. I did not just go down to my electorate office. I have a huge bush electorate; I was on my way out to my electorate …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Like all members of this parliament, we are elected by our electorates, and I was on my way out to my electorate. Ms Banks …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because the meeting was purely about Rosebery High School and to deal with the issues of that school. Appropriately, Ms Banks, because she did not meet with me all the time, I had set meetings with Ms Banks. In between those meetings, Ms Banks and senior staff of the department met regularly with advisors. That is, and always has been, standard procedure. The Leader of the Opposition was not a minister in the CLP government, so he would not know. Maybe he should talk to his colleagues who were ministers, who could tell him that CLP ministers, in between meetings with their CEOs, would have their advisors meet with their CEOs or other departmental staff.
We held regular meetings with Ms Banks articulating to her what was government’s way forward, and putting that forward to them. As is usual in these matters, and out of respect for Ms Banks and her privacy, I put out a statement thanking her for her important work, particularly reforming middle years education. Following the usual patterns of dismissal of very senior people, that would normally be the end of the matter. Speculation by the opposition about sacking or resigning is normal in these circumstances, but it usually ends there.
Following her departure, Ms Banks took the unusual step of going to the media and discussing matters about her dismissal. I am not sure what or who was best served by her actions, but the fact is, that is what happened. If I created the wrong impression when I mistakenly used the word ‘retire’ rather than ‘resign’ in relation to Ms Banks’ departure, I apologise. It was a genuine mistake, Leader of the Opposition. You cannot tell me you have never made an honest mistake in your life. That is a joke …
Mr Mills: You walked past her.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a purist. I apologise, and I apologised the other day.
I intended to be quite neutral in terms of Ms Banks’ departure as to whether or not it was voluntary. If I had my time again and, having gone through this, I can tell you I may approach the matter of Ms Banks leaving in a different manner, but we are all experts in hindsight. There is the expert over there.
Whether or not Ms Banks resigned or was sacked is immaterial to the core issue. The fact remains Territory Education is not performing. I feel I had communicated to the chief executive that things needed to improve rapidly, and I was not happy with the department’s response. The department’s response was Ms Banks’ responsibility. Ms Banks has now left and, as far as I am concerned, I have announced a restructure of the agency to give greater focus to changing these unacceptable results. It is my intention to improve Territory education across all measures. I will use all means at my disposal to achieve that because our kids and their families deserve nothing less.
The Leader of the Opposition thinks he is the only one who gets the phone calls and talks to teachers and other people out there. I have had a number of those phone calls, too. You get around Darwin and Territory people come up to you. I have been encouraged by the number of people who have spoken to me following these events, urging me to push on and really change things. I particularly inform members opposite that I intend to continue the process of reform even it is not to everyone’s liking. As I said, our kids deserve nothing less.
Leader of the Opposition, you keep asking why I did not inform Margaret Banks appropriately. I expressed to her my concerns. She knew that very clearly …
Mr Mills: Who by?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: By me. She was told what those concerns were, Leader of the Opposition - very clearly what those concerns were.
In terms of the censure motion from the Leader of the Opposition, our government is certainly determined to see improvements in literacy and numeracy results because that is a major issue here. I know a big part of trying to get literacy and numeracy is lifting the attendance of all Territory students. Our students in our urban centres, as I said, are achieving at rates comparable to any student in our southern schools. However, we need to see the improvements occur in our remote schools with our Indigenous students. I keep saying there is a sense of urgency needed, and I have said previously since taking on the Education portfolio my attention has always been constantly drawn to the profound contradictions in the results of our education system and what it achieves.
We have a system that produces student performances amongst the best in the nation, a system able to maintain academic standards which would see them competitively ranked in any national merit survey. Students who receive our top tertiary entrance results are well placed to get into the universities of their choice. Within and beyond the school gate we have the highest proportion of students undertaking VET and the number of participants in training. However, sadly, we have a substantial group of children and young adult Indigenous Territorians who are not effectively engaging with or benefiting from the system. I am Education minister for all of our kids - and I take that very seriously because I know that is an area, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that is not just about Aboriginal kids; it is about all kids. I agree; it is about every child in the Northern Territory. However, it is Indigenous education that presents my greatest and most urgent challenge. The fundamental …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister for Education is labouring under a misapprehension. This is not a censure motion; this is a motion that strikes at the issue of a want of confidence in the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for Education. The comments need to be in that area if you want to carry this argument, to reassure us that we should have confidence in the minister for Education.
Ms Lawrie: You are playing politics. Nothing is going to satisfy you. You are not genuine.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The whole thing has been political from day one with what has come out. If it was genuine and they wanted change, they would have been doing that a while ago to change the appalling results that we see. The member for Fong Lim stood up here because he does not like the history lessons. Well, they are going to constantly get the history lessons ...
Mr Mills: It is not going to inspire confidence with that kind of answer. You have been there eight years.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This bloke says what we confront on a daily basis out in those communities has to be fixed. I am not saying that this is just one issue that we have to fix; it is a complex issue. However, we have to address a number of things to try to get the literacy and numeracy rates put in place so we can increase and lift those appalling rates that we see in many of our remote communities. I believe we are on track with it. We have been doing that since 2001. There have been more resources put into our remote Indigenous education system than ever before. I know that the Leader of the Opposition hates admitting that there are more resources. He only has to go to the budget books …
Mr Mills: The issue is the results, minister, not the amount of money you spend, for goodness sake.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and have a look at what money has been given. Government’s responsibility is to ensure that that system is resourced, and appropriately resourced. We have been doing it since 2001 ...
Mr Mills: Look at the results, though.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is right. And that is the question. Come in, spinner! That is the question - you put in all this money but look at the results. That is right. That is why we have the urgency now …
Mr Mills: Put some more money in and sack a CEO.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Says you, says you, says you. Madam Speaker, we know …
Mr Mills: Says the results in your report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Of course. I have not denied that our results are appalling. I have never denied our results are appalling. Since becoming Education minister last year, I have said things have to change. The status quo has to change. We have to do things differently. There is an urgency in turning this around.
We had an intervention, remember, two years ago. There was an intervention into the Northern Territory. I can tell you, unless we treat and deal with education with real urgency and give it the focus that needs to be there, then …
Mr Mills: Not up to it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Not up to it?
Mr Mills: No.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Says you! You are not up to it.
Madam Speaker, every CEO - and these blokes know it; they sit there and they play politics. These blokes know that CEOs are the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of every single one of our agencies ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Stop being cute, you, and you stop being cute. They know …
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: The policy settings are right; the resources are right …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They know that the policy setting is there - and the Treasurer is right; the policy setting is right. There is more money going into that system.
Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech and my reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I felt that sense of urgency, and the implementation of that policy with those resources, was not being carried out. I highlighted my concern. It was put forward to the appropriate channels that that needed to happen. Okay, I admit that when I said retired versus resigned, that I should have …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes so the minister can conclude her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will not be long. It is a major issue …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am just doing a quick count on the ayes having it. I am pretty sure that …
Madam SPEAKER: It goes on the voices. If you feel there was a problem, you can call for a division. That is the process. Minister, please continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I cannot stress enough that urgency we need, and the work that is required to get that policy framework and those resources implemented in the bush so that we can start seeing some changes happening. It means that we have to also be vigilant in our urban and regional centres, because we cannot take our eye off the ball in ensuring those systems we have in our centres do not come at a cost of our regional centres. I said when I put in place the Transforming Indigenous Education policy that it needed that collective sense of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition needs to get a reality check, have a look, not just in our urban centres, but go out bush. Get out there, every single one of you. Get out and have a look at what we are confronting in the bush. If I am to be damned because of my urgency, and the support of my government of that urgency, that needs to happen out in the bush …
Mr Mills: Let us see results.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. It is convenient for this bloke here to play politics with this, because that is all we have seen out of these blokes - politics. If they cared, 10 years ago, they would not have the Learning Lessons inquiry. What Learning Lessons showed was that you gutted Indigenous education …
Mr Mills: Oh, right. That is going to help the kids, isn’t it – blame game? That is going to help the kids.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You gutted Indigenous education. No, it is not playing the blame game. There is a history, and that history is not going to change but, through Transforming Indigenous Education and putting the resources back in there - and if there is a failure to implement that, then the CEO is responsible for that. The CEO is responsible for making sure that those policies are implemented.
The Leader of the Opposition, that day of that meeting - and I keep saying - Ms Banks came in to meet with my advisors about Rosebery High School. It was not a meeting with me. All right? It was a meeting that was going to occur with my advisors about Rosebery High School. I stood there, before I went out, and talked to Margaret. I spoke to her and I spoke to the finance person, because I had concerns about how we were going forward in Rosebery. I highlighted that, and then she was going to meet with my advisors.
I left to go out to my electorate. I have an electorate as well. There are a number of people out in my electorate and I have an obligation to make sure that I go out and have meetings and contact with them as well. The CLP feels that they are the only ones who should get out to their electorates. I have a big bush electorate. I was on my way out to my electorate for an important meeting about housing, which is another major issue and challenge for this government which we are implementing.
For many years, we have seen the endemic overcrowding that is in our remote communities and, hopefully, with the housing projects that we are rolling out in our remote communities, we might be able to get these kids into a house where they are not with 20 people, so that they can be in a environment to enable them to learn better. They can get a decent night’s sleep and they can go to school at 8 am and learn.
There are a number of things that we are working on, as a government, to implement. It is my urgency to ensure that the education system we put in place in the bush is as robust and sound as we have in our urban centres. All of those kids in the remote communities deserve not just having a teacher in front of them - which is what we have, despite the Leader of the Opposition saying that there is not a teacher in every classroom - but ensuring that we have teachers in front of every single one of those kids and that we have the infrastructure on the ground in those communities so that those kids can go to a decent school and learn.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, with his conspiracy theories, thinks that there is something more. I have followed the procedures as outlined to me. I have relayed my concerns to the CEO. I have also gone to the appropriate person, the head of the Chief Minister’s department, who then spoke to Ms Banks and conveyed that I no longer had confidence in her as the head of the agency. That is the appropriate process.
When I went to the media, I said ‘retired’ instead of ‘resigned’. That was a genuine mistake. We have seen, where there has been a sacking of a CEO, ministers have, in the past under the CLP, said that they resigned. You protect the privacy. Margaret Banks did not need me, on the weekend or the Monday leading up to that, going out and saying that she had been sacked. I was respecting her privacy because, apart from that – let us put aside - this was not a personal vendetta ...
Mr Mills: Why did you say that she failed to keep appointments with you?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This was not a personal vendetta. I genuinely liked Margaret Banks. On a personal level, I liked Margaret Banks. All right? However, hard decisions sometimes have to be made. We have to make hard decisions and it was a hard decision ...
Mr Mills: Why did you not open your mouth and say something to her?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, I had a meeting with Ms Banks where I had highlighted those concerns ...
Mr Mills: What are these concerns?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She knew very well what those concerns were. On the radio, she said that I had given the new acting CEO a list of failings. I can tell you they were not a list of failings; that was a list of tasks that had been sitting in front of the CEO for some months to address, since I had become Education minister and we did Transforming Indigenous Education. There had been a number of tasks that needed to be done and had failed to be implemented.
All CEOs have performance management agreements. They are all tied to Closing the Gap, Transforming Indigenous Education - there are a number of things that CEOs have to answer to. I feel that I have followed the appropriate process.
It is not to the liking of the CLP but, guess what? I am not accountable to the CLP. I am accountable to this parliament. I am accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. I find it really offensive that they have said that I have deliberately misled or lied. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that he is the purist. He is such a purist.
Frankly, I have a job to move forward to fix this. As I said, I know it is not going to make people happy, and a number of people are going to get upset with the various reforms we are implementing. However, if we are going to change things on the ground in our remote communities, hard decisions have to be taken.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue. This motion is focusing on confidence, lying, integrity, communication and appalling results. I must say that I expected the answers today from the minister on many of the questions. It does not surprise me that she does not know what the answers are.
This side of the House has talked a lot about culture - culture of certain organisations. I tell you, the Labor government in the Northern Territory will be remembered as a culture of failure. In fact, they continually remind us of the past and, since coming into this House, I feel that I am in Dr Who’s Tardis, because we are reminded of the past so often. The member for Daly commented yesterday that perhaps I should look in the mirror. I believe he should listen to his own advice.
I have been involved with the Bakewell Primary School for nearly 10 years – all its 10 years - and nearly five of those as chairperson. I am on the Palmerston High School Council and chaired the Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group before this minister dissolved the group. In regard to the Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group, this group was made up of a group of volunteers - chairs, principals, and DEET and DIPE staff. Except for the department staff, we were all volunteers giving up our own time to help this government with planning and focusing on Palmerston’s future.
This government has failed to plan and, in my opinion, I have worn out at least three ministers or, perhaps, I was the reason they moved from their portfolios ...
Ms Lawrie: No, do not flatter yourself.
Mr CHANDLER: One previous minister even invited me here, shouted me a few beers and tried to woo me. I came away feeling like I had just been sold a car. Good management, good government means having the necessary infrastructure in place in time. Be prepared. Obviously, there are no Scouts amongst that side of the House.
The latest NAPLAN testing results are a direct result of your management, or lack thereof, where schools are overcrowded, morale is at an all time low due to the ongoing pay dispute and the general attitude that this government is losing control. The job is too big for them. In fact, some teachers – rusted-on Labor supporters - have effectively crossed the floor - Labor supporters I have spoken to, time and time again, who, at the last election voted CLP and, if they did not the last time, they most certainly will be changing colours next time around.
To focus on this government’s lack of planning, I will talk about Bakewell Primary School. It was a school designed for approximately 450 children. It reached 716 last year and, even after losing the Year 7 cohort, today the school has a cohort of well over 600 students. There needs to be special considerations for a school of that size which is due to the lack of planning of this government. I can remember the days where there was one school, one suburb where parents could let their children walk to school without the fear of walking over major roads. There are major infrastructure problems that you guys just have not planned for. These issues include car parking, additional vehicles on the road leading to road safety, pedestrian safety, and children crossing busy roads.
Regarding split lunch breaks, some children, when they are friends with a mate who may be one year out of their classroom, cannot even have recess with them, or share lunch with them because of split lunchtimes and split recesses. Why? Because the schools are too damn big; they have too many children in them. In fact, when you have to have a split assembly because your children cannot have a joint assembly with everyone in the school, it is a sad thing. It does not build the strength in a school you wish to have.
In fact, in the dog world, kennels have particular regulations. You cannot put too many dogs in a kennel. You cannot put these animals in conditions that are cruel. However, we seem be able to pack these students into an area no bigger than a basketball court - hundreds and hundreds of children. It was very few times that you saw any minister from that side of the House visit Bakewell when we had a full school assembly. If they were there, they were only there for a short time. They did not see the work that went into it; the plan to bring those children into that area and, then, afterwards to get them out of there safely. It was not an easy thing to do. This government has a very bad track record in Palmerston.
Let us talk about consultation for a minute. This really surprises me because I thought Labor governments would have a really good understanding of consultation. Surely, your solid associations with the union movement ensures you must appreciate the words ‘communication’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘compromise’? Not this government. Its interpretation of consultation is to persuade the masses like some type of TV evangelist.
I will give you one example: compulsory uniforms. Bakewell Primary School had a very good reputation for a high level of student participation in wearing uniforms. One of the ministers of the government decided they needed to bring it in as compulsory. I support uniforms, but not the word ‘compulsory’. That is where most of the consultation breaks down. The feedback we received at a council level and from everyone we spoke to was that they were happy to go with a policy where uniforms were important, but they did not want them to be compulsory.
This is where it got interesting. We then received a letter after formally responding to this government about the word ‘compulsory’. The letter stated that they had had negative responses about compulsory school uniforms. However, they then said it was abundantly clear they needed to make it compulsory and, therefore, that was that. That is the type of consultation that we deal with.
Regarding middle schooling consultation, the reality was the decision had been made and the consultant’s brief was to sell the concept - nothing less. That was obvious because, if any minister attended any of the briefs I attended, they will have noted the negative feedback. If this was not reported by the consultant, they did not do their job. I personally support middle school, but I do not support the way this government went about its introduction.
Palmerston High Senior extension is another debacle. What an absolute tragedy – interstate, unproven contractors with no local knowledge and links to local subcontractors. This administration and its inept management has meant that hundreds and hundreds of students were disrupted, displaced, and treated like second-class citizens, compared to the wonderful new school built in Darwin on time. One teacher in particular from Palmerston High came to speak to me about woodworking machines incorrectly wired, placed in positions to prevent anything from being used safely, machines not bolted to the floors, hazard eye wash stations with no floor drainage meaning if these safety measures are used, water goes over the floor creating more hazards for others around the area. I am sure many of these things would have been addressed. However, they should not have happened in the first place, and good management ensures that they do not happen.
The Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group is a good indication of where this government has let the people of Palmerston down. As I said before, this group was set up - a group of volunteers - to help this government; to help you plan for the future of Palmerston. This was after years and years of talking about what we needed in Palmerston. And boy, did we need something. There was nothing done for years and our schools were full. If you want to run the argument that there were a few schools that were a little under capacity, then it was your role to promote more people to go to those schools.
We came up with ideas to maybe have a specialist school, attract more children to those schools, and entice parents to come back to those schools that were perhaps under-utilised, because there was pressure on big schools like Bakewell, Woodroffe and Durack, which were far past their use-by date when it comes to numbers. In fact, one minister came out there one day and said - sorry, he did not come out there; he would not have been able to do that. They publicly stated that Bakewell still had capacity. I argue that once a school reaches one demountable - not eight, one demountable - they have already reached capacity. I would have loved to have seen that minister stand in front of a full assembly and say: ‘Children, ladies and gentlemen, this school can still take a few more students’. It is absolutely ridiculous.
At a meeting of the PEIAG, it became very obvious that the planning of the last three years, where the group recommended that the government build a new preschool, primary school and middle school in Palmerston, and a middle school with a capacity to take all the cohort from Palmerston High to turn it into a secondary facility, was accepted. At another meeting, we were told that due to budgetary considerations that was not likely to be the case, and that the best that Palmerston could hope for was one middle school with a capacity of around 650 people. That would not take all the cohort from Palmerston High. Still, we were going to be left with two middle schools when, in fact, the goal was to make Palmerston High into a specialist secondary facility.
I wrote to the Chief Minister on 2 April 2008:
And I am reading a letter from the past:
Three weeks after that letter was sent, this government announced a brand new Rosebery school hub, including preschool, primary school and a middle school, with the capacity to take the cohort from Palmerston High. Fantastic! Best news I have heard for a long time. Many people worked very hard indeed to put that kind of plan into action. Here we are, though, getting close to the end of 2008 and we are still waiting for any real evidence of this occurring.
The Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group was a voluntary group, although we did have support from a couple of departments and, of course, the wonderful principals we have in the Palmerston schools. I do not know whether the minister felt that the group was no longer needed, remembering the mandate was to talk about and plan for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years, not just for the next school in Palmerston, but the next school and the next school.
I received a letter from the current minister for Education. I will not read out the entire letter, but in essence:
Madam Speaker, this demonstrates to me that this government does not understand what delivery is all about - announcement after announcement after announcement; that is all we seem to get. It clearly demonstrates a culture of systematic failures, no communication and proof of misleading Territorians.
It is abundantly clear to me, and many people I have spoken to, that delivery of effective planning, good education outcomes, infrastructure and any thought of immediate improvement is outside the scope of this government and the minister responsible.
I noted a couple of things in the minister’s response: two meetings in all for something so important. I assure you, when meetings go pear-shaped it takes good negotiation to get to the next level. I also welcome the minister’s announcement about Rosebery High School; I have not heard this one before. I look forward to telling the people of Brennan that we are getting a high school in Rosebery. Fantastic! I have not seen the media release yet, but I welcome it and look forward to it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not always talk on these motions, but I would like to put something forward today. Perhaps it highlights that we do need a full and robust debate on the education system in the Northern Territory as we have not had one for a while. Probably, the last reasonable discussion would have been at the Estimates Committee. It is an area that needs constant attention, so I would like to put forward a few comments today.
I notice the minister said, when she was commenting on her approach to Mrs Margaret Banks, that she personally admired the CEO and this had nothing to do with personalities. I say to the minister: this is not about personalities, either. I admire the minister, but I have been asked to look at some issues relating to the performance of the government in education. I do not put this solely on the existing minister. I believe the role the government has played in some of the failures in education in the Northern Territory should be looked at in a broad sense, not necessarily aimed at one particular minister.
As a local member, I get feedback from my constituents, many of whom are teachers. The present dispute between teachers and the department of Education is certainly causing many teachers to become very disillusioned and disgruntled with what is happening in relation to their concerns about the future of education.
One of the main areas they believe the government is ignoring is not necessarily in relation to the pay increase, but to conditions in schools. I raised the question in the last sittings of parliament in relation to relief teachers. The government has a policy, which was put in a couple of years ago, which capped how much money could be used to cover relief teachers. The minister said schools would just have to budget better. That might sound good in theory, but the problem many schools have is either they do not have relief teachers because they have run out of money, or rely on funding from school councils. That is one of the big concerns they have ...
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This is exactly what I am relaying from teachers: I have been to school council meetings and this is what I have been told.
If these are the issues which are causing teachers to lose faith in the negotiations, which have dragged on for a very long time and one could feel the government is trying to simply …
Mr Knight: Second best paid in Australia.
Mr WOOD: If you want to have that debate on those figures, I am happy to come back to them. I know from people who know a lot more than I do that we are not always comparing apples with apples ...
Mr Knight: We are.
Mr WOOD: No, we are not.
Mr Knight: We are.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, without getting into that too much, what these teachers are saying to me is that while they would like a pay increase - and there is no doubt they are after a pay increase - they want better conditions. They have spoken about a decrease in the number of students in class. The reason they are asking for that is many teachers find it more and more difficult to control students. We have a society today where, for some reason, there are more students who are difficult to handle in classes. They are finding a lot of pressure on them trying to control these children. There are reasons why they are asking for smaller class numbers.
I am saying to the minister that there are many disenchanted teachers out there. I used to be one of those who reckoned teachers had it easy. I can tell you now I thought: ‘Gee, work a few hours, go for long holidays, a piece of cake’. Then I saw my wife work at Sacred Heart Primary in Palmerston as an Aboriginal assistant teacher whose job was, basically, to take all those children - Indigenous and non-Indigenous – who were a pest in the class. She would come home with a migraine nearly every night, simply because of the stress of looking after those kids.
I have gone further than that. I have been involved with school councils, and I have seen the dedication of many teachers. I have seen the effort they put into schools now; the effort that is beyond the call of duty. As someone said years ago, Mum and Dad taught you what was right and wrong, Mum and Dad taught you respect. Now, Mum and Dad do not do that anymore; they expect the school teacher to do it. So, literacy and numeracy gets shoved to the side and we talk about the environment. Fine. We have the environment and visiting musicians and, then, other people will turn up and the simple things in life about teaching start to shrink. Teachers have so many responsibilities that, to some extent, are outside what they are really there for.
I have some sympathy for the teachers in relation to what they do. Why there is more pressure on teachers today is more a reflection of society, which they do not have control over. I am just putting it back to the government that that is why they are losing faith in the government.
The minister also said that the figures for education for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are a disgrace. I agree, and I have said this many times. However, I find that hollow because it was this government that changed the reporting figures that made it difficult for people like me to find out exactly what the figures were. I have said this before in parliament and at the Estimates Committee.
For the years 2003 to 2005, the department of Education’s annual report broke up Indigenous education into Indigenous, Indigenous Urban, and Indigenous Remote. When you looked at some of those figures, especially for Indigenous Remote, you were absolutely horrified. They were just woeful! I will give you an example. In 2003-04, it was estimated that 21% of children …
Ms Scrymgour: The CLP never used to print them.
Mr WOOD: Look, you can go back as far as you like. You can go back before the CLP existed, and my wife had a better education than kids today. I congratulate the Commonwealth government and the missions; however, the reality is this government has now been in power for eight year. We have had the Collins report, we have Closing the Gap. I do not follow all the reports, but I imagine there are tons of reports, because education seems to have its own industry on reports. That is why you have a whopping big building down there full of people who dissect our lives, change curriculum, do all that and, yet, nothing comes out the end any better.
I will go back to what I was saying. In 2003-04, there was an estimate by the department that 21% of Indigenous Remote Year 3 children would reach the reading benchmark – 21%. In actual fact, only 9% reached it. It was estimated there would be 30% of Indigenous Remote Year 3 in 2004-05 reach that figure. It did go up. It went up to 20%. After that, you do not know because, from 2005-06 to the present time, the figures for Indigenous Remote were removed from the annual report. They were also removed from the budget.
If the government was fair dinkum about the issue, it would not have removed them. It is better to face up to the problems that we have by telling people publicly, ‘These are the figures’. I have no doubt it is not easy to solve. There is no doubt that when you have communities with overcrowding, alcohol and drug problems, petrol sniffing, or high unemployment, you have very little incentive for people to go on. It is hard to get people to go to school. If parents really have no desire for their children to go to school, why would they make the effort to push them off to school? It is difficult. I have no doubt about that, minister. Yet, this government decided to hide those figures. To me, that sends the message they did not want the people to know about it.
The one thing they can do to show their sincerity would be to put those figures back. I know some people say that …
Ms Scrymgour: They are on the website, Gerry. Go to DEET’s website.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: This is from the annual report. The annual report had it in, and then they took it out, that is the issue I am saying. It might be on DEET’s website. The annual report removed it, and I am saying put it back …
Ms Lawrie: Who do you think does the annual report?
Mr WOOD: I am saying that if people stand up here and say things are terrible, then it is a little hollow if you remove those very horrible statistics that we need to know. I believe departments should put those figures back.
In relation to the CEO, I do not know whether, minister, you were lying, or someone else was lying. It is always a value judgment, and that is why I get reluctant to - and I probably will not - vote on this. In general, I support the gist of it. However, because this motion has five categories to it, and it is not just a simple motion, I am uneasy to say: ‘Yes, I agree with all of them’. I will say publicly here now that I am unhappy with the way the department works. You might say I am patronising as I am not in your position, but if I was the minister - and it is most unlikely I will ever be - if it was my CEO, who I would have thought was my right-hand person, I would have a very close relationship with the CEO, because that is the reason I have a CEO.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Okay. That is the reason you have a CEO. If the CEO is not doing what I am asking, I would be happy to meet with the CEO. Then, if the CEO was not fulfilling what I was requesting, I would at least - and I presume that this can be done - say to that CEO: ‘I no longer have faith in what you are doing and I would like you to leave’. That, I would have thought, was a reasonable thing for a relationship between a minister and a CEO - not the next people down. I understand that side, but I would have thought it was done that way. That is my feelings about it. You can take it or leave it, but that is the way I have looked at it. I have listened to the debate, from the radio and on the television.
The member for Brennan spoke about planning. I believe there is a real issue. We have schools now that are overcrowded. Taminmin High is a classic example. We have not prepared the rural area for another school, and it has reached its limit. The member for Brennan was saying it is a pity that, if you live in a city, you cannot send your children to the school in that city. I must admit that many Palmerston kids go to Taminmin because it is a good school. The reality is that Taminmin also has courses which are different from Palmerston, especially rural courses. I recommend all kids do rural courses, because I think it is good for them.
The school is now full and what planning has been done for a new high school? I said, Weddell, and someone said: ‘Oh, you cannot build one at Weddell; it is just a dry paddock’. But, that is exactly what you do. You know that there is going to be town built there one day. The school could come before the rest of the city. Do not forget that there is a lot of growth south of Taminmin in places like Darwin River, Berry Springs, Adelaide River, and Batchelor. Putting a school somewhere down there would be worthwhile.
We have a school that is full right now. Next year, when more than - I think the school can only take 300 at a time - 350 kids apply to go to Taminmin and they all come from the rural area, where do the other 50 go? They have to catch a bus to Palmerston. If that school is full, they have to go somewhere else.
There has not been a private secondary school built in the time of this government. I remember asking what happened to the Catholic high school that was supposed to be built in Palmerston on Lambrick Avenue. It is only just now being talked about. I remember taking this debate up with the minister at the time, Syd Stirling. It seemed to me that a private school was out of favour with this government for quite a while. I am pleased to hear that there is a private school being considered. It is not an anti-public school statement. I believe we have the best education system when we have choice. That is good for our community. However, we have not planned. That school has been hanging around for ages. We have a new private middle school being built at Howard Springs, thankfully, with some assistance from the government, and that is very much appreciated. That is the Good Shepherd Lutheran School, and it is jammed full, because people want to go there. People are looking for that choice. We are behind in our planning when it comes to schools.
Much has been said about the number of Aboriginal students who have now reached Year 12. I have some concerns about that. I am not attempting to be detrimental to those people who have gone through, but I gather some of those students are not exactly hitting the science degrees section of Year 12. They are doing things like cooking and tourism-type Year 12. We really need to be putting through school people who will end up being fully-qualified teachers, lawyers, and doctors. I am interested to know from the member for Barkly: you have a high school in Tennant Creek, and there must be a lot of Aboriginal kids in that area, but all we seem to be concentrating on is Aboriginal kids getting through Year 12. How many Aboriginal kids are going through Barkly? How many got through to Year 12? How many are going through the high school at Nhulunbuy? Surely, there are isolated children going to school there.
If they are not getting to Year 12 in established high schools, why not? Why are we putting these three people who went to school at Kalkarindji up like that is it? Surely, we must be putting Aboriginal people through the schools such as St John’s; O’Loughlin; Kormilda, and all of the other schools in Darwin. How many Aboriginal people coming in from remote areas are getting through to Year 12 at Kormilda? I just think the figures are sitting out there without looking at the bigger picture. If they are not getting Aboriginal children through Year 12 at Kormilda, O’Loughlin, Barkly, or Nhulunbuy, I would be asking questions as to why not.
One of the great things in this place is that we have Aboriginal people here. I reckon it is terrific. Whether you agree with me on my policies, I do not mind, but I asked the question: what education do you people have? You have a good secondary education, you went boarding - no different to some of the people on the cattle stations who had to go boarding; they had to leave home. That is very hard. I know the Tiwis used to go boarding in the late 1960s, and they found it very hard. I worry about the debate about a few kids at Kalkarindji and that you have put it up there and, in the CLP’s time, nothing happened. I am not here to say the CLP’s time was fantastic either. However, I believe sometimes there is a little spin thrown in and we need to look at the whole picture of secondary education, as it really is a total picture for Aboriginal people.
I raised other issues that are probably not necessarily related to this motion, but I still believe it highlights the fact that this is an important area. I do not question the minister’s great belief that we need to do something better and that she is determined to do something better. That does not mean that what she has been doing lately is necessarily right. I am talking about whether the minister has done a good job. I am talking about whether the government has done a good job.
As I said before, I do not necessarily put all the blame on the existing minister. The government, by its record - and it is worth looking at these figures - should be condemned. I will quickly give you an example of why. In 2002-03, the benchmark achievement for Indigenous numeracy for Year 3 - not Indigenous Remote, just Indigenous - was a good figure overall at 73.9%. But, in 2007-08, the figure had dropped to 69%. Over that entire period, the benchmark dropped for all Indigenous children. The government has had eight years. It should have been going up; it is going down. As much as we can put spin on it, that is a very sad fact of life - very sad ...
Ms Scrymgour: Urgency is not spin, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Those are the figures as they are there. We need to go forward. We need to get to the basics. I will say one thing, minister: I congratulate you on your statement. You said the children will learn four hours of reading and writing every morning. That is fantastic but, overall, I believe the government has lost the faith of many Territorians ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the opposition’s censure motion, looking at each of the points Nos 1 to 5. In No 1, we have heard during debate the Education minister very clearly explaining - very honestly and sincerely explaining - what occurred regarding the dismissal of Margaret Banks. That is she mistakenly used the word ‘retiring’ when she genuinely meant to say ‘resigning’; that she attributed the departure of Margaret Banks as resigning because that is the respect that you afford a CEO when they are leaving their office. That is the normal respect that is afforded for privacy reasons. So, if indeed they do not do what Margaret then chose to do, which is go out publicly and say ‘I was dismissed’, they can continue with their career with everyone genuinely believing it was a resignation, which is in the better interest …
Mr Tollner: If she felt it was done the right way, why did she go on ABC radio?
Ms LAWRIE: … which is in the better interest of their career. Whether the opposition want to believe this or not, that is actually what occurs at the senior level of government. That is actually what occurs. Okay?
Genuinely, the minister stood here and very clearly explained that it was out of respect for privacy for Margaret Banks that she chose to take the public line that it was a resignation. That is what a minister is always advised to do, to respect the privacy of the individual in the dismissal. That is the reality of what occurred. Okay? So, that is not lying to Territorians about the sacking. Genuinely, the minister stood here in the House and explained exactly what has occurred. Why? Because, as she said, she has no personal issue with Margaret Banks.
The reason for the dismissal was the minister, as she had to subsequently tell the public, after having wanted to protect her privacy around this, that she had lost confidence in her CEO. Why? Because, as she has said in the Chamber here today and as I have heard her say publicly, there needed to be an urgent and dramatic change in the delivery of education in the Territory. She had lost confidence in her CEO to implement that change. The reality is that operational matters and the implementation of government policy is undertaken by CEOs.
With all the good intent in the world, ministers can drive policy agendas, they can drive policy change - and we are all very aware that this minister for Education has been driving dramatic policy change in reforming Indigenous education. Some of the members in this Chamber may not have been around for that statement, but it was a sea change in policy in the delivery of Indigenous education in the Territory. It took this minister for Education to do that sea change, to be bold enough to come in here and say: ‘We have delivered failure in the past; we will not continue to deliver failure. We will give every Territory kid the chance to come out of the school system knowing how to read and write’. There is nothing more important than that opportunity for our children. It is this minister who was bold enough to say there has been failure and how the policy settings will be changed.
What have we had in the intervening time? I know the minister for Education has been tracking how the implementation - not just of the reforming of Indigenous education, but the opportunity we have of working with our Commonwealth colleagues, with the resources that the Territory is applying and the additional resources the Commonwealth is applying – has been going. This minister was about driving the change, and came to the very strong belief that it would require change at the very top of the departmental ladder for true and urgent change to occur - nothing at all personal. It is a professional and difficult hard decision that was taken.
No 2 regarding the direct removal from the position, the direct sacking which the Leader of the Opposition seemed so focused on in his contribution to the censure, dramatically explaining the foyer and the building. I can say again it is recognised practice for the CEO of the Department of Chief Minister to actually negotiate the dismissal of a CEO of an agency. Again, that is well-worn practice here in the Northern Territory Public Service. It was the minister for Education, having clearly come to the view that she needed a change at the top of the department, to really drive significant sea change in Indigenous education who, obviously, would have had discussions with her colleagues, with the CEO of the DCM and sought advice. She followed the advice every step of the way in and around the appropriate behaviour for the dismissal. No 2 is wrong as well.
No 3 - failing to maintain effective communication links between Cabinet and the Education department. Well, sorry, none of them sit in Cabinet. So, it begs the question: how would they know? I sit in Cabinet and I know just how many times our minister for Education raises education issues at Cabinet, pursues very vigoursly all of the submissions coming before Cabinet for the benefit of education in the Territory.
I quietly listened to the member for Brennan. I was waiting for him to get to something that had occurred that he had an issue with that was in the time frame of this minister for Education being the minister for Education. This is a very personal censure; it is not broadly on the government or broadly on the education system. I was looking for something there …
Mr Mills: No, it is actually a want of confidence in the capacity of the minister for Education.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: I kept waiting and listening to the crowded dog kennels, the compulsory school uniforms, the middle school consultation, the Palmerston High senior extension, and the Bakewell overcrowding, and all of those issues. I am not denigrating them at all. I can say this: guess who was the Education minister who got a 600-pupil primary school and an 850-pupil middle school for Rosebery? Delivered exactly …
Mr Mills: It is not there.
Ms LAWRIE: … what PEIAG were wanting ...
Mr Mills: You have been talking about it since 2002.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: You say it is not there, well, let me tell you …
Mr Mills: All talk, no action.
Ms Scrymgour: You are too dumb to understand. You are too stupid.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They say it is not there. Well, guess what? The funding was delivered in this May budget ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Guess what? The funding was delivered in this May budget. I do not know anyone anywhere in the world who put up two schools overnight ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: They are not there. In 2002, you started announcing this.
Ms LAWRIE: It was this Education minister, the one that the Leader of the Opposition has a want of confidence in, who delivered …
Mr Mills: It will move to you in a minute, if you keep this up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … who delivered …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: What we notice about the Leader of the Opposition is that he does not like to hear the truth. You can explain something to them, they shout at you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You stand here and explain something to them, they shout at you, they interject, and then they threaten: ‘We will censure you next if you keep this up’. Well, guess what? I am going to stand here and say exactly what needs to be pointed out regarding the points of your censure, whether you like to hear it or not, because that is democracy, this is a debate.
I pointed out No 1 was wrong. I pointed out No 2 was wrong. No 3, failing to maintain the effective communication links between Cabinet and the Education department - completely wrong. I have participated in a series of very senior high-level meetings involving the minister and departmental officers. I have seen Cabinet submissions. I know the way the minister prosecutes the need for improved education at Cabinet ...
Mr Tollner: Why are you so wrong? How come …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: As far as I am concerned, through my own actual experience because I am a member of Cabinet, they are very wrong regarding the communication links – very wrong.
No 4, throwing the Education department into chaos. I will not underestimate the impact that an e-mail going around to staff from a CEO saying that they are leaving, has on a department. I will not underestimate that, but this is not a department which, as a consequence, is in chaos. They have a very capable and competent senior management team, being led by a very capable and competent senior manager who is the acting CEO. They are not a department in chaos.
Are they a department that, like many …
Mr Elferink: The teachers are out on strike, the CEO has been fired, your results are through the floor, and everything is squeaky clean.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting. Minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Are they a department, like many of the departments in the Territory, which has to work in extremely challenging and complex conditions? Yes, they are. Whether it is in the departmental offices, or out in the schools, they all work in complex and challenging conditions, because that is what we have in the Territory, and we do not resile from that fact. As a government, we acknowledge that we have a significant reform process and resource requirement ahead of us - whether it is urban, regional, or remote.
We know in our urban, we have rapid growth, and the demands and challenges that that requires. We know in our regions, we have to ensure that we continue to improve the ageing infrastructure and recruit good teachers into the schools. I am not saying that good teachers do not exist there - they do. The challenge is always ensuring that you are able to continue to recruit into those schools, because the nature is that people do move around a system, and it is extremely difficulty to recruit to the remotes. Not only that, we had to build much of the infrastructure to provide for the education opportunities in the remotes. So, no, there is no chaos. Are there complex challenges? Yes, absolutely.
There is no argument from our minister for Education that the Territory has appalling results in our remote schools. She stood in the Chamber today and explained that our results in our urbans stack up with the rest of Australia. That is something everyone in our Education department, who work so hard, can be very proud of. We are shoulder to the wheel with everyone working in our regions and our remotes in the desire to improve the outcomes in education, the resources that they have, the opportunities those children have, and the attendance at those schools, and to deliver eduction in the places where it had not previously been delivered.
I know that is the history lesson that people do not like to hear, but it takes an enormous change to turn that around. That is why the minister wanted, very clearly, new leadership at the top for the sea change. It was not personal. It was to drive the urgency of the change. We all know that has to come from the top - from the CEO of the department. It cannot just be a push from the minister. You have to be driving it. Margaret Banks is, indeed, a fine educator. She did a tremendous job with implementing middle school change for the Northern Territory government. Introducing and implementing a middle years approach to schooling was the largest education reform in the history of Territory education. It was aimed at improving Years 7 to 9 by tailoring education to the specific needs. That was an enormous body of work.
Look back through successive Education ministers. Under Syd Stirling’s time, he established a teacher’s registration board to deal with professional and quality issues, because it did not exist before. He provided every classroom teacher with laptops. Understanding that families do it tough financially in getting their kids to school, he put the Back to School payment in place - for the first time, $50, and we are going to increase it to $75. There was early age of entry, giving kids who may be ready the opportunity to come in a bit early into preschool, and providing for that single intake into Transition. We developed the school improvement and accountability framework to drive the achievement and to improve results.
There have been 155 additional teachers put into our education system since 2001. There are 23 school counsellors above formula and, now, through Closing the Gap, we are putting those counsellors out into our large remote schools. There are 18 wellbeing behaviour officers supporting the schools. We introduced and staffed a wellbeing project that assists teachers with discipline issues in their classrooms; developed an NT Safe Schools Code of Conduct; 28 new teaching positions for students with special needs; increased funding for the ISAS support – and I know that that was one of the key areas the minister for Education wanted to drive significant change; supporting our students with special needs.
We put in place an autism spectrum disorder learning centre at Malak Primary School, in my electorate. We have established a positive learning centre at Sanderson Middle School to cater for students with those high behavioural needs, and an alternative education program to work with our disengaged students. There is accelerated literacy - that is new.
The remote schools have been provided assistant principal positions through remote group schools. The Barkly teacher support person has been provided. The list goes on. We are fundamentally providing secondary education to the bush - Labor being the first government to do this. We now have full secondary provision to Kalkarindji, Maningrida, Galiwinku, Minyerri, Yirrkala, and Wadeye. We have collaborative trial sites at Ramingining, Yuendumu, Papunya, and Borroloola.
Successive Education ministers, the opposition would have us believe, did nothing, oversaw nothing, changed nothing, resourced to no greater extent. All I can say is we have doubled the Education budget under Labor, under successive ministers. We have a minister for Education, as Deputy Chief Minister, who not only has the confidence and support of her colleagues at the Territory level but, importantly - and I am speaking for a moment as the Treasurer – also has the confidence and support of her federal colleagues. It is that which brings us the opportunity to receive further, increased resources from the Commonwealth, because we cannot do it on our own. The unmet need in the bush is of such an extent - which we inherited and which we are trying to fix - it will take both governments, the Commonwealth and the Territory government working together, to deliver the sea change the minister for Education has established with the policy settings she has pursued in the delivery of resources into the sector.
There are significant reforms occurring. There has been an enormous capital works program, as well the delivery of the education …
Mr Mills: But with poor results.
Ms LAWRIE: There has been some $20m in middle school in Darwin. Palmerston High School, Casuarina Senior College, Centralian Senior Secondary College, Nhulunbuy Secondary School, Katherine High School, and Taminmin High School all received significant infrastructure funding out of middle schools. There was $48m for the primary and middle schools at Rosebery. As I pointed out earlier, it was this minister for Education who got through all the barriers in the budget to delivering that, which gets it delivered and built on the ground.
There are significant upgrades right across bush schools – Minyerri, $1m; Kalkaringi, $1m; Maningrida, $2.2m; Shepherdson College, $2.5m; Wadeye, $4.5m; Papunya, $1m; Borroloola, $6m - all receiving significant upgrades – Utopia, Mulga Bore, Alcoota, Milyakburra, Gunbalanya …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for allowing me an extension of time and I promise not to take too much longer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: However, it is important when we are debating whether we should have confidence in this minister, when we look at the resources this minister is delivering into the education sector because, fundamentally, you will not have a chance in cooee of getting the results if you have not put in the resources. If you do not have a classroom to sit in, or if your classroom is so substandard it is extremely hard to learn in that environment, and it is even harder to teach in that environment, then you are not going to get the results.
There has been much said about the morale of the teachers. This government acknowledges that we have been in a protracted dispute with the teachers under the EBA. As the former Minister for Public Employment, I can say that EBAs are negotiated by the Minister for Public Employment, not by the Education minister.
The issue of relief teachers, which the member for Nelson raised, is very much a part of the government’s offer on the EBA. The issue of class numbers, which the member for Nelson raised, is very much part of the government’s offer on the EBA. These are agreed elements of the offer. They were elements of the offer the union were recommending acceptance on. The minister for Education genuinely said: ‘At any stage, if I can assist let me know’. I said to her: ‘We have an issue here because we have some matters that are clearly EBA matters being raised by the union and then we have a whole other catchment of matters that are resourcing matters’. They are issues of resources for the education system. They are genuine issues teachers have about conditions in the classroom.
So, we kept trying to find an agreed set of words between the government and the union on the two processes: one which was the EBA and the other, the second process - which is obviously the far more complex and lengthier process - is an agreement negotiating on resources. The minister for Education, at no stage, prevented that from occurring. In fact, quite the opposite; she pursued that. She genuinely pursued the negotiations and discussions on resources because we recognise …
Mr Chandler: Two times. She pursued it twice.
Ms LAWRIE: … the teachers are doing it tough. I pick up on the inane interjection of the member for Brennan that she pursued it twice. Guess what? If an Education minister wants to negotiate resources, they ought to have a lot of meetings with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister - and that is where she has been doing a hell of a lot of work on those resources issues, as she should ...
A member: So, it is your fault.
Ms LAWRIE: By all means, blame the Treasurer, because everyone, ultimately, does.
Madam Speaker, I have stepped through Nos 1 to 5. The only area of agreement was on the appalling results in the bush in education - not across other areas. They have all been dealt with. I have specifically gone through each of those points and spoken to each of them. I know the Leader of the Opposition is passionate about education and there are many members in this Chamber who share that passion. I have never had the privilege of being an Education minister, and I often said it is the most difficult – that and Health. I tip my hat to the Health ministers. It is so complex. There are so many different areas, and such enormous unmet need. How do you deal with all of that?
What I have seen our Education minister do is be very clear and very focused on how to drive the reforms forward, and articulate that with her Cabinet, publicly with reforms, with statements in the Chamber, in meetings with officers I have witnessed through different levels of the department, out on the ground in the schools - I have seen her at the schools – and, as I said before, importantly with the Commonwealth because we cannot do it without them. We cannot meet that unmet need without them.
Madam Speaker, to move forward, the decision our minister for Education made regarding the change in leadership at the top of the department was a tough decision but, for the amount of significant and rapid change our minister is seeking, was the right decision – a difficult, tough decision but the right decision. It is easy to make assumptions when you are not on the inside. We are not going to go after or denigrate the fine woman that Margaret Banks is. That is the sort of debate that you want us, politically, to do, and we will not do that. We will not do that.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Giles
Ms Lawrie Mr Mills
Mr McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms Scrymgour Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from 18 September 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this bill is titled Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. As I looked through the proposed amendments, I saw that they, indeed, arise as a consequence of the implementation of the new act this year, but not, it seems, only as a consequence of administrative errors, minor oversights or simply to provide minor fixes to other acts. If the job had been done right the first time, many of these acts could or should have been amended, with those amendments to take effect on the same date as the new Local Government Act. I believe this should, or would, normally have been the case with consequential amendments.
More to the point, these amendments, at least in part, seem to arise as a consequence of some of the things I alluded to in the matter of public importance I raised in this parliament just a few weeks ago. One of those things was a lack of consultation with stakeholders prior to the act coming into force or, more to the point, the little heed the government took of whatever consultation there was with the community. When I spoke to the MPI on local government a few weeks ago, the minister virtually dismissed the MPI as unimportant. Is it not ironic that the MPI raised some of the issues that we now find manifesting in these proposed amendments?
For an act of this parliament, touted as being an all-encompassing fix to the old act, this is a prime example of the way government and the minister treated the consultation and implementation process; that is, the process was shallow and failed to address many of the issues raised prior to the implementation of the act. In addition to that, the process was rushed. There were calls during the so-called consultation process that things were being rushed. I refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Local Government Advisory Board in February 2007, which I mentioned in my MPI last month. It was the very first of those meetings: ‘There were concerns that consultation is occurring too late in the process’. Since the commencement of the act, the calls are still going out that there was insufficient consultation. Not only that, but there are also calls that the whole process was less than fully transparent.
Moving now into the actual amendments being proposed, section 270 is to provide for the preservation of local government functions of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited. The reality of this situation remains to be seen, but it would appear this would have to amount to nothing short of backflip on these reforms. These reforms were designed to amalgamate community government councils and progress associations into larger shires, not allow for councils or other entities exercising local government functions, to set up independently of the shire in which they are contained. Nhulunbuy should geographically be included in the East Arnhem Shire, yet, it is now doing just the opposite of what the act intended. I see that during the lead-up to the implementation of the new act, Litchfield, Coomalie, Batchelor, Dundee, Cox Peninsula, and Marrakai have all managed to avoid being caught in the minister’s local government reform - and good on them for doing so. This amounts to nothing short of a backflip based on pressure applied to government by the residents of those areas.
I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the previous Minister for Local Government, Mr Elliot McAdam. I have not had direct experience with Mr McAdam, but there is sufficient anecdote to suggest that he had the reform process at heart and was trying to provide a solid workable framework for the implementation of these reforms. I find it rather curious, however, that the former minister resigned; that is, a minister of the Crown, a minister of this government, resigned right around the time the process of this reform was falling apart. He must have had some serious concerns about what was going on.
What of the rating process under the new reforms as they relate to pastoral and mining leases? There is an enormous amount of misinformation in the public arena. The people I speak to do not know what is going on. Is there a moratorium on rates for pastoralists and miners, or is there simply a cap? Most Territorians do not know. That is indicative of the way this reform has been handled. Not only has the consultation process lacked any great substance, but there is now a tendency by this government to withhold information for reasons I do not know. I can only imagine it might be because they have something to hide.
At this juncture, I would like to state for the record that I am of the opinion that prior to implementing the new act the local government system needed to be reformed. I am not against the local government reform process. Unfortunately, the minister seems to have the impression that I, and my opposition colleagues, were against any reform. This is simply not the case. The people on this side of the House are progressive and not happy to sit by idly and watch such an important issue as local government fall into disrepair. Nor are we happy to run with the old adage, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. I recognise that acts of parliament in the Northern Territory should be organic in nature, and grow and change to suit the prevailing needs of Territorians.
Back to the amendments. In section 217, which is a new section to be inserted, it would seem the Nhulunbuy Corporation has managed to perform the old magician’s girl in the box disappearing trick, out of East Arnhem Shire. I am looking forward to the minister’s explanation of this amazing turnaround during the committee stage of this debate. I ask that this debate be taken into committee at the appropriate time after the second reading debate. The question that needs to be asked here is: why now? The minister has given his unequivocal support to the so-called ‘consultation process’ prior to this act being given assent. Yet, some months into the operation of the act, there seems to be a need for Nhulunbuy to secede from the East Arnhem Shire. If this change is not a case of Nhulunbuy’s departure from the shire, then I ask: what is it? Looking through the list of subsumed councils, I do not see a reference anywhere to Nhulunbuy. Is it the case that the minister has forgotten about Nhulunbuy? I have to ask the question.
My other concern is this: if there is no reasonable rationale for this course of action, what are the other organisations which have been absorbed within the shires? What would stop Jabiru or Tennant Creek, for example, from doing the same thing or at least trying? Is this setting a dangerous precedent? The precedent has already been set. There are local government areas that are not part of the new shire system. These are unincorporated areas in the Northern Territory, in the Top End, where the rest of the Territory remains incorporated.
Is this the beginning of the end for the effectiveness of this act, given that it would allow for the amalgamation of smaller councils, even though it has just been enforced for a few months? I will be listening carefully to the minister’s explanation in the committee stage and I defer any further comments until that stage.
I realise that these amendments probably have to go through to grease the wheels of an act that really is not very well put together and is really not working on the ground. Since the MPI regarding local government I raised some weeks ago, there is still a lot of information coming to me about the inadequacies of the act; about the inadequacies of the wash-up and how it is pulling together on the ground. It is of enormous concern to Territorians that these consequential amendments, for the most part, really need to go through the process, be voted on and be eventually given assent, as I have said, to grease the wheels.
Continuing with the amendments, section 271 details a new section relating to allowing the Chair of the council to exercise a casting vote. This allows, I guess, for the passage of motions in council under certain circumstances. Section 272, also a new section to be inserted, allows for the continued operation of the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations. When this debate moves to committee, I will be asking the minister to point out the location of the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations.
The amendments then move on to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. The proposed amendments seem consequential in that they seek to add definitions and insert correct references to ‘municipal’, in keeping with the terminology of the parent act. The amendments to the Kava Management Act serve to do the same, as do the amendments to the Land Title Act and the Water Act.
The remainder of the amendments deal, basically, with probably 20 or so acts contained in Schedule 1. From my reading of it, they are quite consequential and need to be put through to make the other acts of the Northern Territory consistent with the wording of the parent act and the new Local Government Act. I am not opposing these amendments per se. However, I would like some further explanations on matters raised previously when we get to committee stage.
The principle behind the local government reforms was a good one. There are certainly perceived advantages to having shires formed in the way that they are. However, I reiterate that it is just not working on the ground. I urge the minister to take as much advice as he is able to receive from locals; from people who are finding this new local government reform oppressive, anti-competitive and difficult to work with. I still get complaints from people about the new shires forcing their will upon them. These are people in smaller communities. I acknowledge some of the communities are more dysfunctional than others, yet, even the well-run communities are having difficulties dealing with the new shire arrangement.
The government, in a rewrite of the legislation, has the opportunity to get it right. It is a crying shame, in my opinion, that because of the poor way in which this whole matter has been dealt with by government, the people in the Northern Territory have to suffer as a result. We are supposed to be working in this parliament to better the lot of Northern Territorians. This act certainly has not cut the mustard in that regard.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the consequential amendments to the bill. This bill, essentially, involves amendments of other legislation affected by the new Local Government Act. I take this opportunity to say that change - any change - is always difficult, and any change does require a great deal of adjustment in people’s lives.
I know for a fact, that our current Minister for Local Government, his predecessor, Elliot McAdam, and his predecessor, John Ah Kit, did not want to see change for the sake of change. They wanted to see change in regard to real reform in the governance of our communities and our regions in the Northern Territory. They, along with our current minister, the member for Daly, had, and have, the courage to pursue this reform. This reform did not just happen overnight. This reform did not happen at the whim of just any one person or a government that did not believe in the future of the people of the Northern Territory.
This reform was about improving the lives of those people who live in our regions who, for so long and for too long, felt absolutely neglected regarding their voice in local government, and the employment situation of those areas in local government. They wanted a future - a future that did not see a continuous flow-on of CEOs coming and going in our communities. In any one community, you would have at least five or six, if not more, CEOs leave the councils, and those council members in those councils, feeling absolute despair, like there was no way out of this situation they had found themselves in continuously over successive decades.
Let me reassure the member for Katherine, as I know he is a new member to the House, that this, by no means, is a reform that has happened overnight. It is a reform that has been well thought through, by successive ministers dedicated to wanting to see change in our regions, and change for the better.
But, yes, you are right in the sense that change brings about a need for better information. Change does require people to understand how they can be able to influence that change, how they can contribute to that change. Yes, you are right in that regard, and we are always conscious of that, even more so because we know we are dealing in regions where there is more than just one language. We know that we are dealing with over 100 Aboriginal languages in most of these regions. Of course we are conscious of the need to get the information out, and even vitally so to our pastoralists and to businesses in these regions, so that they can understand and contribute in a manner that is about directing a future for the betterment of all Territorians. How can we do that? We have to do that by having the guts and the courage to see reform in these places. Yes, reform will be painful to begin with, but it will be better.
One reason for the consequential amendments is that we are consulting with key stakeholders about this legislation, right after tabling and the debate. One of the key issues as part of the local government reform was balancing the needs of the new shires and those of the established municipal councils. It certainly was a challenge. There were many views expressed on the legislation during our consultations, canvassing a range of views. The government had to work through all those views and, frequently, of course, stakeholders had conflicting views. We would be fooling ourselves to think that there is never a conflict of views. Of course, there is a differing of views. People have certain fears, and others have certain enjoyment and excitement at the thought that things are going to be very different for their lives and the way the communities are going to be governed.
It is incumbent on each and every one of us in this House to ensure that, when people do not know, we guide and direct them in the right and responsible way. This reform is the largest reform to ever occur in the Northern Territory in the history since self-government. Of course, it is difficult and change is going to cause alarm, but let us not add to that alarm and concern by whipping it up into something that it is not. Let us keep a very reasoned and cautious mind to this.
I can tell you, from my constituents in Arnhem and, in particular, the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority, which has evolved very strongly into the Roper Gulf Shire, that this is a most welcome reform. Yes, there are certain issues that need to be worked out and ironed out. I am sure, member for Katherine, you may know or have heard of Michael Berto who is the CEO for that region – an amazing man, a good leader; someone who can see the benefits of what he is doing in that region. Yes, it is difficult, and he would be the first one to say it is not easy. But, he will also be the first one to say this is the way we have to keep going. I heard those other points that you have raised. I say work closely with Michael Berto, member for Katherine. I think you will find a very different perspective on some of those issues that you raised. I encourage you to do that.
Regarding the amendments, I acknowledge the member for Nelson for his ongoing scrutineer process, which reflects his interest and passion for local government and commend him. In fact, the member for Nelson effectively assumed the role of the opposition on the matter of local government reform in the previous term. I believe that the result is good legislation. We have produced a significant review of this 21-year-old legislation. What we have before us is a final round-up of amendments to other legislation flowing from the revised Local Government Act.
Regarding your concerns with Nhulunbuy, I have Groote Eylandt which is part of the East Arnhem Shire. Umbakumba, Angurugu, and Bickerton are part of the East Arnhem Shire. Alyangula is a mining town and it is not a part of the East Arnhem Shire, as is Nhulunbuy which is also a mining town. So, as part of this process, it is not a part of the shire. The residents on Groote Eylandt - which is moving ahead in leaps and bounds in so many different ways, with the alcohol permit system and with the leasing of land – and perhaps the Anindilyakwa Land Council may seriously consider wanting to look at their future in terms of a shire. We talked about this as part of the whole consultation process with the committees in the lead-up to the shires. Groote Eylandt people thought about having their own shire, and that is not an impossibility. Right now, it is part of the East Arnhem Shire. Whatever those people on Groote Eylandt want in their long-term vision of the future, if they want to come together and say to the Northern Territory government or to the minister of the day, ‘It is our time now to be our own shire’, they will have that opportunity to do that - should they decide to. Again, it is about change.
Finally, I reflect on the way in which the local government changes have begun to bed down on the ground in places such as in my own electorate with the Roper Gulf Shire and the East Arnhem Shire. I am particularly pleased, in the lead-up to this week’s voting for councillors in the East Arnhem Shire - and I acknowledge the candidates:
Anindilyakwa Ward candidates - Keith Mamarika, Phillip Mamarika, Wendy Lalara, Helen Numamurdirdi, Lionel Jaragbra, and Keith Hansen;
Gamurr Gatjirrk Ward candidates – Jack Munyarirr Gurralpa, David Daymirringu Warraya, Djandjay Baker, and Ronnie Barramala;
the Roper Gulf Shire, the Never-Never Ward - Peter Lansen, Michael Herzog, Clair O’Brien, Sheila Joshua, Rohan McDonald Sullivan, Sweeney Swanson,
and Robert Smiler - Clair O’Brien is an amazing woman with the cattle industry and it is wonderful that people are putting their names forward;
the Numbulwar Numburindi Ward: Kathy-Anne Numamurdirdi and Isaac Idai;
the Nyirranggulung Ward: Andrea Andrews, David Lane, Lazarus Murray, Mavis Jumbiri and Phil Harnas.
It is good to see women in these remote areas have nominated to represent their communities as councillors in the new shires. That takes extraordinary courage for Aboriginal women in these regions. It has been wonderful to see these women taking the step to stand. We need diversity and broad experience on these shires and women in our remote areas can bring new voices to the table. The government’s local government reform is all about delivering better services and driving economic opportunities in our regions. What better way of doing that but to have these women on those councils and shires. I am encouraging that.
We are still going to have problems everywhere, but that is life. That is going to be a part of life. Change is what this is about - the courage to implement the change required in the communities. It is going to be a difficult and a bumpy road for some time. I am absolutely confident that my predecessor in the seat of Arnhem, John Ah Kit, and Elliot McAdam did not drive this vision for the sake of just doing something; they drove it because they believed in something. Our government continues to follow that belief; that this is about improving the lives of Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this legislative change is indicative of one of the things we saw prior to the last election in the Northern Territory. One thing has driven these legislative instruments and that was a desire to pursue a certain deadline. The one thing that has never been explained by the Northern Territory government, even when Elliot McAdam was the emotional and driving force behind these legislative changes, was why 1 July 2008 was such an important date. When legislation was pushed through this House on urgency, it was pushed through because we had to meet that deadline.
We had the astonishing situation where a minister actually sat on a bill, which was the draft local government act, and did not introduce it at a particular sittings in spite of the fact he was in possession of it. He sat on it, waited until the next parliamentary sittings and, then, passed it through on urgency. The justification for the urgency was that we had to meet this deadline. This deadline was always an entirely arbitrary and non-justifiable deadline. If there was some sort of urgency such as there was a bomb ticking, a timer ticking, or something like that, then it would have made sense. What was never explained by any of the former ministers who have dealt with this issue is why this date of 1 July 2008 was so important.
The government adhered to this approach of demanding we go down the path of pursuing this deadline. They forced legislation through on urgency. Their consultation was nothing more than a series of meetings where they advised people what was happening. This is not, in spite of the spin that the government wants to put on it, a system of consultation. As a consequence of that, we have had legislation to push this reform through on urgency. We have had legislation which has had mistakes in it. We have had local government areas dropping in and dropping out and moving sideways and changing colours on the map. All of this to satisfy some sort of deadline which never made sense.
Several members had proposed different deadlines. If you come to a major reform like this, it is inevitable there will be consequential amendments to other legislation. If you are not pursuing an artificial deadline or you are pursuing a reasonable deadline even, you can consult on the legislative changes you are trying to make - and I am not for one second denying that local government in the Northern Territory needed attention – and can consult on the process properly, which means you actually take on board what people have to say. Then, you go to the Parliamentary Counsel and say: ‘Can you draft me an act based on my consultations?’ When you have finished drafting that act, you then go through all the other legislation which refers to the old act, and draft all of the amendments and then come into the parliament and either present them as a single package - not a system I am particularly fond of but it makes more sense - or you can present them as separate bills all in the same parliament.
It can be done. How do I know this? Because if I look at this bill, all of the acts which are being amended through this legislation are actually being done in one bill. There is a whole bunch of acts being amended by this bill. It can be done in one bill. For the sake of not having to do each act separately, it has been rolled into one package and called a consequential amendments bill. It is called getting organised.
The process of trying to drive this through led to enormous disruption in the community. At one stage, the government was not looking entirely unlike General Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn in 1876, I think it was, with the Indians under Sitting Bull - the member for Nelson - surrounding Parliament House with caravans and laying siege to Parliament House. I heard the horns. In fact, I participated in one of those sieges of the parliament ...
Ms Purick: Did you hear the air horns?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the voice of the air horns of the people of Litchfield was heard. This, then, exposed how united this government was on this process because, finally, the cracks started to appear and, in frustration - you can say a lot about Elliot McAdam, but one thing you can say is that, although he was a quiet man, he was certainly a determined man, and he was willing to tough it out. I remember speaking to him one day in a corridor in this House and asked: ‘Mate, are you going to crack? Are you going to blink, mate?’ He looked at me and said: ‘Not a chance. I am going to drive this through and I have the support of my Chief Minister’.
Mr Knight: And he did.
Mr ELFERINK: He did not. You shot him! You dragged him out and you hung him out to dry because somebody on the fifth floor said: ‘Oh my goodness, we are in trouble’. The member who is now the Minister for Local Government - was he shaking in his boots because of the Litchfield Shire Council? My word he was. So, you had this situation where, all of a sudden, the member for Barkly at the time, Elliot McAdam, said: ‘Mate, if you are not going to do this with any sincerity you can jam it up your nose, Chief Minister’. That is what occurred. He said: ‘I resign’. The Chief Minister was embarrassed by this particular situation.
However, something else happened which was very intriguing. After the election, Elliot McAdam, the former member for Barkly, rounded in a most extraordinary and astonishing attack on the Treasurer of the Northern Territory - reported in the Northern Territory News. What did he say about the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the member for Karama? She should not have the job. The reputation of the member for Barkly was that he was a man of extraordinary temperance. He was a quiet man, a determined man. Therefore, for a man of such sober disposition to launch into such a virulent attack against one of his own was not only surprising, it was astonishing. What happened to make a temperate and sober man launch such an aggressive attack against the Treasurer of the Northern Territory? Was the Treasurer entirely honest with the member for Barkly and the rest of the Caucus at all times? There is a question to ask because, I can tell you, I suspect that the member for Karama may not have been entirely honest with the member for Barkly and Caucus at different times, or at a particular time. Anyway, that is speculation for another day.
The other problem with pushing something through with such obscene haste is that you make mistakes, and we are starting to see it in this bill. The new minister who handled this bill did not, when he was given the bill - and I will give him a little leeway, he was pushed to bring the bill into the House, because the arbitrary deadline still applied. However, the bill, even establishing something as difficult as local government, which is a few hundred sections long, is not impossible to read in a short time. Give it a day to mull it over. Yet, to my astonishment, and to the astonishment of many Territorians, the new minister actually admitted to this House and to the people of the Northern Territory he had not read it ...
Mr Knight: I have read it, I read it. I read the bill, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Hell, that bill could have said let us invade Queensland, and he would not have known; he had not read it ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: What irresponsibility.
Mr Knight: I read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What profound irresponsibility from the minister, to waltz into a House …
Mr Knight: I read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr Knight: I read the bill, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, after you brought it into the House. It just shows you how ill-prepared the minister was to take over the position. We were assured, ‘This is it, do not worry about it, guys, this is going to be the great new, you-beaut fix-up for local government in the Northern Territory’. However, there were oversights in it, and that includes the issue of we are now dropping Nhulunbuy out of the shire that it is in - the East Arnhem Shire. Why would that be occurring, Madam Speaker? It is interesting because, surely, there was an expectation on the part of government that they were going to rate all of those premises in Nhulunbuy, because that would have been a nice juicy cow to take to the slaughter rooms.
Perhaps the government was in the mood for a little pay back after losing $50m in the courts to ALCAN because the government saw fit to overtax them to the tune of $50m. Here it was, a bit of a pay back. Well, the thing is that, by the time Nhulunbuy and the corporation that sits out there was negotiating with the minister, they already knew that they were dealing with a government that blinked under pressure. They already knew they were dealing with a government that, if you put a little pressure on them, they go brrrrrr in the water. Did we see it? Yes, in Litchfield. We certainly saw it in Litchfield. The fact is that you either do this properly or you do not do it at all. That was the point that the former Minister for Local Government, Elliot McAdam, was trying to make. That was the point he was trying to make; that you do this properly.
I do not particularly agree with the model that was chosen by the government, and the system that they chose to introduce when they tried to jam it down Territorians’ throats. I am not the only one; there were many thousands of Territorians who are angry as a result of this, and people were being shoved from pillar to post in this arrangement, all because we were choosing to pursue a particular deadline, the justification for which has never been established. So, what we find ourselves doing, parliament after parliament, is passing amendments and consequential amendments to legislation that has caused enormous disruption in the community, because it was being driven in an irresponsible and over-the-top fashion.
We are not going to resist this bill on this side of the House because we understand that it needs to pass to make other legislation work and to provide consistency in legislation. However, townships have dropped in and out of this, and it has been done without any clear philosophy behind it. Yulara is out. Why is Yulara out? Why is Jabiru in and Yulara out?
A member: Remember Yulara? Remember the one the CLP sacked?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I remember it very well. I am saying if Yulara is out …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the government that promised that Yulara residents would get their local government authority back. This is the government that said that. Are you going to keep your promise or are you going to, as you said yesterday, mislead Territorians with the facts?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: You are a wally, mate! Where is the local government authority for Yulara? Not only is Yulara out, it was never in, in the first place. The promise was never going to be kept. Labor Party members were quite happy to travel to Yulara and say: ‘We are going to make sure that when we are in government you get a local authority’. The MacDonnell Shire surrounds Yulara on all four sides, but, does Yulara pay rates? No. Do Yulara residents get to vote in local council elections? No.
Mr Henderson: They did not under the CLP, either. You sacked them.
Mr ELFERINK: They got the vote under a lot more elections in the local government under us than they did from you, sunshine.
Mr Henderson: That is how highly you thought of them, you sacked them.
Mr ELFERINK: This is absolutely incredible. They switch it on and they switch it off as it suits them. The fact is they have started white-anting their own reforms ...
Mr Knight: What? We have not!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you have. What? Mate, your predecessor resigned because of the white-anting that was happening on the fifth floor of Parliament House ...
Mr Knight: Show me the legislation. Show me the legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister!
Mr ELFERINK: Why do you think he left? Why do you think he said: ‘Stick it up your nose, Chief Minister, I am not in the least bit interested in playing around with a system’ …
Mr Knight: Show me the legislation. What do you know? What do you know?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting. You have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This government can object and rail against the truth as much as they like, but the fact is that what was started as a noble enterprise has quickly started to decay into a farce. The reason for that it is the philosophical consistency used to drive it has been eroded for a whole bunch of reasons. Although I did not agree with the models that we used, at least there was a philosophical consistency behind what was trying to be achieved. That has been abandoned, and abandoned in the most fundamental way.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is about some consequential amendments which I support. However, there have been a few things said in this debate that need some comment.
There is nothing wrong with change, but you hope when you have change it is done in the correct manner. My biggest difficulty with the change that has occurred in local government was that, right at the very beginning, it was not involving the community; it was involving a very small group of people who had a predetermined objective. They were going to ensure that that objective eventually came to fruition. Although they might say there was discussion amongst people on the way, the initial goal they set right back at the beginning was exactly what they wanted to achieve, and they did that.
I do believe - and that was borne out in the meetings that we had in Litchfield - that people had not heard all sides of the story. There has been a lot of gloss in relation to the benefits of the changes - and I am not saying that some of those changes were not needed; I have never said that. However, I believe the gloss that has been put on it is exaggerated. There will be benefits; there will also be disadvantages in what has occurred. Be that as it may, the new local government is in existence and only time will tell how it will go. There will be some areas where it goes better than others. We will just have to wait and see.
People mentioned the elections. Sadly, I have heard nothing from the government to say: ‘We made a mistake’. We have had so-called local government - that is, so-called local democracy - operating since 1 July without elected representatives. No matter what you think of these changes, I would have thought that the basis of good government is the ability to be governed by an elected body. Until this Saturday is completed, these eight super shires will have been run by bureaucrats and government appointees who are not responsible to anyone but the government. That is something the government should have never allowed to happen. The Chief Minister said it is, basically, nitpicking, but I do not believe that that is the case. The fundamentals of democracy are to have an elected body to represent the people of that governance - in this case, local government.
As much as I am happy that we at last have some elections - and it is good to see people standing. There are not as many people standing in the Litchfield Shire as I would have liked. Be that as it may, we do have a number of people standing. It is going to be interesting now. The Purich family will have another representative in government, because Plaxy Purich was the only person standing in the North Ward, so tradition is running in the Purich family of involvement in public office.
Overall, people know my viewpoints on the changes. I reiterate that we had a sticker out which said, ‘Stop, start again, get it right’. It was never the intention of saying the reform should not occur; the basis of our objections was that they where being imposed rather than people were getting a reasonable say in what was happening.
I still feel there is some responsibility on those councils that were not amalgamated to make an effort to go out to those areas within the Top End that are not part of local government, and talk to those people so that, eventually, they are a part of local government. I wrote to three councils not long after the government decided to leave the Top End Shire out of the process, saying that they should now start having meetings with people in those areas to look at the possibilities of moving the reform process on in a way that many of the people who protested were simply asking for.
I received one letter from one council, the Cox Peninsula Council, now called the Wagait shire council. They responded and said that they were not interested at that stage because they wanted to talk to Darwin. Unfortunately, I have not had an official response from either Litchfield or Coomalie councils. It is no good protesting about the reforms, and just believing that that is it. I believe the whole issue was that, yes, we support reform but we would like to do it in a way which brought the community along with it. Hopefully, these new councils that are elected on Saturday will put that on their agenda; to look at moving the reform process along and including those areas in the Top End Shire that presently do not belong to local government. How that will work, I am not going to make any suggestions at the moment, but it might be something totally different from what we thought. It might be a gradual process, but that is something for the future.
A couple of things were mentioned about those areas in the Northern Territory not included in these local government changes. Without discussing Douglas Daly, Marrakai, and Dundee, the areas that the government specifically precluded, are the ones that I get concerned about. Yulara, which the member for Macdonnell knows very well, I reckon should still be part of local government. Even when it was part of local government under the CLP, it did not have many local government functions.
Local government is about community – that is important. One of the big arguments I have about local government super shires is they are too big, because it is about community. When Yulara had local government it looked after the library, the swimming pool, and organised community events. It did not do much else besides that, because the town was run by the body that leased that piece of land. You can still have local government, but it may not have the same functions and the same powers as some of the other councils, but it can still play an important role in bringing an isolated community, such as the people who live in Yulara, together.
I will never forget the meeting we had at that time. The member for Macdonnell, now the member for Port Darwin, would remember the meeting. It would have to be one of the biggest meetings we ever had, plus if you looked at the list of proxies, because Yulara was a township where there were many people on shiftwork, you would have probably counted maybe 300 to 400 people should have attended.
Mr Elferink: If it was Sydney, it would have been 1.5 million people who turned up.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was a huge meeting. They all said that they wanted their local government. It was the saddest thing I ever saw, when so many people wanted local government, and the government at that time said: ‘No’. We should not leave Yulara out of it. They might not have to deal with rates, but there might be a neutral body - and that is what people saw them as in Yulara, because when you work for a company, the only people you have to talk to with your complaints is the company. When you have a local government in that area, at least you have someone else you can share your woes and discuss matters locally who are not part of the company.
There is absolutely no reason why East Arm port should not be part of one of the councils. It probably makes more sense to be in the Darwin City Council. I know the government says: ‘This is a very important part of the Territory’s development’. Well, you have the waterfront in Darwin. You developed that within Darwin city, it will eventually go back to Darwin City Council anyway. That is more a matter for a previous administration of Darwin City Council as to why it is not a part of Darwin city. I do not think Darwin City Council would have any problem running East Arm port, regardless of its importance. Believe it or not, Litchfield Shire will have INPEX, which is about three times bigger than all of East Arm. It also has ConocoPhillips, and ConocoPhillips does not stop operating because it is in Litchfield Shire. The argument that East Arm port should not be in local government is a bit weak. It is more a case of: ‘We do not trust anyone else but ourselves, so we will look after it. Trust us: we have a department, a couple of committees run by CEOs, and a few important people’. It is not too many ratepayers, I can tell you. It will be just the government running it.
You ought to know where the government line starts and the government line ends when you travel on the Stuart Highway, because all the billboards pop up. In the Palmerston and Litchfield areas, you cannot have billboards, and it is the same in Darwin. For some reason, the government, which writes the planning acts, does not apply it to its own land in the East Arm port area. If you travel on the highway, look where all the billboards are. They are not in one municipality; it has its own rules, run by – somebody. I believe East Arm port should definitely be in there.
It has been a while since I looked at Nhulunbuy, but it is one of those strange areas of land that was always out of local government, that sometimes wanted to be in local government. I remember going to local government meetings, in various places, and Nhulunbuy would come along like an invited guest. They did not want to be part of the Local Government Association but, for some reason, which had more to do with the way the lease was written in the first place and the town administered it, it could not belong to local government. The minister might be able to explain a bit of that later because that was also raised tonight.
Minister, I do not have a problem with local government consequential amendment bills. I congratulate all those people throughout the Territory who have put their name down to be elected. I hope that when they get the job they do it without fear or favour because, now, we should have councils with democratically elected members. They should not be beholden to anyone. They are the bosses of the council, not the CEO or government. If there are issues out there, I will be keeping my ear out for them.
To be fair, hopefully, it does work. I still say the councils are too big. They should be called regional councils just because of their size, but we will wait and see. I conclude by saying, once again, I support the Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Bill.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for speaking and I will just reflect broadly. The last speaker, the member for Nelson, is a very knowledgeable, capable and passionate person about local government. However, the opposition, the current crop, are ignorant and are purposely ignorant about local government. They deliberately do not bother to educate themselves about local government and this reform. This is very much-needed reform. This reform goes back a long way. For two years, we have been going with this current reform that this Labor government actually delivered.
I congratulate the former minister, Elliot McAdam. He was somebody who drove this reform from the start. He took over the reins from Jack Ah Kit, the minister before him. The genesis of this Labor government delivering on Labor government reform started from, basically, 2002 with Building Stronger Regions through to Elliot McAdam who picked up the mantle and drove this reform to where we are today.
People say two years is not enough. But, if you go back many years before that, before Labor came to office, we had the former member for Greatorex who was the minister driving local government reform for the CLP. Before him, Tim Baldwin, the former member for Victoria River, was driving local government reform. Before him, Loraine Braham, the CLP minister, member for Braitling, was driving local government reform. I think before her, you had Steve Hatton ...
A member: You had Richard Lim in there somewhere.
Mr KNIGHT: No, he was at the end; I mentioned him. You had the CLP driving local government reform for at least 10 years. I remember, in 1998 when Baldwin had the portfolio, him trotting out to the VRD trying to sell local government reform but their heart was not really in it. They really did not want to do it.
It was quite curious - the member for Port Darwin said: ‘You blinked under pressure’. Well, this government delivered local government reform, member for Port Darwin. It was successive ministers under the CLP for more than 10 years who did not; who blinked under pressure. They knew the problem was out there. We have all talked about that. They all said: ‘We have to have reform, have to have reform’ but they were the ones who blinked under pressure. As soon as a bit of heat started to rise: ‘Oh, no, we will back off. We will not do anything.’
It was a do-nothing government that was kicked out of office because they did not do the tough things. It was this government which delivered on much-needed local reform which, one day, if the CLP will get back into office, do you think they will change it? No way. They support the current model we have here ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: They will not say it. It just shows the ignorance on the other side. The shadow for Local Government and the member for Port Darwin talked about Nhulunbuy, about backflipping. Nhulunbuy was never local government. How can you have a backflip when they were not even in?
Mr Elferink: Oh, that is so puerile.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Port Darwin should well know - he was in and around this parliament in February last year when Elliot McAdam - and I will quote from the Parliamentary Record because, obviously, the member for Port Darwin was not bothering to listen. Again, the CLP were not interested. I quote:
If you bothered, if you cared, if you thought to have a good look, you would actually know that. But, no, you have not bothered. The member for Katherine had a very short briefing when he first came into office, which is good, that is great. Has he been back? No. Has he had a briefing on the consequential amendments? No. Has the member for Port Darwin? No, he has not even bothered. He is asking questions about it now, but has not even bothered to have a briefing to get the exact facts. They do not care. They do not regard local government as being important.
There has been extensive consultation, not only over these last two years, but the years before that. Local government reform has been around and discussed regarding a range of models and the reason for larger councils - there has always been larger councils - for 10 years. It is a bit ironic that that actually happened.
The member for Katherine talked about some organic process for this reform starting. Member for Katherine, there are chronic problems out there. You asked why now. Well, we have been talking about this. There have been countless discussions in here about problems in the communities, structural failures, financial failures, and it really did need to happen. The member for Katherine …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I think you will find my ‘why now’ was in relation to Yulara. Should that have not been included in the original act?
Mr KNIGHT: Again, if you had bothered to back through the Parliamentary Record or got a briefing, you would have known about that. It is interesting that the member for Nelson raised Yulara in the former seat of the current member for Port Darwin. Did he stand up? I did not hear much from him at the time about standing up for local government, standing up for those people at Yulara. He was a bit quiet, did not say much about it whatsoever, because he really did not care about local government and those people there.
These reforms were extensive. There are 270-odd clauses - virtually a brand new act. It was the biggest, I guess, social change in the Territory for a very long time. The changes of other acts, obviously, came about as a consequence of that. This is where they come from. I thank the department and everybody who has worked on this process of formulating that act, for actually delivering on it. It was a very long debate. It was only taken up by the member for Nelson. Again, the CLP, asleep at the wheel, did not care about the Local Government Act whatsoever - the biggest social legislation that went through in the last session of parliament. They really did not care whatsoever.
The member for Port Darwin, again misguided and not really knowing much about the legislation and about the process of local government, talked about the legislation going through on urgency. He talked quite a lot about this going through on urgency, and how we rammed this bill through. Well, member for Port Darwin, the Local Government Act did not go through on urgency ...
Mr Elferink: I did not say the Local Government Act, I said local government legislation.
Mr KNIGHT: The Local Government Act did not go through on urgency.
Mr Elferink: I did not say the Local Government Act, I said local government legislation. You are being a little cute here, sunshine. I never said Local Government Act.
Mr KNIGHT: The Local Government Act did not go through on urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am about to launch into a censure motion because this man is misleading the House. I never said Local Government Act, I said local government legislation. I am happy to go back through Hansard and have a look at it, sunshine. If you are misleading this House, I am in here at 100 km/h to censure you …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, if you feel that you have been misrepresented, I ask you to approach me later about making a personal explanation.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Port Darwin talked about the Local Government Act and about how it was brought on urgency. Well, he is talking about the Local Government Transition Bill, which he did not mention; he talked about the Local Government Act. That was delayed because key stakeholders wanted more time, but it needed to happen, so that was brought through on urgency. But, the Local Government Act did get introduced, it did get extensive consultation, and it did go through. It needed to go through before 1 July, because I do not know whether the member for Port Darwin has much business experience, but the shires really need to operate at 1 July, at the start of the financial year.
We had two years. We had it all programmed. There was, obviously, leeway within the programming of consultation and development of the legislation, whereby we would get everything done in that time – and we did, and we delivered ...
Mr Elferink: What was the reason for that time?
Mr KNIGHT: I just told you. You need to listen. You are not paying attention; you do not really care ...
Mr Elferink: You told me what the deadline was but what was the reason for the deadline?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the comments made by the member for Nelson who, obviously, does care about this. He talked about the unincorporated areas, which do occupy my mind. I have spoken to those councils directly at various meetings. The important thing is to bed these shires in. But, it has been the commitment of this government, and I have made statements about it, that we need to have full incorporation in the Territory. Those areas that are not incorporated will, in the future, need to come in. I, too, encourage those current councils of Coomalie, Wagait, and Belyuen to look at what options are available to them.
One of the other aspects the member for Nelson also highlighted was the period between 1 July and the elections later this month. It was something that I did pay a great deal of attention to. The shire councils are, effectively, the regional directors of local government within the regions. They have been working with stakeholders and community members about this period, and about issues that do arise, with full knowledge that, very shortly, there will be elected councils there and they cannot make any sort of radical decisions. So, there has been community consultation through this process.
Having attended a departmental staffing meeting recently, and haven spoken to that meeting, I know that the staff and the department are very focused on supporting those local boards. They really will be the drivers of development within those local communities, driving those shires. That will be the engine room for service delivery, for consultation, policy development, which will feed up to representatives and on into the shire plans. I am very focused on the fact that the communities need to have local ownership of both the opportunities, but also the issues. Notwithstanding that the elected members of those shires, those representatives from the wards, will have the ultimate power, because that is really what we are trying to get at - those higher level decisions, so they can look right across the regions.
The member for Nelson also talked about the Litchfield Shire, and the fact that INPEX and ConocoPhillips are in the Litchfield area. He has another couple of advocates for this flat rate. INPEX is a $14bn company paying $700 in rates. I am sure they will be very excited about that. Anyway, I will not go too far into the old flat rate discussion again.
I thank all members and acknowledge that local government still is a very big part of the Territory, and about driving the Territory. We have had a total of 211 candidates nominate for the shires. Litchfield is municipal, so we have eight shires and one municipal council where we have 211 nominations. It is really great to see that support for local government in the Territory. We will work with those shires and those councils because we believe in them. We will help develop them; we will work alongside them. They are a key partner in regional development and we look forward to those challenges.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, just by way of indulgence, the member for Katherine will be occupying my chair.
Madam SPEAKER: You are seeking my indulgence to allow the member of Katherine to do that?
Mr ELFERINK: For that to occur. I will be sitting in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair during the committee stage.
Madam SPEAKER: That is fine.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, the first issue I have with the amendments relates to the insertion of the new section 270, Preservation of local government functions of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited.
I am aware that Nhulunbuy was not a part of local government per se under the previous act. The timing of this is seems a bit odd to me. Why was this particular provision not detailed in the original act? It seems to me that there is some underlying reason for this to have been omitted originally, and now put in as a so-called consequential amendment. It just does not seem consequential to me. It seems there is something underlying which gives it a reason for being here today rather than in the original legislation.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, all we are reinserting is the Nhulunbuy animal control by-law. That is all we are reinserting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Under the previous act was animal control the only local government function the Nhulunbuy Corporation had?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: So, it is basically returning to the same position as it was before? There is nothing additional in the functions the Nhulunbuy Corporation is expected to have?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not have any particular issues with section 271. The new section 272, the continuation of Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations, I mentioned in my debate that I would like a copy of that. I cannot seem to find it anywhere, so I am not able to make any comments on that until I have a look at it.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want a copy, are you saying?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, I am having trouble finding it.
Mr KNIGHT: Because it was not taken through as part of the Local Government Act. It was actually taken off the register and, now, it is going back on. Here is a copy if you would like a copy.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I was just wondering if you could assist me: the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations were not on the register. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr KNIGHT: It was not on the Internet website, in the register of legislation. It did not go through with the Local Government Act, so it ceased to become law, so it was taken off the register. With the passage of this consequential amendments bill, it will then go back on to the register. It came off the website; that is why you could not find it.
Mr ELFERINK: How long has this been held in abeyance, or how long has this been non-operational?
Mr KNIGHT: Since the Local Government Act came into force, which was 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: So, between 1 July and today, this legislation has not been operational?
Mr KNIGHT: This regulation has not been operational.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, regulation. Thank you, I take your guidance. Are you aware if Territorians have been paying for parking their vehicles during this period?
Mr KNIGHT: Perhaps I need to explain this regulation. This regulation is in respect to developers not putting money in for parking cars on the street. It is about developers who are developing blocks getting parking sites. What happened is that this local parking rate was taken through by the Darwin City Council as a special rate. The way they charged it was within the local government. They did not do it through their regulations. They enclosed that charge as a special rate, which they can do under the Local Government Act. So, as far as those costs, they have been charged correctly for that service they get. But this regulation has not been enforced, no.
Mr ELFERINK: Probably because it was not on the Internet. I appreciate the member for Katherine had trouble finding it. This regulation has been in force since 1 June 2004. As I understand it, this is the vehicle by which councils and developers sell and purchase car parking spaces for the purpose of development. If a 30-storey building is being built in town, for argument’s sake, and the developer does not want to have two car parks per unit, then they are able to pay a compensatory amount to the council and, then, the council uses that to build other car parks. Is this the legislation that makes that happen?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, I will just read my notes. The regulation provides a method and process in relation to the special rate that the Darwin City Council charges to defray the expenses in relation to on-street and off-street parking within the central business district. So, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Are there any agreements that you are aware between the developers and the Darwin City Council that have been struck whilst this regulation was in hiatus?
Mr KNIGHT: I have been very conscience of that. As I said, they impose these charges as a special rate, which they can do under the current Local Government Act. They have been able to impose those charges quite legally and legitimately. I am not aware of any developer who would not have been covered by this, anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: I am just trying to understand this. If an agreement was struck between the date - by the way, how did this accidentally fall off the system? There was a legislative instrument or a regulation and it has gone into some sort of hiatus and, suddenly, reappeared. It is reappearing as a result of this legislation you are passing today. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr KNIGHT: It was just an oversight and it has, basically, been remedied by this. There are no consequences to this. There has been no developer making applications. The current people covered by this have been charged under a special rate which they can do under the Local Government Act. So, the Darwin City Council is not out of pocket by this, and people have been charged quite legitimately.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. The removal of this regulation from the regulations as in force in the Northern Territory has had no legal consequences flow from it. Was this a deliberate act, or was this an accident that this legislation fell into this period of hiatus?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that this is an unusual regulation and that it was just an oversight. In any case, we have been speaking to Darwin City Council about it. They have not incurred any losses because they have administered those charges by way of a special rate.
Mr ELFERINK: You say that no developer has signed an agreement, or that you are unaware. Has not signed or unaware?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding that there has been no developers.
Mr ELFERINK: So, no developers. Okay, I will not pursue that any further. You would agree, however, with one of the issues that I raised in the second reading debate; that this legislative instrument or the whole process has been rushed up until now, and mistakes have been made? You are now telling us that this was a mistake, yes?
Mr KNIGHT: Two hundred and seventy nine clauses, major legislation affecting many acts and within local government. Obviously, there are many by-laws throughout those councils and many regulations. This is just one of those. As I said, it has been an oversight which has been corrected. There is no loss to anybody concerned, and we have kept in touch with the council.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you for that. This then brings me back to the other issue I raised during the debate, and I do not feel you adequately answered during your response. Why was 1 July 2008 the deadline that was set? Why was that particular date chosen? Why wasn’t 1 July 2009 chosen, or 1 July 2010? What was particular about that date which made it more important than the next financial year?
Mr KNIGHT: As I mentioned in my closing remarks, basically, local government reform had been dragging on for 10 years. The government had to set a firm timetable, giving plenty of time - two years, in fact - to work through matters which had been discussed for 10 years that I am aware of. I am sure it goes back before that. So, 1 July was a date which fitted in with starting a new financial year, so all the books could be closed off and started up at the start of a financial year.
This process started two years before with just this reform. As I said, it has been going on for 10 years. I guess, in the past reforms under the CLP, they did not set dates, and that just caused the process to die down and not move for 10 years. For those reasons, 1 July was chosen.
Mr ELFERINK: 1 July 2008. Okay, you said: ‘The government has chosen. We are going to do this in two years, and 1 July 2008 is the date that we are going to do it, because we set the deadline’. You would agree that that is an arbitrary date, when it could be 1 July 2009? You would agree, yes?
Mr KNIGHT: No, I do not agree whatsoever. Two years is a long time for this reform, and 1 July is a very appropriate date - again, for those reasons of closing grant funding on 30 June, and opening your books on 1 July. It is a very appropriate date, and the time period allowed was very appropriate. They were the reasons, and they are very legitimate reasons for doing so.
Mr ELFERINK: Clearly, though, it is not. You have made mistakes. You accidentally omit and drop bits of regulation out of the process. There are amendments, there are consequential amendments which are being brought in today, and there are fix-ups on the Nhulunbuy arrangements. Clearly, two years was not enough, minister, because two years was a deadline that was set by government and it religiously, slavishly, adhered to it. The fact is that, by your own admission here today, mistakes were made. This is the point that so many people have tried to make over the last two years; that two years was not enough time. Two years was rushed and, as a consequence, we now find ourselves well after 1 July 2008 resurrecting regulations that were accidentally dropped off the legislative instruments of the Northern Territory.
Minister, you said that you entered into communication with Darwin City Council. Was that by some form of correspondence in relation to this issue, and, can you table that correspondence, please?
Mr KNIGHT: The CLP, in their time in government, had dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation which had consequential amendments about them. I do not think they allowed two-plus years to develop that legislation. This process of developing this legislation took two years - an appropriate period of time, not too little, but not too much. It was very appropriate. There is one regulation and one by-law that has been omitted, and we are fixing that, so there has been no harm done. Again, 279 clauses, a huge bit of legislation that brought together dozens and dozens of councils, which had been sitting in obscure bits of legislation for nearly 30 years. It certainly was a clean out, it was a huge task, and everyone involved should be commended for bringing this ancient legislation to contemporary times.
I do not know what this has to do exactly with my correspondence or not, or discussions or not, with the Darwin City Council in respect to these regulations. We have been in contact with Darwin City Council in regard to this matter. We are working with them. I do not know what you are trying to insinuate but, again, this Local Government Act is a huge bit of legislation, and the consequential amendments is a natural course for when you are doing a large bit of legislation, which affects many other acts. There is nothing unusual. It happened under the CLP’s many years in government, and it will keep on happening, because that is the way it works. I do not know what you are trying to fish around here with this Local Government Act that you do not really care about.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I presume that, whilst this regulation was in hiatus - and you expressed earlier your concern about the possible consequences of the regulatory instrument being removed from the books - you would have sought some legal advice in relation to the matter. Have you sought legal advice in relation to the matter, and will you table that advice?
Mr KNIGHT: I have not sought legal advice on this matter. We have sought advice on the implications of it not being there from 1 July but, as I have clearly stated, the Darwin City Council imposed these charges under a special rate, which we included in the Local Government Act, so they have lost nothing. Developers have not been charged any more or less than they would have normally been charged under the regulation. I am very satisfied that this regulation not being there for these few months has not had any negative effect whatsoever.
Mr ELFERINK: If I understand you correctly, you have not sought legal advice in relation to the effect of this regulation being in hiatus - gone actually, removed from the statute books? Based on not receiving that legal advice, you got some advice and you say that you are pretty comfortable with the fact that no one is being charged extra. Do you have any advice that is written that you can table for this House which can give me some comfort that this matter is being properly investigated?
Mr KNIGHT: The oversight where this regulation did not get carried forward from 1 July has had no effect; the charges are still being incurred by the appropriate people and revenue has been gained by the Darwin City Council. So, there is no legal advice that is required. Obviously, you are trying to fish around, but there is no legal advice that you would need because it was clearly a situation where the regulation was left off. Obviously, you would be looking at implications of that, and that is exactly where I sought advice ...
Mr Elferink: From whom? What was that advice?
Mr KNIGHT: The implications of not including this regulation was that the Darwin City Council would be unable to either charge that regulation or had made that charge under the regulation. However, they did not. They had charged it under a special rate. There was no need to get any legal advice, because they had charged those charges under a special rate, which they can legitimately do, pursuant to section 156 of the Local Government Act. This regulation is reinserted and is available to Darwin City Council from the passage of this consequential amendments bill to use again. But, they have not chosen to use it since 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: Is it possible under these regulations for some sort of agreement to be negotiated where there is an ongoing payment or a charge upon which that agreement is reliant on these regulations?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is there have been no agreements made from 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not my question. The question is: is there an agreement that you are aware of? Is it possible under these regulations for an agreement that pre-dates 1 July 2008, to base its payments on an ongoing charge made over time, including the period at which this regulation was not a regulation?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that, yes, they can make longer arrangements but, if they were made prior to 1 July - because there have been no agreements after 1 July, any of those agreements would have been made prior to July - they are still valid.
Mr ELFERINK: Did you get legal advice on that particular issue? There are agreements that exist as a result of this regulation existing. This regulation ceased to exist at some point, but those agreements would have continued over that period, over which money would have changed hands for some sort of value. Has any advice been given to the people who are signatories to those agreements, namely the developers, advising them that this has occurred and that there may be some implication in a situation where there are ongoing payments?
Mr KNIGHT: You would be aware, upon reading the legislation, that it is retrospective to 1 July, so, if there was any sort of disagreement or arrangements entered into prior to 30 June, they would still be valid. No long-term agreements have been …
Mr Elferink: No, no, that is not how it works.
Mr KNIGHT: This regulation has not been used for new agreements since 1 July, and the charges have been issued under section 156 as a special rate, so, there is no …
Mr ELFERINK: As I understand it, minister, this bill that we are debating before the House, retrospectively reinstates the operation of this regulation. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct. I assume …
Mr Elferink: Minister, are you aware of …
Mr KNIGHT: I am still speaking. I assume you have actually read the consequential amendments bill, but you do not seem to realise that it is actually retrospective. I get the feeling that you have not read the bill.
Mr Elferink: That is up to you if you feel that.
Mr KNIGHT: You have wandered in here and decided you are going to have a bit of play with it. It is retrospective and it validates anything that is done between 1 July …
Mr ELFERINK: Well, this is actually very important. Are you aware of the provisions in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that, if you acquire property rights, you have to settle that on just terms? I will give you a parallel, minister. If the Northern Territory, for argument’s sake, sought to retrospectively acquire the title rights on these tidal zones, they would have to pay compensation for the property rights that they are attempting to acquire, even though they were trying to retrospectively create to capture. If there is money owed, or if people have paid money based on a legislative instrument, and that legislative instrument no longer exists, surely, you have a right to inform those people who are paying money and also tell them that you are going to be retrospectively reinstating those agreements, in spite of the fact they may not have been obliged to pay that money in the first place?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that if there had been any long-standing agreements, they would be still valid. These consequential amendments were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, who will be well aware of this. I have also been in consultation with the Darwin City Council. As I said, I have been very conscious of the fact that no one has been inappropriately charged or has not received revenue which they normally would have done. I am quite satisfied we have been very open about it and we have gone to the right competent people with regard to this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: My concern with this, minister, is that if an agreement was made between the Darwin City Council and a developer prior to 1 July, and that agreement was made on the auspices of these regulations, would that agreement not cease in operation once these regulations became ineffective and not applicable to the Northern Territory because of the changes to that?
Mr Elferink: You should have sought legal advice on this, mate.
Mr KNIGHT: Lucky we have you, John. My advice is that if they were quite legitimately charged prior to the 30 June, if there were those particular developers, this retrospectivity would cover any of those periods.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, who gave you that advice? I ask that advice be tabled.
Mr KNIGHT: This legislation was, obviously, drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. We have been in consultation with the Darwin City Council about the implications of this. They have not raised anything. Parliamentary Counsel has not raised anything about particular developers, if they exist, for this three-month period. They are charged all those annual payments as a special rate. All of those are covered quite legally. If there were any long-standing agreements, they were charged quite legally at the time.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but that is the point. Of course, the council is not going to whinge about this because, under these arrangements, the developers pay the council. If there is some sort of result as a result of this regulatory instrument affecting those payments and the legitimacy of those payments, the council is not going to stand up and say: ‘Oh, wow! We are going to give the money back’.
I am trying to draw to your attention that there may well have been people making payments as a result of the operation of this regulatory instrument and the agreements that they struck with the council under this regulatory instrument. Surely, as people who have been making payments consequent to the operation of a regulatory agreement instrument that does not exist, they have the right to be informed? I am asking whether the people who have been making payments, and who have potentially been making payments consequent to the operation of a regulatory instrument that does not exist, have been advised of that potentiality as a matter of fairness to them?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that if they enter into agreement to pay this charge for a period of time, it is still legal. As I said, this regulation has been made retrospective and all charges that have been incurred from 1 July have been made under a special rate. This is legal under the Local Government Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Is there any person who is potentially affected by this? No, I will go back. You keep referring to the advice you have received. You have not received legal advice in relation to this. I instinctively think that, as a matter of procedural fairness, if nothing else, people who may have been making payments as a result of some sort of agreement fostered under a non-existent or repealed regulatory instrument, may have been making payments where they may not have been obliged to be making those payments. Retrospectivity does not do anything other than move the rights of those people from the person they have the agreement with to the government which, then, retrospectively creates the legislation. If you retrospectively acquire a property right, then you are obliged to pay a compensatory amount on just terms. It is a requirement of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and, I might add, the Australian Constitution.
Mr KNIGHT: As I have stated, if they entered into a long-term agreement prior to 30 June, that agreement is still legal. If they entered into an agreement after this, under these regulations, it would either be retrospective or, in the case which has actually happened, the council has charged all these developers under a special rate, quite legally, under section 156 of the Local Government Act. Everyone is covered and this, obviously, just tidies up the matter.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you understand that I harbour concerns because people may have been making payments they may not have been obliged to make as a result of the legislative instrument or a regulatory instrument that does not exist? Will you at least give me this much comfort, minister? Will you put an ad in the paper describing this particular issue so that developers have an opportunity to stumble across the ad in the paper so that they might be informed of the fact that they may have been making payments that they did not need to make?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Port Darwin has been asking questions around this issue for quite some time …
Mr Elferink: Because it is an important issue.
Dr BURNS: To you it is an important issue; you are exploring it. As the member for Daly said, you have come in here, seized onto an issue, and are asking questions about a particular issue. You are asking him about legal advice. There happens to be quite a number of DOJ lawyers waiting out there for the next bit of business to come on. If you knew anything about Cabinet processes, member for Port Darwin, you would know that this amendment to the Local Government Act would come up to Cabinet, it would be circulated through DOJ, and DOJ lawyers would look at it and comment on it. I am advised …
Mr Tollner: And your point is?
Dr BURNS: Let me finish. DOJ saw no problem whatsoever in relation to this particular issue. In fact, the lawyers who are listening to this are having a lot of trouble following where you are coming from.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, further, I can advise, as the Minister for Planning and Lands that the development proposals go before the Development Consent Authority. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure was also involved in the circulation of this consequential amendment. Advice was also sought. No new agreements have been struck in the time from 1 July to today. That is the concern that the member for Port Darwin, quite appropriately, is articulating: whether anyone has been asked to do something there was no regulatory requirement for them to do. No, is the answer. You have been told on a number of occasions now by the minister that no new agreements have occurred in the intervening period - that is covered.
Second, there was a service fee able to be struck by the council through another local government section.
You are chasing rabbits down burrows, John.
Mr Elferink: No, I am not. I am just trying to discover whether some of these are actually losing money that you might owe them.
Ms LAWRIE: No one is losing money.
Mr Elferink: Yes, so you say, based on …
Madam CHAIR: Could we just pause for one moment, please?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thank the member for Port Darwin, who is quite used to standing in the House and debating these issues in committee. He is able to put things eloquently, so I thank him for that. My concern, if I could pose the scenario to you, minister, is that, on 1 July, the regulations had no effect. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: The regulations were not in force on 1 July.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Right, thank you. So, any agreements that the council had with developers prior to 1 July, that were made under auspices of that regulation, would have also ceased to take effect on that date? Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that because those agreements were both made under the regulations prior to 30 June, and this legislation is retrospective, all those affected people are covered.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am not talking retrospectivity here. I am talking about the actual time line. If, let us say today was yesterday and, on 1 July …
A member: You are really losing it now.
A member: Let us get in that time machine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, you are pretty good at it from the other side of the House. Say we were not having this discussion but, as of yesterday, before this legislation came to the House for debate, were those agreements made before 1 July still in place? If they were not in place, did the council contact the developers to advise them that they were now being charged, rather than under that regulation, under the new regulation of the Local Government Act - which I think was 100 and something, your advisor mentioned to you before? Basically, on 1 July, a change of contract, was there not?
Mr KNIGHT: No.
Ms LAWRIE: Just for point of clarification, agreements struck prior to 1 July continue through the life of this intervening period when the regulation has not been in effect, because they were agreements struck when the regulation was in effect - they carry through. They do not collapse as agreements. They do not become null and void because the regulation was no longer in effect. The implications of the regulation no longer being in effect are that new agreements under this regulation could not be struck, and they have not been struck.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I have heard from the Attorney-General, the Minister for Planning and Lands, and I have heard from the minister, and all three said the departments have looked at this and it was not a problem. The Treasurer, the Leader of Government Business, said they got advice; the lawyers have looked at it. So they have all got advice on this and, yet, there is no advice being tabled. Why are we not tabling this advice that we keep hearing about?
A member: They are Cabinet documents.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah, they are Cabinet documents. I pick up on that interjection. Just because a document goes before Cabinet it automatically becomes something that you are not prepared to table. If they are all Cabinet documents and they are beyond the realm of the public sphere, it is not beyond the capacity of Cabinet, if it wants to, to release some advice that it may have received.
All I am asking for is that the advice the government has received be tabled. If there is nothing to worry about, if there is no issue that flows from this - all I am doing is making an inquiry. I have not made any allegation, other than that if people are making payments that they were not obliged to pay, then there is a legitimate cause for concern that the people who are making those payments may want to know about it. It is just a question of open, honest and accountable government, I would have thought. I am just making a few inquiries. I do not know the answer to these questions. I know enough to be concerned is what I am saying.
The government is trying to reassure me that they have lots of advice on this and it is all hunky-dory and everything is mickey mouse and sweet. They say they get advice, but it is advice that I, and no other member of the public or this House, can look at. That is my concern. If there is no problem with this, put the advice on the table.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 September 2008.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing in relation to this bill. I request that this bill be taken into the Committee of the Whole after responding to the minister. The Country Liberals support the capping of the number of gaming machines in the Northern Territory; however, we cannot support this bill for a number of reasons.
First, I thank the minister for arranging, at short notice, a briefing on Thursday, 9 October, from the department on the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, the brief was rather short and lacking in detail. Of greatest concern was the inability of the department’s representatives to provide any information on any proposed Territory trading scheme for gaming machines. When asked for further information, it was revealed that a trading scheme for the Territory was going to be based on the Queensland model.
When asked for details of that scheme, the department representatives were unable to give any information and their only answer was that they would have to get back to me. They were able to provide the details of the proposed taxation scheme, as this information had already been determined down to two decimal places, but not so for the trading scheme. The departmental representatives committed to providing information on the trading scheme. However, to date, that information has not been received.
I wrote to the minister requesting that he delay the bringing on of this bill until information was available in relation to the structure of the future proposed trading scheme for gaming machines. I will read most of the contents of this letter which just says to the minister that:
It was signed by me.
I received a letter from the minister yesterday, which partly covers the issues raised in the briefing on 9 October this year. However, there is no information contained in the letter in relation to a future trading scheme for gaming machines. I do not know if the minister’s letter is in response to my request to delay the bringing on of the bill or if it is in response to the questions put to the departmental staff on the this year’s 9 October briefing.
The minister, in part one of his second reading speech, stated that this bill sets a cap for the total number of gaming machines in the Territory, but does not give any time frame on whether any model of a trading scheme might be considered or introduced. If the department is unable to give any information or indication as to the time frame for a model to be available for assessment, then I fear there could be a substantial time frame where applicants can neither apply for gaming machines or apply for an increase in their numbers of machines consistent with their maximum entitlement of either 10 gaming machines in hotel or taverns or 45 in clubs.
In the very next sentence in paragraph one in the minister’s speech, he went on to explain that the bill also revises the taxation arrangements that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
This bill has some serious implications for the government and, in particular, Treasury. There are no indications in relation to a number of important issues: the moving of machines from one part of the Northern Territory to another; whether the proposed trading scheme has a regional component to allow regional and rural clubs and hotels and taverns access to gaming machines at a reasonable cost; concentrations of gaming machines in high turnover areas; the keeping of the ratio of 4.5:1 as it relates to clubs and pubs; the relationship to the bidding wars that are apparently the case in south-east Queensland; and there is no information in the cross-trading of gaming machines from clubs to pubs and vice versa.
There are a number of issues raised also in the speech, in paragraph four, line six, it said:
Following that it says:
I look forward to the minister’s comments on that statement that ‘it has proved successful in managing gaming’. That is about the only thing that relates to the actual trading scheme that is not mentioned anywhere in here.
He also said in his second reading speech:
Perhaps I will discuss that matter with the minister in the committee stage.
The other aspect is on the second page of the minister’s speech is in the fourth paragraph. It reads:
It is interesting because, from what I read, section 194(3)(a) already covers that.
There also appears to be quite a number of issues in relation to the letter that the minister has written back to me that I received yesterday. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies with what the amendments are in relation to this bill, and what already exists in current legislation. It is not that clear from this letter which says, in the third paragraph:
Those matters are probably best held for committee because they seem to say exactly the same thing. There are other matters in relation to taxation, as to who gets the biggest slice of what appears to be some substantial tax cuts in the community – the clubs or pubs. That is another matter that needs to be dealt with.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to discuss the Gaming Machine Amendment (Anti-Proliferation) Bill. I am coming from a slightly different angle, and I am interested to hear the debate during the committee stage.
The government has said in its opening statements that there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole. Then said, basically: ‘We will cap it at 1190 machines’. It uses that figure as the figure that it would like to cap it so that there is no chance that we could get an extra 1000 machines if you allowed every licensed premises in the Territory to obtain its optimum number of poker machines. That is probably a Clayton’s excuse because many of those premises with a licence probably have no intention of ever having poker machines. They could be just small restaurants or premises with licences where you would never expect to see poker machines in place.
If we were really concerned about the effect of gaming machines in the Northern Territory, we should be looking at ways of reducing it - not saying: ‘We are sort of reducing it because we are not going to let it go towards what it could possibly go’.
We have plenty of gaming machines in the Northern Territory. My understanding from the briefing - and I did not get those figures, but I was told that we have the highest number of gaming machines per head of population. That is very concerning, considering we know that one of the major problems in many of our Indigenous communities is, in fact, gambling. It is mentioned in the Little Children are Sacred report. If we are really going to put a dint in what we see as a problem, then we should not only be tackling poker machines, but we should be looking at places where we think there are too many gaming machines and looking at reducing them or restricting the hours that they operate.
The other thing that is missing in this whole debate is that the casino has poker machines. We have 1190 machines in hotels and clubs, but there is no mention - and for obvious reasons this bill is not covering that – that we have a major number of poker machines at our casino. I was not able to find out exactly how many poker machines casinos have, but I was able to do a little research. If you were to look at the figures from the Licensing Commission website, you would find that the total revenue from gaming machines ending 30 June 2007, total gross profit for hotels was $19.8m, and for that same period for clubs, it was $43.8m. You are looking at approximately $62m to $63m. So you think that is a fair bit of money, and that covers approximately the 1190 gaming machines, give or take 10 - the 10 being the ones that were, I think, at the Adelaide River Inn, which now are not there.
Then go to the website for the Department of Justice, and look up ‘NT Casino Performance’ at their gross profit. This, I must admit, is for tables and gaming machines but, if you have been to the casino, you will see there are more poker machines compared to tables. The period, 2006-07, gross profits are $104.1m. That is close to getting to 75% more than all the poker machines in all our clubs and hotels are producing. If you took the casino’s online gross profit, and I am not sure whether that would include poker machines, it is another $14.1m in 2004-05. I imagine that figure is still the same.
Whilst the government can make the statement that ‘there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and our society as a whole’, the majority of poker machines are in the casino. If we do not take that into account in this debate, then we are fooling ourselves. A casino, certainly just by volume of money they make, must be attracting an enormous number of people. Sure, many of them will be tourists but, if anyone has been to Lasseters in a cold winter, they will see there are many locals using those machines. It is the same in the Darwin casino.
Whilst you might say this is possibly the start of an attempt by the government, the status quo still exists. We can say there is a problem out there at the moment; this bill does not change anything. It is working on the assumption that there could be more poker machines which would, in theory, cause more social problems in our society, and we will not allow that to happen. But there is a problem right now, and you do not have to go any further than Amity House to find that out. If you are like me, who occasionally throws a couple of bucks in a poker machine, you get to know who is in those places regularly, and you have to wonder how much money those people put into those machines.
I am not Nick Xenophon. I am not necessarily opposed to poker machines which, for many people, can be a bit of light entertainment - a bit like racing, like any form of gambling where you do it for fun, you do not do it seriously; it is not meant to be a form of income, not a problem. However, we would be fools to ignore the fact that there are quite a few people who put in lots and lots of money. I have sat next to people who were betting $10 a pop, and they do not take long to just keep pushing the buttons and, before long, have gone through a lot of money. They turn around and put a few more dollars into the machine.
There is no doubt that there is a concern about the effects on communities. I was in Tennant Creek once when the poker machines were introduced. Many people would spend money - for instance when the pay cheques came in or whenever the royalties came in - within Tennant Creek. They would buy bikes for the kids, toys, food, whatever. That money stayed within the Tennant Creek community and was spread through there. There was a concern that, with the pokies, it disappeared. There was not anything you bought; many times you did not get anything - you just got an empty pocket, because all the money had gone into the poker machines.
There are social effects on small communities if that money is disappearing down the gambling hole. It is different from people who play cards because when people played cards they would sit around in a circle all night. It might not have been what you agreed with particularly, but even though someone won a lot of money, generally speaking, some of that money went back to the people in that area, especially those who did not have any money. Money did not necessarily leave the community. However, with poker machines, it disappears into someone’s profit and loss account and that is it.
I note the member for Sanderson’s concerns about the trading system. When I was at the briefing, my concern about the trading was coming from a purely commercial point of view. I did not think the trading was part of this legislation. That is why I did not take a great concern about it. The government has said that it is looking at a trading system. It does bring up the question that if you introduce this legislation and you do not have a trading system, what happens in that vacuum? Do you just say that until the trading system comes into operation, no one can have a poker machine, unless someone voluntarily hands it back to the government; then, the government can give those over to a club that might want them, subject to the normal licensing requirements?
The point regarding what happens in the meantime until we have a trading scheme is a fair one. I do not necessarily see a real problem with the trading scheme at this time because I could not find it in the legislation. It has been mentioned in the second reading that it is coming, and I thought I could debate it then. I am willing to listen to the debate anyway. I have not made up my mind on that particular matter.
The commercial concern I had was for some little club out bush which wants to buy a poker machine and they can only get them using the trading scheme. You might find now that little club may have to pay some extraordinary amount of money to buy these poker machines. Some people might say, that is good, that means they cannot get their poker machine. However, if I was looking purely from a commercial aspect, that may be a little unfair. I am not sure how people who got them previously under the old system; whether they paid a certain amount for every poker machine. Under the trading scheme, of course, that fee for buying a poker machine might be quite high and, from a small business point of view, might be a disadvantage for that small business to buy five or 10 poker machines. That was my concern there.
I looked at the section on the gaming machine tax. For a moment, I thought this was something new but, in the old act, it is actually under the section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. It also uses a similar breakdown of the tax to be paid. I notice under the old range of gross monthly profit, you pay 12.91% for the first $5000, now you pay it for the first $10 000. In fact, if you are talking about making it harder, if my mathematics is right, it actually reduced tax. You have a lower percentage for a higher amount of money. What was 22.9% was for $5000 to $50 000; we have now done that for $10 000 to $100000. Funnily enough, we seem to have reduced the tax on poker machines.
I notice the Treasurer nodded her head. I respond by quoting: ‘… there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals in society as a whole …’ - and we have reduced the tax? We already have a problem with the 1190; I would have thought we were doing things that had more money going back into dealing with those people who have a problem.
The tax goes on $100 000, $200 000 and moves right up. In the old regime it was $50 000 to $150 000 at 32.91%. Now, we have $100 000 to $200 000 at 32.91%. Another little saving for the gambling industry. $200 000 and above is 42.91%; before it was $150 000, so, the threshold has picked up by $50 000. Some of those people who did not make a gross monthly amount of more than $200 000 would be quite happy.
I know that will not affect quite a few of those bigger clubs. It is worth, sometimes, looking at the figures for the clubs. If you have a look at the number of clubs in the Darwin region, it will give you some idea how that tax will not make much difference. The Casuarina All Sports Club - this one tops the lot - 45 poker machines, gross profit $6.142m. I was surprised to see a club here - the Arnhem Club; I presume that is the one out in Nhulunbuy - has 45 pokies. Its population is not huge. I reckon Casuarina would probably be bigger than Nhulunbuy. Its gross profit was $5.195m. I am interested to see the number of poker machines per head of population. I agree that capping per region should be looked at. That is a big amount of money when you compare it to the Alice Springs Memorial Club, with 45 poker machines, $1.776m. The Arnhem Club stands out like a beacon in relation to how much money it makes for a small population ...
Ms Purick: It is all those mine workers.
Mr WOOD: Could be.
Dr Burns: They also put a lot back in.
Mr WOOD: That is true, but I am just saying there are some big profits made in certain parts of the Territory, and they are mainly the clubs because the hotels do not make that sort of money. I will give you an example: the Fox and Fiddle British Inn made $57 000 with its 10 poker machines. Obviously, they like to do other things, like sing and dance.
There is big money being made out of poker machines and, of course, that is coming out of people’s pockets. It does not come out of anything else. It is not like we are producing fruit and vegetables. It is simply machines that people put in a lot of money in. Of course, that gross profit is, I presume, after they have had payouts. You can imagine how much money is actually put into these machines.
I am interested, in the committee stage, listening to the minister’s reasons for some of the changes. I thank the minister for the briefing. I find it difficult, considering the casinos - and maybe I am wrong here. If I was to compare their profit of $104m - and maybe 20% of that money that went to tables and the rest went to poker machines - I would guess they have more than 1000 poker machines. Maybe I am wrong.
The minister might be able to tell me if they have because I do not know where you would find that information. It may be commercial-in-confidence. I gather a different act covers the arrangements with the casinos. You cannot discuss this issue about anti-proliferation if you do not take into account the other big equation when it comes to gaming machines; that is, casinos. I will refrain from saying whether I support this bill at the moment. I am not saying even supporting it, it is the end of the world ...
Ms Scrymgour: You like it both ways.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon? I am interested in the issue that the member for Sanderson raised about what effect this trading process would have, and whether it would make any difference to this bill being passed today. I will leave it to the committee stage, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will start by addressing one of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. I also harboured some confusion for a while as to whether this act was simply about the taxation regime that was going to be applied, or the up and coming trading scheme which is envisaged by government.
It took some drilling into. The arrangements around gaming in the Northern Territory are a little confusing in their administrative arrangements. So, the starting point for an investigation as to what is actually driving this has to be the Administrative Arrangements of the Northern Territory. The most recent Administrative Arrangements of the Northern Territory split gaming into two bits. One bit sits with the Attorney-General; the other bit sits with the Treasurer. The bit that sits with the Attorney-General is the policy stuff. Every other bit that sits under these Administrative Arrangements sits with the Treasurer because they are the taxation arrangements.
If this was a bill about taxation and raising taxation levies, the Treasurer would be the one with carriage of the bill. However, it is not the Treasurer who has carriage of the bill, it is the Attorney-General. So, from that basis, this must be about a trading scheme which was alluded to in the second reading speech but does not get much of a mention in the bill itself. So, assuming that government has this right, this is about the trading scheme based on the fact that the person who has carriage of it is the one who has the policy component of gaming within his portfolio area.
Some numbers - and it is always useful to do this. This is from the last time that the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission reported annually through the Treasury when it was still one unit - it was not split, it was all held with Treasury. This, by the way, I hold up now as one of the finest annual reports ever produced by government. Never have I read an annual report that is so succinct, so clear and so informative. Jennifer Prince and her team did an extraordinary job putting this together, and I congratulate Jennifer Prince, the Under Treasurer, for it.
Some numbers: page 20 from the annual report 2005-06. $2.376bn is the amount of money in the year 2002 that was wagered in the Northern Territory, not including illegal wagering - that is all those blankets that we see people playing gambling games on. By the year 2006, that amount wagered had grown to $4.5386bn. That is an extraordinary increase; that nearly doubles. During the recent briefing that we received from the Attorney-General’s Office, we asked if the blanks could be filled out for the year 2007 - I suspect that that is a calendar year, I am guessing; no, it is not, it is a financial year - and for the year 2008, because I am interested to know what those two missing columns look like.
For the year 2002, losses incurred by gamblers in the Northern Territory were $215.1m. By the year 2006, losses by Territory gamblers had increased to $319m. Once again, the years 2007 and 2008 are missing. From that - this is the tax take from government. This is gaming tax - I refer to page 23 from the same report. The year 2002 is not reported - I am not sure why. Actually, no, it is explained. The year 2003 is reported. In the year 2003, Northern Territory government received $37.737m from taxation and, by the year 2006, Northern Territory income had increased to $57.999m. I would like to know what the years 2007 and 2008 hold.
This is an extremely informative report. Not only that, at the back of the report there is a very detailed breakdown as to where the taxation is collected, from whom it was collected, and the amount. For argument’s sake, on page 66 of this most excellent report, Cazalys Palmerston made a gross profit on their machines of $4 572 995, and paid in taxation to the Northern Territory government $1 716 272. As I said, a very informative report; 68 pages long if you include the schedules at the back of the report.
This particular report is on the website for the Department of Justice, and for some reason, the schedules which break down the taxation arrangements have been removed from the back of the report. I presume it is because of the way that the new arrangements exist, and DOJ does not report on Territory income, which should be somewhere on the Treasury website, but I cannot lay my hands on it. That might be navigation skills, but I cannot lay my hands on it. The only record I can get is the hard copy of the report.
I was curious to see, in the last annual report of the Department of Justice, that they reported on gaming. In the last annual report of Justice the report on gaming was, I think, one or two pages - hardly the enormously valuable document that we have here. I actually convinced myself that that was the replacement document for this one. I was highly critical, for a whole bunch of reasons, that that two-page document was all that we got as an annual report. I let the matter rest, but I was very disappointed that that was the case, because we lost this excellent standard of reporting for a two-page document.
I was mistaken because, last sittings in this House, this document was tabled. This document is the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Annual Report 2006-07, tabled on 18 September 2008, Tabled Paper No 52, as I understand it. This is actually the report which is required by section 21 of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Act.
The reason I thought the comments in the annual report was this report was that there is a legislative requirement to bring this report in a certain time. This report has to be completed within three months of the end of the financial year 2006-07, passed to the minister, who then has to table it, I think within six days of receiving it, which means, in practical terms, that he should have been tabling this in October 2007. This was tabled in September 2008, in breach of the legislative requirements that demand this reporting.
Madam Speaker, do I find in this report the copious amounts of information that I found in this report? Sadly, no. This report could not hold a candle to this lighthouse - it simply could not. This report is a very disappointing second.
Anyway, I then also waited with bated breath and started looking for something else. I should say I did not wait with bated breath, because I started noticing that something was missing. In the back of this report, there is a list of the Community Benefits Scheme. The former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, was very anxious to ensure that the Community Benefits Scheme ran well. My goodness, what a great report, because not only do you get to see how much was given for the Community Benefit Scheme – and for the edification of members who do not understand this, when the pubs pay their tax on the gaming machines inside the pubs - this is not the clubs or the sporting clubs - a little of that money gets shaved off and gets dumped into an account, and that account then becomes a source by which the government of the day, through the Community Benefits Fund, passes that money back into the community. At the back of this report is a list of all of the community organisations which receive money as a result of that little additional gaming tax and the amounts that they receive, as well as the purpose of the grant - a very detailed report. If I wanted to know what happened to the $1.7m that came from the Community Benefits Fund that year, I could find out that the Darwin Cycling Club Incorporated, to produce promotional brochures, was granted $970. Good stuff, good reporting; very detailed.
There is also a legislative requirement, that I would direct the minister’s attention to - I mean the Treasurer’s attention to, this is a Treasurer’s reporting arrangement. Section 68B(4) of the Gaming Control Act demands that the Community Benefits Committee report with full listings on the Community Benefits Fund every year. It has been achieved in this report particularly well. The point is a visit to the Tabled Papers Office revealed something interesting. For the year 2006-07, the report required by section 68B(4) of the Gaming Control Act has not been tabled at all. What is more is that the demands of that act are - from memory, I do not have that in front of me - that within three months of the end of the financial year, the Community Benefits Fund has to make that annual report and, upon receipt of that, within three months of the end of the financial year, the minister is obliged by law to bring that report into this House and table it. In practical terms, that means around October of the next financial year.
That report has not appeared at all at this stage, and is now 12 months overdue. It is a breach of the law. It is a requirement of the legislation that these reports be made. I ask the minister - and these are questions on notice; I would be surprised if the minister was unaware of this because she has these questions on the Written Question Paper on both of these issues - why the government is choosing to break the law in relation to reporting on gaming in the Northern Territory?
I was also present at the briefing to which the member for Sanderson referred in his remarks. I raised this issue in the briefing and, consequently, pointed to this most excellent report which is the 2005-06 report and said: ‘Gee whiz, can you get me the information out of that report which I found so enlightening and so useful?’ They said: ‘Yes, we will get it to you by Monday’. Was it the Monday? The next day, I think was the promise. That information is still not forthcoming.
That information may have been lost in the briefing because the people who were briefing me were scribbling notes. Our issue raised by the member for Sanderson is that the question that we asked in the first instance was: why are you introducing a bill which has the effect of reproducing a power that currently exists under the legislation? The reference I and the member for Sanderson was making, was Section 194, Regulations, of the Gaming Machine Act that:
The regulations may prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines. Section 194(b):
I took that to mean that the minister has the power to advise, as the processes of the Executive Council work, the Administrator to make a regulation to cap the number of machines. I was confused, though. So, in answer to the first question we asked, the answer was, basically: ‘Oh, good question, we will let you know’, and they did, and I am grateful to the minister. However, I only received this letter, as I understand the member for Sanderson only received this letter, on Monday, at about 5 pm when I got to my office. I think they just stuck it inside the door. There are a couple of paragraphs, and it gets to the issue we raised in the briefing. Section 22B(2)(a) - and this is a reference to the amendment - of the bill replaces section 194(3) of the act and is materially different in three respects. It says in paragraph 1 of the letter:
I am somewhat confused because that does not answer the issue that was raised: the Administrator may, according to the act, as it currently exists, make regulations, not inconsistent with the act, prescribing matters; the regulations may prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines for a locality or the Northern Territory.
So, this is how it works: the minister goes to Cabinet. Cabinet makes a decision - that is the working part of Executive Council, than it rolls down sleeves - puts its tie on and walks across to the Administrator, as Executive Council and says: ‘Administrator, as her Majesty’s representative, we suggest that you make this law’. The Administrator says: ‘Oh, what a good idea. Thank you very much, Executive Council. Off you trot’. If you follow that logic, then the Administrator - ie read minister:
All this act has the effect of doing is removing the Commission’s capacity to declare prescribed areas and caps, but it does not, as the letter suggests, place it in the hands of the minister, because the minister already has that power. There is no new power that flows from the amendment for the capacity to the minister to make regulations to cap the number of gaming machines that does not already exist in law. I know the minister will argue otherwise, but the fact is that the minister has that power today.
So, what is this all about? Why are we saying we need this new policy when the power already exists? Because we actually have to lay the groundwork for something else. This is why I come back to what the member of Nelson had to say. We are laying the groundwork, not only for a taxation regime which already has been well thought out but, as the member for Sanderson so eruditely pointed out, the taxation regime is already being calculated to two decimal places. That is a pretty accurate taxation regime.
I also noted in the second reading speech that the minister actually said: ‘We expect to lose some money on this deal at first and then we are going to make some money back’. That raises the question: how are you going to make the money back that you are losing on the deal with your tax rates? I asked the department that – well, what I asked the departmental officials was: ‘How are you going to make this money? Is there going to be some sort of stamp duty on sale or transfer of these machines?’ ‘Oh no, it is not a stamp duty, it is a levy’. ‘What is that going to be worth?’ ‘Oh, we do not know that yet’.
So, we are paving the way through this legislative instrument to introduce this trading scheme which will impose upon every transfer of a gaming machine from every vendor to every purchaser, some sort of levy, tax, or stamp duty. I do not really care what you call it, it is money that goes from that transaction into the government’s pocket. One of the great criticisms I have of this Administrative Arrangement is that I now do not know who I should be talking to, because this is more about collecting revenue than it is about capping the number of machines in the community.
There is some nervousness about this in the community. Mr Hay, President of Clubs NT, wrote to the Chief Minister, and he said: ‘Gee whiz, I am worried about this’. He also wrote to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the things they are concerned about is that you have clubs which will now have tradeable machines under this new scheme - whatever that looks like. It is going to be the Queensland model, we were advised in the briefing. What does that look like? ‘We will get back to you’. We have not seen it since. What we have in the letter from the minister is not the Queensland model for a trading scheme; it is the taxation rates in Queensland. That is what we have. We have no idea what this trading scheme of machines is going to look like.
Mr Hay wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister and said: ‘We are a bit worried about this. One of the things we are concerned about is that the pubs might start buying up the machines of the clubs’. You see, what happens with the profits from these club machines is that they go into these clubs and it pays for the Under 15 Rugby League team, I suppose, or the girls’ softball team - all those sorts of things. The problem is that these clubs often struggle. Pubs do not; they can sell liquor and all sorts of things as well. Clubs can too, but these clubs often struggle.
Waratahs Sports Club was in the news the other day. I am guessing, because I have never been in there myself, it has poker machines in it. If it does, how tempting for the board to be suddenly presented with an opportunity to offload several gaming machines to trade their way out of the trouble they are in at the moment.
I am fully aware that there are caps on both clubs and pubs in that the pub cannot have more than 10 machines in them. The clubs and pubs often work in different environments. The pubs may be more aggressive than the clubs in the open marketplace that this will create in trading between these machines. I have some concerns, and I understand the concerns of Mr Hay quite well. I am mindful of his concerns because it would be such a tragedy, as a result of this government’s desire to rake taxation off the trades and transfer of these machines, that the Under 15 softball team might not be able to play this year or get new uniforms this year because the club they rely on for income has sold off their machines to trade their way out of trouble. I seek from the minister some comfort in relation to that.
The other concern that this issue raises for me is the quality and the level of briefings that the minister relies on to bring legislation to this House. If he is genuinely unknowing about the breach of the law surrounding the reporting requirements of the Licensing Commission, if the Treasurer is ignorant of the law in relation to the reporting requirements of the Community Benefits Fund, and we are relying on the introduction of legislation which will, ultimately, support trading schemes that we know nothing about, then the minister, who I know is a man of substantial intellect and good education, is being careless about the advice he is receiving and, I suspect, not sufficiently critical of the information he is receiving from the department.
This breakdown between the two Administrative Arrangements, Treasury and DOJ, is delivering some very poor outcomes in how this whole system is being administered and the reporting requirements, which are demanded by law, of the NT. To add grist to this mill of poor Administrative Arrangements, it was the Chief Minister who wrote back to Mr Hay. This is a letter from the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, on 6 August 2008, to Mr Hay, President of Clubs NT Incorporated in which he says:
Balderdash!
I draw the Chief Minister’s attention to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Annual Report 2005-06 where those taxation arrangements, and individual taxpayers and individual taxation amounts are clearly reported, as per the requirements of the law which has been broken by this government. Also, Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister cannot seek, in his position, to obnubilate this issue when the industry involved is very concerned about the outcomes of what is being done in this parliament tonight, and what will be done into the near future by this government. For him to - what can I say? Can I say mislead Mr Hay? - misinform Mr Hay in such an obvious and deliberate fashion is indicative of a government which is either so out of touch with the legislative requirements that surround it, that it makes public utterances which are completely wrong, or there is a deliberate attempt to deceive Mr Hay ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I do not know. I am asking the question. Which is it? Is it incompetence or dishonesty?
Ms Lawrie: Not true. No, you are just obnoxious as usual, aren’t you?
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking the question, Madam Speaker. Is this incompetence or dishonesty? It has to be one or the other because, clearly, the assertion by the Chief Minister that he cannot comment on figures because he is not permitted to know the individual taxation arrangements in relation to the individual taxpayers …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, that is true.
Mr ELFERINK: … when, under the legislation - well, why do you report on the back of the annual report, Treasurer?
Ms Lawrie: Because Community Benefit Fund payments are different to individual taxation arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK: So you reckon there are no taxation arrangements in this?
Ms Lawrie: These are not individual. There is a whole range of taxation arrangements ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, isn’t there? We have done it again! Remember, I said, Madam Speaker, that …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker. ... I talked about the Treasurer’s plans? Well, she has just committed a ripper, because - here we go: Alice Springs Golf Club Incorporated, gross profit on their gaming machines …
Ms Lawrie: Difference between organisations’ gaming machines taxes and individual taxation arrangements - big difference.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, he is talking about individuals, not clubs. But Mr Hay was writing on behalf of clubs, so it was deception. It was not incompetence, it was deliberate deception, Madam Speaker ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you have dropped yourself into this …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: He is accusing the Chief Minister of deception, and is clearly wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw the comments ‘deliberate deception’.
Mr ELFERINK: Accidental deception, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have just asked you to withdraw your comments.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I am not quite sure. He has misled - no, I cannot say that. Madam Speaker, I am struggling through ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I asked you to withdraw the comments please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw the comment, but I am really struggling, Madam Speaker, for a word which can express what has actually occurred here, which means that what happened in the mind of Mr Hay when he received this letter was different to what was actually the case.
Individual taxpayers like the Casuarina All Sports Club received $5.69m of gross profit and paid $2.199m of tax. It is listed individually in this annual report, Treasurer. It is about time you and the Attorney-General started obeying the law of the Northern Territory and reporting within the requirements of the legislation that I have quoted here tonight. Your disregard for this place is arrogance in the highest order.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, it is always illuminating when the member for Port Darwin starts pontificating. He started his contribution by saying he really was not sure what this is about and he did some research. I refer him to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing’s second reading speech:
Mr Elferink: He can do it anyhow; he already has the power.
Ms LAWRIE: You cannot help yourself.
Mr Elferink: No, I cannot.
Ms LAWRIE: I will continue the quote:
It goes further than the member for Port Darwin, in his imagination, would have us believe. The bill significantly provides an important start in a reform process - the reform of the community gaming machine sector. These reforms are in response to growing concerns in the community about the effects that gambling has on people - whether it is the individuals, the families, or society as a whole. Community service organisations like Amity deal with the impact every day of Territory families seeking help to deal with the effects of problem gambling. These are families where a gambling addiction is leaving children hungry, family assets are lost to feed the addiction, and the stresses are leading to, at times, domestic violence and abuse and, also at times, drug and alcohol abuse. These are significant social problems and these reforms aim to bring some balance back to the community by halting the growth that we have seen in gaming machines.
The cap is necessary to address what has been significant growth. The number of machines more than doubled since their introduction in 1996 and the number in hotels has almost tripled. This government believes it is time to address the gaming machine numbers by introducing a cap. Without change, under current laws, all clubs could apply for a maximum licence, which would see a huge influx of poker machines. To ensure fairness in the system, the bill sets a cap of 1190 on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory, and revises the taxation arrangements that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to the community gaming machines. The current cap on pokies in pubs at 10 and 45 in clubs is not changed. Future reform will include the introduction of a regulated trading scheme for licences within the capped pool of machines. The bill gives effect to the government’s announcement on 18 July 2008 that it would cap the number of gaming machines at 1190. As such, the cap is backdated to the date of the announcement.
We are reducing the government’s income from poker machines. This is part of our plan to reduce the government’s reliance on gaming revenue - a move we see happening across Australia. The revised tax rates will also bring uniformity to the tax system for gaming machines. However, we will maintain the current requirement for pubs to pay a 10% of gross monthly profits to the Community Benefit Fund. The rates have been revised so that clubs and hotels will be subject to a tiered gaming machine tax rate, depending on each revenue’s gross monthly profit. The new rates are: 12.91% for gross monthly profits of up to $10 000; 22.91% for profits from $10 001 up to $100 000; 32.91% for profits between $100 001 and $200 000; and 42.91% for profits over $200 000. Pubs receive the most benefit from the new rates as they have moved from a flat rate of 42.91% of gross monthly profit to the tiered rate schedule.
The new rate scale provides minor increases to the tiered threshold applied to the clubs. The old rates are: 12.91% for gross monthly profits of up to $6000; 22.91% of profits from $6000 to $60 000; 32.91% of profits between $60 000 and $160 000; and 42.91% for profits over $160 000. The tax savings split between the pubs and clubs is estimated to be in the order of $5.1m per year for pubs and $1.4m per year for clubs. This represents approximately an 18% to 20% decrease.
While these tax changes will have an initial impact on revenue, there will be some offset – some - when the new trading scheme commences within the capped environment. The new tax rates commence on a date set by the Administrator to allow sufficient lead time for any system changes. Although no commencement date has been set, 1 January 2009 is a date that allows the industry and the government sufficient time to accommodate the change.
The future trading scheme will introduce a licence scheme whereby a licence for each machine will need to be purchased that can then be traded within the existing pool. The regulated trading scheme will have benefits to the smaller clubs which cannot spread the overhead cost of gaming machines as effectively as larger venues, so the nett profit per machine is lower as you would have seen from some of the figures quoted.
The trading scheme will allow smaller clubs to benefit by - if they want to, they do not have to - selling machine rights to larger more profitable venues. The details for the regulated trading scheme have not yet been finalised and will be the subject of consultation with the industry. That does include, obviously, the clubs. The scheme will include appropriate taxation levies on trading entities which trade their gaming machines.
In regard to the Administrative Arrangements, I can advise the member for Port Darwin that the Community Benefit Fund reporting requirements falls under Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I am sure questions in regard to that will be picked up by the relevant minister.
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her offering and I will address the issues that have been raised by members. I thank each member for their contribution.
The member for Sanderson put the policy position of the Country Liberal Party in that, whilst they support capping of gaming machines, they do not support this legislation mainly for the reason as he outlined; that there was no detail on the trading scheme. In his briefing last week with the member for Port Darwin, it was foreshadowed that government would be modelling our trading scheme on the Queensland trading scheme which is quite well established. Although there were details for the taxation scheme, as he said to the last decimal point, there was no detail on the trading scheme.
As I said in my second reading speech - and the member for Sanderson alluded to that - I was very clear in the second paragraph when I said:
At the end of my second reading speech, I said:
I also say, thereby with the public:
In short, government, through its policy, has foreshadowed that these amendments, as part of this bill today, are all about taxation arrangements and setting a cap, but they also provide the capacity underneath the overall cap for regional caps - that was mentioned in my second reading speech – and, moreover, for the implementation of a trading scheme.
To reiterate, the focus is on the taxation arrangements but, more importantly, the cap. The trading scheme will follow on after consultation. That could occur under regulation. It could require some legislative amendment also. I am giving the parliament the undertaking that there will be extensive consultation; there will be transparency around this particular issue. I emphasise why I felt it was important to bring the cap in at this stage. I became very concerned. I suppose there is a background of concern all around Australia, as the member for Nelson said, about the impact of gaming machines on people’s lives, particularly the aspect of problem gambling, the amounts of money that go through gaming machines, and the harm which they can cause.
However, with that background, I was particularly concerned to get a letter from the Licensing Commission. I am more than happy to table this letter. I actually received it a bit over a year ago now. It is signed by the Chairman, Mr Richard O’Sullivan, and the first paragraph said:
It was the concern of the commissioner that there are a whole range of venues that would say: ‘Oh yes, well we can move along this little path here and became a tavern and get ourselves a few poker machines and get a nice little earner’. He perceived it as a problem. It was then that I engaged on what was really a mammoth task - to let this House know - to look at the form in this particular area …
Mr Elferink: You already have this power; it already exists. You can put a cap on it right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … to look at the policy settings - not just imposing a cap per se, but look at the policy settings and directions for government of gaming machines in the Territory. It is not just a one-stop shop around the cap, it is looking to the future.
I received quite extensive advice on the act and also on the casino agreement the member for Nelson alluded to, and the possibility or probability of placing a cap on numbers of machines in the casino. That was quite an involved and complex task, and included quite a number of iterations of advice from the Solicitor-General. It is a complex issue, and there are many aspects of law. Basically, the answer came back that government could apply to cap the casinos, but there would be considerable amounts of compensation likely to be paid under the casino agreement.
I hope that answers the member for Nelson’s question. To a large degree, the numbers in the casino are self-regulating. There has been some growth but, compared to the growth within the community gaming sector and the number of community gaming machines - which I had the number and I might have even said it in my second reading speech – where there has been a doubling over a specific period, and quite a significant increase.
In answer to the member for Nelson’s question regarding why we set it at, I think it is at 1190 or thereabouts. I better check that, Madam Speaker ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Dr BURNS: Why was it at 1190? Why is that the current rate? The member for Nelson asserted that actually the Northern Territory had a denser concentration of gambling machines than elsewhere in Australia. The figures I have here relate to gaming machines across Australia - I am prepared to table that also – and show that the Northern Territory is actually below the Australian average in the concentration of machines.
Mr Wood: I got that information from the briefing.
Dr BURNS: Well, the information I have, Table 3 - the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults, including casinos, by state and territory in 2001-02 to 2004-05 – the Northern Territory is - sorry, I am incorrect there, member for Nelson. We are about the Australian average, not under it. We are at the Australian average, and we certainly do not want to be increasing further than the Australian average for gambling machines. That is the reason why we have set it there. We believe also that everyone has had an opportunity to get the gaming machines that they require in their business.
As I said in my second reading speech, if everyone who is eligible for a licence applied for a licence there is a capacity for an extra 1000 machines in gaming machine numbers, and we certainly did not want that.
As I mentioned, the member for Nelson talked about his concern of the impact of gaming machines. As a government, we have certainly invested a lot more in community grants, gambling amelioration, and gambling research between 2000-01 and 2007-08. The figures I have been given, member for Nelson, is that at 2000-01 it was $531 000 approximately; in 2007-08, that has climbed to $2.4m in toto across all those particular areas that I mentioned. It is significant extra investment, and it has been growing with time since 2000-01. We have been trying to invest in gambling amelioration and trying to reduce the problems and the impact of gambling.
You asked the question - well, here is a case where a tax is being reduced. Government took the view that, if we were going to put a cap on the number of gambling machines and capped the growth there, somehow there had to be a concession in that to industry - whether it be the clubs or the pubs - because, although we were not specifically taking away a right or acquiring property, we felt, basically, that we were putting a cap on their revenue. That is partly the reason for the reduced tax.
Regarding the tax regime, it has been argued by the clubs that the pubs have a better deal. By bringing parity between the operations of clubs and pubs in the percentages for taxation, we are getting parity between the two, to set the platform if you like, in the regime, for a trading scheme. The trading scheme will be between clubs and pubs, clubs and clubs, and pubs and pubs, up to the limit that is set by government as a policy level. That is the reason for the taxation regime.
Amongst other issues, the member for Port Darwin raised the very legitimate issue around reporting. I believe the member for Port Darwin has a very good point, and has pointed out the tardy delivery of the report that I am responsible for to this parliament. I undertake to this parliament that the report will be tabled within these sittings, and I do apologise to parliament for the tardiness of that report.
I am advised by the department that there were two contributing factors to this. The first difficulty was the transition in arrangements between Treasury and DOJ, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out. In fairness to the department and DOJ and, particularly Racing, Gaming and Licensing, it has been a very difficult period for them. With the intervention, there has been a lot of policy work. They have been really stretched over the last 12 months. I know that people like Elizabeth Morris and others have been working day and night, literally, and over weekends, to try to turn out the policy issues and the responses to the federal government - both the previous and current federal government. It has been very difficult in the policy areas that need to be involved in the compilation of the report that you are talking about, to really clear their desk to do it. Message received, member for Port Darwin, you are entirely correct. I stand chastised but I say to the parliament that we will be endeavouring to get that report during these sittings.
The members for Port Darwin and Sanderson raised some legitimate issues in relation to the ability of the minister to set a cap currently. You pointed to the current legislation, section 194(3) of the act. You said the minister already has the capacity to set a cap through regulation through EXCO, etcetera. The reason why we are replacing section 194(3) with section 22B of the act is that section 22B actually expands the powers, if you like, and sets a policy framework for further policy development and implementation by government in relation to a whole range of issues that were not really covered in the old section 194(3). I would like to expand on that with the advice that I have, member for Port Darwin ...
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Okay, sorry, there is no malice in that, member for Sanderson. For the benefit of Hansard, the member for Sanderson.
There are provisions in the act that allow a cap to be set. However, the amendments differ from those in the act in three significant ways. First, the amendments remove the power from the commission to declare a maximum number of gaming machines and places it in the hands of the Administrator to make the regulations on the advice of EXCO, restricting the aggregate number of machines authorised for use in the Territory. This will allow the government to set the cap as a matter of policy.
Currently, as I understand it, the commission has the ability to set a cap for defined periods and the legal basis for the commission doing it could be challenged if either the region or the defined period were to be questioned in a court. The member for Port Darwin is quite right; currently the minister does have the ability - or Cabinet through the minister through EXCO - to direct the Administrator to set a cap, either for a part of the Territory or for the whole Territory. The point is that we have a wider policy intent here, and that is why we are replacing section 194(3) with section 22B.
Second, in the advice that I have, the power in the bill sets in place an ongoing cap as a matter of policy, rather than as just under the current provision to be repealed, which provides that the commission sets the maximum number of machines for a defined period only. I am talking about the commission specifically here. The power under the current provisions provide the commission with the power to set a cap for a particular purpose. This would be used by the commission as a tool in response to a particular set of circumstances. The amending bill provides a broader range for regulations to be made that put in place a particular regime reflecting an ongoing policy decision on the part of government, rather than a specific response for a specific purpose.
The third difference is that the amending bill provides for a variety of other restrictions which may be imposed by regulation on gaming machine numbers. The powers are quite specific and the outcomes they achieve are not possible, I am advised, under the current provision. These powers have been drafted in anticipation of the trading model to come, which places them in a different policy context.
I do not think it is necessary for me to be reading out section 22B. There are provisions in there that:
I believe these are important amendments. As I said before, the Treasurer talked about taxation regimes and Treasury matters but, basically, government has already signalled its intentions; first, in a policy sense to put a cap and stop the unnecessary further proliferation of community gaming machines within the Northern Territory. We have set it at a level that is around the Australian average. There was a potential for it to escalate if various other venues were to apply for their full complement or, as the Liquor Commissioner pointed out, with this bracket creep with venues starting off as restaurants or whatever suddenly getting into the gaming machine market. We thought that that was undesirable.
We also wanted to look at a trading model, one similar to one that operates in Queensland. The important thing about a trading regime is that a gaming machine, although the value is determined by the market - and I would not preempt what the market would determine as the value, but some knowledgeable people are saying within the industry put it at around $100 000 per machine - puts an asset on the bottom line of clubs. We know, as government - and I am sure the opposition know - that there are a number of clubs which struggle to make ends meet and struggle to get money from banks because they have very little in the way of assets. The very nature of their land tenure is also sometimes problematic for them to get borrowings from the bank. Here, though, is a way, through the trading regime, that a value can be ascribed to the gaming machines. I see this as very important.
The clubs, as alluded to before, feel that possibly they should have been given more out of the arrangement. I remind the House that clubs are not subject to the community benefit taxation arrangements which represent about 10% of the profit. They are exempt from that, so they have a lot of discretion how they spend or invest that particular money. We do not prescribe to clubs that you will spend 10% of that profit on community purposes. We allow the clubs to do that. Some of the clubs have infrastructure which requires investment and upkeep. Some of those clubs, on paper anyway, appear to be contributing less back into the community per se. They might not be investing money so much in the Under 15 soccer club, but they may be maintaining a golf course, or a football oval. They do have that discretion.
There are other clubs - and someone mentioned the Arnhem Club before and the amount of money that goes through the Arnhem Club. The Arnhem Club is a stand-out example of putting a lot of money back into the community. I do not know how they do it, but they actually put over 100% back into those community purposes. The Arnhem Club is to be commended. However, as government, we also realise that there are other clubs in other situations which have to maintain infrastructure.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned the issue of bullying, I suppose you would put it, in trading. It has been the experience, earlier on in the Queensland model, where it was felt that some of the bigger players were muscling in some on the smaller players and twisting their arm - that is right, member for Port Darwin - bullying, I suppose would be the word, and getting them to do their bidding. That is something that we will be taking into account with the implementation of a trading scheme.
I felt you were scaremongering a little, member for Port Darwin, when you talked about the poor old Under 15s not getting any money. We will certainly be watching things very carefully - both DOJ and Treasury - to ensure that the maximum amount of funding is put back into the community. We already are. I alluded to this in my second reading speech, at the end. I talked about the trading scheme, but I am talking more generally here. I talked about ensuring that the profits from the gaming machines sector will continue to be put to a good use across the Territory.
The member for Port Darwin seemed to be alluding that there could be a government tax grab going on here and that through the trading scheme the government is going to be engaged in a claw-back exercise to get money back from the sector. I can assure this House and the member for Port Darwin that there have not been any discussions within government about that. Government has given a concession in the taxation regime. Government wants to see a proper trading scheme that is administered properly. We want to see the value of those machines, particularly the asset value of those machines, put on the balance sheet of clubs. What we are trying to do is for the benefit of the community generally, both in putting a cap and moving towards a trading scheme.
I am sure we are going to go to it in committee stage, but I can assure this House that there will be public consultations. There will be industry consultations regarding the trading scheme, and we will be moving towards that. That will also be a good thing for the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I thank members for their offerings. I have heard the concerns, both of the opposition and the Independent. I certainly have taken those concerns on board. I commend this bill to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, by way of your indulgence, you will notice that we have changed the seating arrangements slightly, so that the committee stages …
Madam SPEAKER: I give you my leave for the member of Sanderson to sit in your chair and you to sit in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I would like to put a couple of things to the minister, and ask him to reiterate a number of things. They are questions that I have in relation to the regulations
In the letter the minister wrote to me pointing out the material differences in three ways that new section 22B(2)(a) goes on to change dramatically what section 194(3) says and you alluded to that now in the House. However, my understanding is that this is very similar, and you said that we are actually trying to set something up for the future. I do not quite understand what it is that you are actually setting up, but we are changing things significantly for some policy shift. I do not understand why this cannot wait until we get a trading scheme that we can look at, because there are no substantial differences. Can you enlighten me as to where the need is to bring these things in at this moment, please?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I will take advice on this. I am advised that the major differences are that first, the commission has been taken out of the equation, and second, that the major differences relate to new sections 22B and 22C which open up, as I said, the legislative framework for the implementation of government policy, particularly around the issue of a trading scheme.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, minister. In fact, in paragraph three of the letter that you sent to both the member for Sanderson and me, you said: ‘The powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’, and place the powers in a different context, presumably for the purposes of creating a trading model. How much will the levy be on the transfer of a machine from vendor to purchaser?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as I have said a number of times this evening, we foreshadowed, as a policy intent of government, that we will be looking at the Queensland scheme as a model for an implementation of a trading scheme within the Northern Territory. Nonetheless, we are prepared to be flexible in that regard. That is the first thing that I have said. The second thing I have said is that we are prepared to consult with industry and the public on this particular issue. Our first intent was to establish the cap, and our second intent was to make changes to the taxation regimes. Then, following on from that, as I said in my second reading speech, we will be moving to a trading scheme, the details of which have not been settled.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you would appreciate, then, our obvious concern. As legislators, it is our job to make sure we get this stuff right. The problem I have is that you are asking us to change the law to accommodate a trading scheme. You have now acknowledged that you already have the power - and always have had under the legislation - to impose a cap if you so chose. So, what is really driving this? In your letter, you say: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’. It is very difficult for me, as a legislator, to comfortably pass a legislative instrument, to anticipate a model that even you do not know what it looks like. It is difficult for me, as a legislator, to understand how we can change a legislative instrument with any comfort when we are, basically, throwing ourselves into this hopeful abyss that the legislation that is being changed can accommodate the model, which we do not yet know what it looks like.
You can well understand our caution in relation to supporting this bill. So far, I have heard nothing which gives me comfort that we should support this bill.
I draw your attention to the media release on 17 September 2008, when you said that you have introduced this legislative instrument which we are debating now in the House. The assertion the whole way through is that it is all about a cap and lowering the tax rates. However, in the letter that you provided to me on Monday, you actually said it is drafted in anticipation of a trading model. You can well understand that we would, naturally, be cautious. If you were dealing with, let us say, a car dealer and he said: ‘Just sign the contract; I will fill in the details later’. Would you? I suspect not. I do not feel comfortable signing the contract when I do not know what is in the details.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, in response to the member for Port Darwin, I hear what he is saying. However, I have been in this House long enough now to know that legislation is passed within this House with regulations that sit underneath it, that are determined in consultation and, often, through a policy process. I provide as an example regulations around builder’s licensing - very important in the building industry – and what is required for a builder to get a licence regarding the number of certificates of occupancy that they have, and recognition of prior learning. Very important issues are often sitting below legislation in regulations that are determined, often with public consultation, and this will be no different, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: It is. When you create legislation as you have just described, it is to create a regulatory environment which will capture those things. The regulatory environment that captures these things already exists. You have it. The power is there, it is right there. You do not have to pass the bill. With the exception of the taxation changes - fair enough, I accept that – the real thrust of this media release and the message that we get from this media release is all about protecting the community from the proliferation of these machines. Yet, it is not what it is about at all because current legislation already enables that to occur. You could have issued that media release quite comfortably without coming to this House. That is not what this bill is about. What makes me nervous is that the rationale that was given, both in the second reading speech and in that media release, do not actually reflect the truth which is captured in a letter I received only a few days ago which says: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’.
For that reason, minister - and you can comment on this if you like - we will not be supporting this bill. This side of the House will not be supporting this bill. If you choose to comment on that, well and good. But, frankly, the sales job that has been done on this legislative change and what was actually sought to be achieved has been disingenuous.
I will finish with these observations. I am disappointed that the laws of this House have not been followed in relation to the reporting demands of your portfolio area. Whilst I understand and accept the demands on the public service, the integrity of this House and the laws that it passes is something that we, as legislators, have to jealously protect - and I jealously protect the laws of this House. Whilst I appreciate there are other demands on the public service, we pass laws for very good reasons.
The abyss into which these reporting demands have fallen is troubling to me because sadly - and I do not believe it is intentional, but over time, particularly in the last parliamentary term where four members of the opposition often struggled to deal with all of the issues they had to deal with simply because of the workload - there were occasions when things slipped through to the keeper. It became easier for government which, believe it or not, minister, is subordinate to this House. Government only exists because the numbers in this House give the government the power to exist. Government had become too comfortable in its position.
That no longer is the case. I remind ministers it is their job to ensure the laws to which they and their departments should adhere are followed, and the supremacy of this House is respected by government, those in the public service, as well as by Cabinet ministers. We are the supreme governing body by virtue of one important fact: the people of the Northern Territory put us in this place.
By virtue of the fact that the people of the Northern Territory put a majority of people who support the government into this place by a whisker means that you have the right to form a government. Nevertheless, this is the supreme body of the Northern Territory not the institutions of the executive.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I pick up on the explanations the minister has consistently given regarding this legislation. It is broader than simply the powers that previously existed for the commissioner. There is a fundamental change here. As he said, the government is removing the Licensing Commissioner from the picture and is to provide certainty around the cap on gaming machines - a whole new policy setting a cap; a cap to stay under this government’s policy direction.
Second, very clearly, I mentioned in my contribution there are taxation changes occurring with these initiatives. We recognise we want to be less reliant on taxation arrangements. I understand the opposition members’ concern around the regulatory ability to bring in the trading scheme that sits under this legislation. However, it is not government’s intent to be overly penalising through those levies. As we said, we are about moving with other Australian jurisdictions away from that broad reliance on gaming revenue because of a policy setting where we want to see the reduction of harm in our community from gaming. That is our true policy intent here.
We will not be, by sleight of hand, coming in and ratchetting some strong levies through a gaming machine trading scheme. That is not our policy intent at all. The minister is very genuine in saying there will be consultation with industry and with the community more broadly on the trading scheme. He has said in both the second reading debate as well as committee stage debate, that we have framed a trading scheme model based on the Queensland model; the details have not been settled yet; and we will be going through that process of consulting with the industry and the community.
The lecture from the member for Port Darwin regarding the way the government needs to report and not be arrogant is a consistent theme. The minister very clearly acknowledged that there was a genuine oversight in Racing, Gaming and Licensing - not deliberate, not thumbing their nose at this parliament, a genuine oversight - in their failure to report. He explained there were two influences on that: (1) was the change of the Administrative Arrangements; and (2) was the significant body of policy work that RGL has been undertaking as a result of the federal government intervention. It was not deliberate and the minister has clearly explained those two contributing factors.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to section 22B and ask the minister a couple of questions.
There is a table on page 14 of the NT Licensing Commission Annual Report 2006-07 on their website in relation to new gaming machine licence approvals. It says that there were 10 licence approvals in 2007 for hotels and one for clubs. If you are introducing a cap, have all those hotels and clubs been able to take up the machines that they have been given approval for before this capping was arrived at, or does this cap cover any outstanding approvals?
Dr BURNS: A good question, member for Nelson. I am advised that it does cover those that were in the process, that had submitted. I believe all outstanding applications that were in the system have gone through. Yes, all approved applications were included in the cap. As I understand it, there are no outstanding applications.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I am not as with it in regard to some of the machinations of the way taxation, fees and all that occurs within the gaming machine industry. When I read this act, I read it as exactly what it said: Gaming Machine Amendment (Anti-Proliferation) Bill. I did not read it as a gaming machine amendment (anti-proliferation and trading) bill. In other words, I looked at it purely as a mechanism that the government was putting forward to introduce some controls over the number of gaming machines we have in the industry.
However, listening to the debate, I see that you cannot just say there is this number of machines unless you have a mechanism to deal with the machines that, for instance, nobody wants any more. The two concerns I have are that, to some extent, by supporting this legislation, I am doing so without really knowing what the mechanism is now for the trading of these gaming machines. I understand that could be a regulation, but I feel a bit empty standing here and saying: ‘Oh well, that is fine, trust the government. It is all in the regulations’. This is a major change to a system we have. Whilst I support the idea of capping, if it comes with some sort of mechanism of trading that I do not really understand, or have no idea what impact that will have, it is very difficult for me to say, yes, fine.
Why does this have to go through now? Maybe it is the same question the member for Sanderson asked. It would have been far more logical if you came up with a package now. I know you are capping them and, once they are capped, there will be a mechanism for trading, because the two go together. Why could we not have the regulations ready, because regulations can be debated here as well? Why could we not have had this whole package set up to be debated as one, and not, as I see it, going through the period of a vacuum to some extent now?
Dr BURNS: As I alluded to in my wrap-up in the debate, one of the reasons I have been very keen to bring a cap in, in this way, is the proliferation of machines and the bracket creep that was alluded to by the Liquor Commissioner. I felt it was important to bring some certainty around the cap, but also give a way forward, and a broad framework for, as you say, the trading and the rationalisation of machines. It may very well be that, with the expansion of the Northern Territory, say, in the Palmerston area, there may be a new club that wants to open. If there is no way for trading of machines and opening up new venues, that then puts an impediment there. I believe there has to be some flexibility. There also has to be account - and I foreshadow this as part of what I want to see in the trading scheme, and a reasonable cap.
First, we are not going to have the bleeding of clubs on a regional basis and a massive shift of assets from those clubs. Also, I do not want to see, and I do not think the community wants to see, a further concentration of gambling machines in depressed socioeconomic areas, because we know that often the people who play and have a problem with the machines are the people who can least afford them. Those are two areas that we need to look at as a community. We also have to look at, with the industry, how a trading scheme might work; how we can avoid undesirable effects of further concentration of machines in particular areas. There is a whole range of other issues we need to look at. I am not putting definite lines in there, or whatever. I am saying to you that we need to move forward. I have given an undertaking that we will have a process of consultation with the community and the industry, but using the Queensland model as a basis.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to put it now into context from a practical point of view. Some of the issues you raised make me more worried. You are talking about policy issues - where we should have poker machines and where not, and have a proliferation here because of socioeconomic issues. Much of that is really part of what should have come forward in this package as they are really important issues to debate as part of an anti-proliferation bill.
Be that as it may, what you are saying is, once this bill has passed, no one can get any more poker machines at the present time because there will not be a trading system in place. So, if a new club starts at Coolalinga under the proposed new shopping centre there - I am sure the minister will be pleased to look at that when it comes up for an application …
Ms Lawrie: He will be pleased to support it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I will be supporting it. Say there is a licensed premise within that facility. Until a trading system is in place, they will definitely not get any more poker machines. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: Yes, that is correct, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: If a small club - and I will give you an example. A hotel, the Adelaide River Inn, actually decided it did not want - I think it was 10 machines, I will just check. It only says nought here. However, they must have ceased to want to operate poker machines, so they handed those back. What would actually happen now? Where would those machines go? I am talking at this present time when there is no trading scheme in operation. If the facility at Coolalinga wanted some poker machines, and there was someone else at another club who wanted some poker machines, and you have these 10 poker machines that someone has handed in, what would happen now? Could a club apply for those machines that have been handed in?
Dr BURNS: That is the detail of the trading scheme that needs to be established, member for Nelson. In broad terms, there will be capacity for those with existing machines to trade them - not physically trade the machine that is there, and someone comes and picks it up and puts it somewhere else, but a capacity to trade the asset elsewhere. As I understand it, the Queensland system does have a market value. As I said previously, I do not want to put a value on machines, the market will determine that. People who have been in this industry and have a lot of experience have said to me, in their opinion, that these machines could be worth $100 000 per machine.
Mr WOOD: Minister, what I was trying to highlight, and it may not happen is you are going to put a cap now without a trading scheme. A trading scheme at the present time does not exist; we will pass this cap. During that period, which is what I call a vacuum, something could happen, such as a club or a hotel could decide, ‘We do not want our 10 poker machines’. What physically happens to those machines? Do they hand them back to the government? If so, then who can apply for them and what process would there be for people who wish to apply for those spare poker machines?
Ms LAWRIE: I will help with the clarification. The practical reality is, once this legislation passes, people who have a gaming machine understand they are sitting on a soon-to-be-tradable asset, so your hypothetical will not, in my humble opinion, occur. Even if they do not have in the plan of their club, at Adelaide River or wherever, to continue with that gaming machine corner - they have a few gaming machines there and they say: ‘We are going to remodel and we do not want those there and we want to get rid of them’ - no club is going to get rid of what will soon be a tradeable commodity. They are just not going to do it, because if they hang on to it for a while and the trading scheme comes in place, they will be able to trade those and invest that back into their club.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Some general questions on trading. You have section 22B which has a lot of controls over it. Will these controls be used to regulate the trading scheme? You are saying that you might not want more poker machines over here so, when someone wants to buy five poker machines from the club that is going out of business will they be restricted by the existing number of machines they are allowed, such as 45 for a club and 10 for a pub? Say they want to have an extra five and they only have five. You mention that you might want to regulate that we do not have any more poker machines.
I mentioned the other day at the briefing that there are five or six machines at the Three Ways Roadhouse near the corner of the Barkly Highway and the Stuart Highway. If they did not have the number of poker machines that were permitted and they wanted some more, are you able to step in and say: ‘No, you cannot have them’ - even though they could buy them if they wanted - simply because you are now going to say that you think it could be bad socioeconomics or there could be some social issues in relation to taking on those extra poker machines at that particular venue?
Dr BURNS: You are asking very specific questions about a trading regime. I have already outlined, in general terms as I understand it, the Queensland trading scheme has the capacity first, to look at a regional cap, and second, to look at the concentration. They do have formulae and other ways of determining whether there is a potential concentration of gaming machines within a particular area, particularly a lower socioeconomic area that may already have more than enough gaming machines. What we have to do is look at the model. We need, as a community and as industry, to look at that and come up with a model that is suitable for the Northern Territory, but still preserves the flexibility of being able to trade. As you have asked, and I have responded, people will be able to trade within the current venue-type cap - which is 10 for hotels and 45 for clubs.
Mr WOOD: Under this new section 22B, you will be the person who decides on the numbers in the region, not the commissioner? Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: There may very well be a regulatory framework that refers to the commission, with advice to the minister. These are things we need to look at.
Mr WOOD: I am not trying to labour the issue, but I thought that maybe I misread. You said the difference between the existing regulation 194 where, basically, the commissioner could control the numbers under the present situation; the change was that you were taking it away from the commissioner and putting it in the hands of the minister. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: In answer to your question, currently the commissioner has a capacity to put in a cap or a reasonable cap for a defined period. Neither the commissioner nor the minister, as I understand it, have the capacity under the current legislation to implement a trading regime. It may very well be the regulations that are introduced involve the commission in their investigations and recommendations to a minister about reasonable caps. There may be guidelines in the formulae and factors that are taken into account in determining whether there is an over-concentration of machines in a particular locality.
I am further advised, member for Nelson, that the commissioner is the arbiter of individual licence applications. That is not the purview of the minister.
Mr WOOD: Let me get the mechanism right. First of all, someone who lives at Woop Woop - this is under the new scheme after being capped and the trading scheme comes into place - would apply for permission for a gaming licence - say it was a hotel out on the Victoria Highway - which would allow them, in theory, to have 10 gaming machines. Then, it would be up to the minister, if they know a place they can buy 10 machines from, to have some role in that. Under section 22B, would you not be the one who can say how many they can have, not the commissioner?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, I am advised that whilst government would, possibly through the minister, set regional caps - and I suppose the extent and nature of a region would have to be determined - individual applications, as I said previously, from particular venues within that would be made through the commission.
Mr WOOD: If that is to occur, would you not, at this stage, be setting up a plan which would show what those restrictions would be? You set a cap; you are looking at a trading scheme. It is obvious that the government has a policy in mind that says: ‘We would like to restrict certain regions’. Has that been done before a trading scheme comes into place?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, there has been some preliminary work done with the Department of Justice and also Treasury, examining the Queensland model, but much more work has to be done. The first step has to be the passage of this legislation. I have given the undertaking of implementing a trading scheme in the first half of calendar year 2009.
Mr WOOD: Would that trading scheme include, for the guidance of people who are in this industry, a policy in relation to capping within regions or towns within the Territory before the trading scheme comes into place?
Dr BURNS: Absolutely, we will want to give certainty to industry and the public, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: This gets back to my concern that it is okay to cap it, which I support, but I would have liked to have seen the full picture being presented to parliament so that we can see exactly how the whole thing works. Then, we would have the chance to say: ‘Yes, that is a good system. We have reasonable capping in certain areas’. You would present that to parliament and the reasons why you have restrictions in some areas, and follow that up with the system of trading. That is something that is worth debating here. I am sure the industry would want feedback on that. I am also interested in feedback from the people who are concerned about the proliferation, because this was, or still is, an anti-proliferation bill. We are getting a bit of it, but not the total picture. I would rather have seen the total picture. I know it is about regulations, but that does not mean we cannot debate those regulations in parliament.
This is a very important bill. It is a change in the government’s policy. It has ramifications to the industry. I am reluctant to support this bill. I did not see some of the ramifications of what is happening. As I said before, I am not an expert on some of these things but, looking at it now, it would make more sense if the whole thing came together at once.
I do not know whether that would have meant there would have been a rush on gaming machine licence approvals. I would have thought that the commissioner would have said: ‘We are assessing things at the moment; there is a moratorium on any more approvals because the government is going to come forward with a package’, and this would have been part of the package. That is my concern at the moment, minister.
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, you have raised a very good issue here. In my discussions with the commissioner, when I foreshadowed to him that government was examining a cap, he was very concerned that there had been a number of applications before the commission which were unsuitable applications. He was concerned about the lack of power of the commission, if you like, to impose a cap. The advice that I was given was that this path is the best path forward, both legislatively and in a policy sense. As you pointed out, if we were to go out with consultation - and it is important to go out with consultation about regional caps; about a framework for a trading scheme - we would have been hit with a whole range of applications once people got wind that each machine was going to be worth a potential $100 000. We would have been hit with a whole lot of applications and the whole idea of stopping the proliferation of machines would have been down the drain.
I hope that explains it. I probably let some of my thinking out here, but it explains part of the reason why government has moved down in the step-wise progression that it has. In other words: to impose the cap and to get together a legislative framework to move on with a trading scheme. I cannot really say much more than that. If we had gone out another way with consultation around the trading scheme, which is vitally important I believe in a public policy sense, the whole thing would have fallen down.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. I was quickly looking through the consideration of an application for a gaming machine licence at the moment under section 25. I would have thought somewhere in that the commissioner would have had the power to say there is a moratorium based on the fact that the government is reviewing the legislation and considering a cap, and just said there will simply be no more licence approval until the change has been approved.
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, I am advised that the commissioner does not have power to put in a moratorium, as you say. I can only go back to what I have said previously in relation to this matter. I cannot really enlarge too much more on that.
Mr WOOD: The member for Sanderson wants to say something. My next question is just related to a further section, if someone has some questions before that.
Mr STYLES: Minister, both you and the Treasurer have said that you are looking at the process. Can you enlighten us as to where you are in relation to looking at the Queensland model? How far down the track you are and even how long it might take before you come to some sort of a conclusion, or perhaps get some better advice?
Dr BURNS: Member for Sanderson, I already foreshadowed to the member for Nelson that there has been preliminary work done by the Department of Justice and the Treasury, and some information has come up to me about the trading scheme in Queensland.
As I foreshadowed to the member for Nelson, I would be looking at implementing a trading scheme, at least within the first half of calendar year 2009, towards the middle of calendar year 2009, given the fact that there has to be public consultation. The basic works are there, but what we have to do is get this out in the public domain now and have some discussion about a trading scheme.
Mr STYLES: Minister, you are talking about consultation. Has the consultation with industry and other interested groups started?
Dr BURNS: Well, inasmuch as I meet regularly with industry groups, I have certainly met with Clubs NT, and also the AHA, which are, I suppose, the major groups. There is a variety of feelings about this. There are some individuals and some groups that are really embracing this and thinking this is a good way to go in terms of trading. There are others who are a bit more reserved about it, and that is understandable; it is a new policy coming to the Territory. What we have to do is work with industry and the public because, as the member for Nelson said, it is not just industry that is involved here.
There are people like Amity House and others who pick up the pieces, if you like, of those who have problems with gambling, and we need to engage with those groups as well. I am looking for the opportunity. I am not sure whether I will get the opportunity between now and the end of the year. I hope that I will. I am going to Brisbane for a meeting of Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It is my intention to spend some time with the regulators in Queensland, and to see and hear firsthand from them about the trading scheme in Queensland.
Mr STYLES: Minister, in reference to the new section 22B which, in effect, replaces the old section 194(3), can you confirm that this change removes the use of a formula to set the number of machines?
Dr BURNS: You might need to be a bit more specific, member for Sanderson. Which relationship are you talking about here in terms of formulae?
Mr STYLES: In section 194(3)(a), it says:
In the new section 22B(2), in both (a) and (b), it just says restrict the aggregate number of gaming machines authorised for use under gaming machine licences in a particular part of the Territory to a maximum fixed. The question I am getting to here is: if you have a number of machines in Alice Springs, is that going to change with this? Is this going to be just an open trading scheme? Whilst on that question, what would the value be placed on, say, the machines in Alice Springs as opposed to machines in Darwin? Are they going to be valued at the same price?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that, in answer to the formulae, that section 22B(c) and (d) do have the capacity for a formula to be applied if necessary, similar to the old section 194(3). In relation to your question about values of machines across the Territory, it is not the physical machine that could be in Alice Springs and it is valued at X and shipped up to Darwin, if necessary. It is really a notional transfer. I imagine that a trading scheme that encapsulated the whole of the Territory would be a free and open scheme. However, if there were regional caps, that could be a market factor. Yes, you are right. However, I am not going to speculate on the value of a machine in a particular locality.
Mr STYLES: We do not actually have the trading scheme in front of us and there are things that you have alluded to. I am just trying to get some idea of where we are at. If, for instance, there is a sporting club in a small community in rural or regional Australia, and they say: ‘We are just a very small club and we would like to open a premises. We would love to apply for some gaming machines and there is another club that wants to sell them’. If they are $100 000 each, the small club that might want five machines in their premises for what is legitimate recreational and leisure use and responsible use, is going to have to find $500 000 to buy those machines. Is that what you are alluding to in relation to the rough values of the machines?
Dr Burns: No, I am not saying that.
Ms LAWRIE: The minister has said he is not going to put a value on the machine. He has said what some industry people have said could be the value of the machines. We went through with the member for Nelson the hypothetical of if you are small club and you have the licence for the machines, but you only have five machines and you want five more machines, a trading scheme would deal with the club’s ability to trade in the licences for the additional machines. This is what the minister is referring to in a notional transfer. People do not come in with trolleys and remove the machinery and ship it to somewhere. We are saying that there are trading models that exist. The trading model on which we are basing our research and our intent is the Queensland trading model. However, we very much want to test how a model based on the Queensland trading model would actually work within the concepts of the Territory, and within the policy intent of the government; for example, to not concentrate gaming into particular socioeconomic areas where they already have high densities of gaming machines.
Understanding that we have a large Northern Territory, we have already flagged that regional caps would be part of the consultation of the model. You can fish for any more detail but, genuinely, what we have said is where we are at as a government. What we have said is that this legislation gives the framework for the trading scheme to come back in regulation. The Subordinate Legislation committee of the parliament deals with the regulations. The minister is on the record clearly and consistently saying it is absolutely his intent to consult on the model, not just with industry but with the community.
Mr STYLES: Can you enlighten me as to what the comparison of the average turnover through the machines is between Alice Springs and Darwin? Do you have those figures available?
Dr BURNS: No, I do not have those figures available with me here, member for Sanderson.
Mr STYLES: Minister, you might be able to correct me …
Dr BURNS: Just to add, even in Darwin, between pubs and clubs and different venues, there is a wide variation of returns through machines. It is almost on a case-by-case basis, so it is a very difficult question to answer.
Mr STYLES: Minister, information that has been given to me is that the throughput in the machines in Alice Springs is about half of what it is in Darwin. This indicates to me that if you were going to have a trading scheme, then the machines in Alice Springs are going to have perhaps more value putting them through up here, because there is a much larger turnover through the machines in Darwin than there is in Alice Springs, which brings me back to a situation where you do not have set numbers for different localities.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Sanderson, right through the debate the minister and I have consistently said we are looking at a scheme of regional caps. So, where is your question going?
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, I have constituents asking me if anyone has any idea as to what is going to happen. I ask my question so I can have some information to take back to my constituents. Given that that is the case, will the new cap result in the ability for machines in other areas to be moved around - say for instance from clubs to pubs? Is there any indication as to what this model is? My understanding is, currently in Queensland, there are bidding wars going on at the moment. Minister, can you enlighten me as to whether you or your department are aware of the bidding wars that are occurring in Queensland at the moment in relation to gaming machine licences?
Dr BURNS: I have already indicated, if the member for Sanderson had been listening when I was talking earlier tonight, that I am aware of bidding wars. I am aware of problems in Queensland in what might be called bullying between venues and solutions that Queensland is coming up with to address that issue. We seem to be getting into a lot of detail about the trading scheme. I have said time and time again this evening that government will be moving towards a trading scheme based on the Queensland model; that we will be going out to public consultation not only with the industry but with other organisations. People will be consulted. I am quite sure that, in that process, the member for Sanderson can make submissions if he likes, as well as industry. He can make his views known about what sort of model he would like to see in a trading scheme within the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. On 18 July 2008, you announced that there would be a cap of 1190 gaming machines. Can you inform us under what legislation you actually made that cap of 1190 machines?
Dr BURNS: Under this prospective legislation, member for Sanderson. I make it clear I have already spoken about discussions that I had with the Liquor Commissioner, Mr Richard O’Sullivan. He made it clear that, if government made the clear intent of first announcing the legislation to come into this House, and then through introducing it into this House - and we will pass it here tonight within this House - that gave him sufficient comfort in not processing further applications for gaming machines. A similar thing was done, I might add, before you came into this House, in relation to electronic ID systems in hotels. The industry accepted that quite well. Technically, someone could have raised a legal challenge but, once the intent of government was quite clear, industry accepted that and they were actually quite cooperative.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. It still did not answer the question. Perhaps I could ask the question in a different way. When you introduced the cap of 1190 machines on 18 July 2008, did you use section 194(3) to introduce that particular cap?
Dr BURNS: The answer is no.
Mr STYLES: Minister, what were the arrangements? You said you announced there would be a cap. It was introduced on that date.
Dr BURNS: Member for Sanderson, I have already answered that question. I already told you what the process was and how I signalled my intention to the Liquor Commissioner. He took comfort from both the fact that government was introducing that cap and signalled its intention. He explained how he would handle any prospective applications. I do not think there were any applications in that period except from ones that may have already been in the system. I would need to confirm that.
Mr STYLES: Minister, having said that the consultation process may take to the middle of next year, that is going to be a full year where there will be no applications processed. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: Well, it is very plain there is a cap in place.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. In relation to the taxation arrangements that this amendment makes, if we go to section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations, we repeal and substitute the new taxation regime. Can you or the Treasurer advise us if there are any estimates done on what the reduced tax income to the Northern Territory government will be?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, as I said in my contribution to debate. I will just get back to my desk. It is about $5.1m per year loss of revenue from pubs and about $1.4m for clubs.
Mr STYLES: So that was $5m?
Ms LAWRIE: $5.1m per year for pubs and $1.4m per year for clubs.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, I suppose I am stating the obvious here, but that is a huge windfall for hotels over a period of time where there is no trading scheme in place, and there is no income from any possible trading scheme. Basically, we are just giving $4.5m away to hotels. Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one other thing before we wind up, thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for your forthright comments before. As I said at the outset of my contribution during the second reading of the debate, I was entirely impressed by this report when Treasury brought it out because it was truly a very informative report, particularly several grants and tables.
I ask that you undertake tonight to turn your attention to all wagers made on page 20 of the 2005-06 report, so that the columns for the years 2007 and 2008 be added. I ask you also to undertake tonight that you reproduce the table which appears on page 21 of this report, which is the 2005-06 annual report, adding the columns to bring this information up to date, regarding the player loss for the years 2007 and 2008. Finally, I ask if you could pay particular attention to the table which appears on page 23 of this report, adding the gambling taxes collected, years 2007 and 2008. Minister, will you undertake to provide those three particular items of information, please?
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I need to confer a little more with my officer and I will answer your question.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I will let you confer while I remind honourable members what is in these particular tables. Honourable members, it is truly an astonishing figure. If you turn to this report, page 20, there is the amount wagered by Territorians. With a population of around 200 000 in the year 2002 we, as a community - and this does not include all the illegal games that we see in the parks in the communities in the remote places - wagered $2.3m. By the year 2006, that increased to $4.5m.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I have been assured by people in the department that they will endeavour to pull those three reports together. What you actually have there, I am advised, are three reports. It will not be, obviously, what is in the pipeline now to be tabled next week, but the report after that, which will be next year’s report. We will be reporting it in the format that you have asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I have to express my disappointment at that. I do not want it next year. This demonstrates how good and informative this report was. The fact is that, in this report, it says that, in the space of four years, we changed our wagering habits from $2.3bn to $4.5bn. By your own admission in this House, by you bringing this cap in, you are saying we have a problem. Territorians have the right to know what the enormity of that problem is. The enormity of that problem is reflected in those three particular statements. To simply say: ‘Oh, come back next year and we will talk about it’, is not good enough. It really is not. I ask you to undertake to this House that you will provide that information as a matter of some urgency so that Territorians can be fully informed as to the magnitude of this particular issue in the Northern Territory. Justify your case – surely, it is worth doing.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, you are talking about three specific tables.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Dr BURNS: All right. What I will endeavour to do is get the department to produce the three specific tables that you have asked for. At some stage - I am not saying at this sittings; it may be the sittings after these sittings, the last sittings of this calendar year - I will endeavour to table those three tables in this parliament. If you want to tell me again specifically which tables they are out of that report, so we are just very clear about that.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I am referring to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission Annual Report 2005-06: Table 10 appearing on page 20 of that document, Turnover All Wagers Made; Table 11, Expenditure Player Loss, page 21 of that document; and, finally, Table 13 on page 23, Gambling Taxes Collected Year Ended 30 June, which is the taxation take by government on wagering in the Northern Territory. Those three specific tables, of course, plus what the legal requirements are under the act.
Dr BURNS: As I said, I will endeavour to get those three tables and table them at the last sittings of this year. The report that is currently in the pipeline, I believe, has been completed. However, I will endeavour to get the information that you want and table it as soon as possible, at the outside, the last sittings of this calendar year.
I should also point out, member for Port Darwin, that the figures that you quote, I would estimate think, not only include gaming machine revenue, but revenue through corporate bookmakers and online betting as well which, obviously, is probably a bit out of the realms of Territorians to come up with that sort of moolah ...
Mr Elferink: It is a bucket load of money!
Dr BURNS: Certainly, it is a lot of money. I have given the undertaking and I hope that satisfies you.
Mr ELFERINK: I am obliged to you, minister. I look forward to receiving that information, thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, as I said before, I would like to also discuss some issues related to section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. The member for Sanderson actually raised an interesting point. Minister, in your reply earlier, you said the reason that there was a reduction in the tax revenue was to offset, basically, the cost of purchasing machines. Is that not correct? If it was not, could you repeat why you were saying that it was okay to have a reduction in the amount of money raised from this taxation process?
Ms LAWRIE: What the Territory government has done with the taxation regime here is to create a regime to allow for the tradability; to get the percentages lining up between the pubs and clubs in the percentage of revenue being paid in tax. It was based on the range of gross monthly profit. Through my contribution, I talked around what those ranges are and what the proposed regime for the taxation is, so that we can have a lining up between the taxation ratings, between the pubs and the clubs, because there was no lining up previously. However, if you have a tradeable scheme you have to have that.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, did you say you are having a lining up of taxation between pubs and club and things like that?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. For example, under the clubs, the $5000 gross monthly profit proposed regime attracts 12.91%; $5001 to $10 000 attracts 12.91% - this is for both pubs and clubs; $10 001 to $50 000 attracts 22.91%; $50 001 to $100 000 attracts 22.91%; $100 001 to $150 000 attracts 32.91%; $150 001 to $200 000 attracts 32.91%; and $200 000-plus attracts 42.91%. We looked at the percentages of the clubs’ regime, we changed the thresholds for the clubs, and adjusted the pubs’ regime over to those percentages.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, can you enlighten me as to the tax take for the Northern Territory government for the years 2006-07, for hotels and clubs, please?
Ms LAWRIE: On figures provided to me for the year ended 30 June 2007, the total gaming tax for hotels was $8.525m. In addition, they paid the Community Benefit levy - which, under the new regime, they would pay a 10% Community Benefit levy - of $1.986m. The total for the clubs over the same period was $14.759m. That reflects the difference between the pubs having a limit of 10 machines and clubs 45 machines.
Mr STYLES: I am not trying to be cute, but is it possible for you to table that?
Ms LAWRIE: Sure. I am happy to table it.
Mr STYLES: Thank you. It is just easier to read it.
Ms LAWRIE: If you ask me to refer to it again I will not have it in front of me.
Mr STYLES: That is fine, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I need some clarification on an important point. We are, basically, getting rid of section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. Section 33(1) said that Category 1 licensed premises were taxed at 42.91%. I presume that is just a flat tax in that case. Under section 33(2) which is for Category 2 licensed premises, you had a table similar to the table you have now under section 33 of the new act. You got rid of the gaming machines tax under the Gaming Machine Regulations - which is clause 10 of this bill, which says to repeal and substitute Regulation 33 - replaced it with this combined taxation table which says:
As you said, minister, you have combined the two and you have told us that by combining the two the government will lose a certain amount of money. Is that correct? If that is true, why have we not worked out a percentage of tax, using this combined format, that meant that the government was not worse off in relation to tax loss?
Ms LAWRIE: I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that the government’s intent was not to come out of a tax mutual position here. Clearly, I said that, like other jurisdictions around Australia, we are moving away from reliance on gaming revenue. We recognise the social policy settings in which we view gaming. What we are looking for is the right policy settings. Getting the policy settings we have before us in this bill in place is more important to government than holding on to every bit of gaming revenue we can or, indeed, ratcheting up gaming revenue. We will not be punitive in our approach to the levies that come through the trading scheme. We are intent on establishing an environment in the Territory where we do not see a continued proliferation of gaming machines, and allow for the tradability of the machines that currently exist within the pubs and clubs of the Territory.
Mr WOOD: I did not get that understanding before when I looked at this. It concerns me that the government is willing to lose taxation revenue which could be used for the benefit of those people who are suffering from the abuse of the system. Considering we have now capped the number of machines, it seems a bit strange that we have no problem losing some revenue from taxation. They are already paying that much tax. I have not had complaints from the industry saying: ‘Oh, that is terrible’. But now we have said: ‘Oh, well, we have capped it.’ It is a little like a golden handshake. At the same time of capping it, we have also reduced the amount of tax you pay.
I am not sure I can see the great logic in that, because there was no problem previously. At least I did not have people knocking on my door saying they are paying too much tax. Yet, we have made this reduction in tax and you are going to lose that each year, of course. If it is $5m we are losing in tax this year, it is $5m we are losing in tax next year. I would have thought that is the sort of money we should not be giving away. We should be retaining that amount of taxation and putting that in to help those people, especially, who have gambling problem. I am sure Amity House would be quite pleased to take some of that money. Minister, I cannot see the logic there.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure, it is getting repetitive, but we will persevere. I very clearly heard the Attorney-General say that we recognise that there are not foregone property rights in what we are introducing in the cap but foregone potential revenue, if you like …
Dr Burns: An expansion.
Ms LAWRIE: An expansion. We are capping. There are a whole lot of pubs and clubs out there who are not sitting at their limits. There is a potential 1000 machines, if you want to take it up to their limits. There is potential for expansion. With this legislation today, that has been capped.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify, what you are saying is that you are reducing the tax as a form of compensation for those clubs that, potentially, could have bought more machines. Is that what you are saying?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not using the word ‘compensation’.
Dr Burns: Recognition.
Mr WOOD: If the government is serious it just says: ‘We have capped it, that is our policy, too bad’. That is what you should be saying; the tax stays the same. If you are really serious, the so-called compensation or recognition should not really be overriding the very gist of this bill which was based on the fact ‘that there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole’. We should have just capped it.
We should retain the taxation at that level and we should use that taxation for the very reason this bill is being introduced: an anti-proliferation bill that is concerned about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and society as a whole. That is a retrograde step. To bring down the tax is sending the wrong message to the community. That is saying: ‘We do have a problem. You will not be able to have as many machines, so we will give you a bit of a tax deduction’. I do not think that that is the right message we should be giving out to the public at the moment.
Ms LAWRIE: We do not think that that is the message that we are giving. In terms of the gambling grants, research and amelioration, it has gone from $531 206 in total payments in 2000-01 to $2.467m in 2007-08. The spirit of Syd Stirling is starting to imbue me here because, by this stage he would have been red and he would have been shouting. He was a man of enormous passion about tackling the scourge of gambling in our community. Here we are with legislation in the Chamber that we genuinely have been debating, that we genuinely have been explaining a seismic shift in policy for a Territory government on gaming machines - and you are saying we are sending the wrong messages. Well, we beg to differ.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not saying you are sending the wrong message regarding the capping. You are sending the wrong message regarding taxation. Why should you drop the tax? Why should we reduce the tax? That is how many gaming machines we have; that is the normal amount of tax you would have received. Leave it as it is. Why reduce the amount of tax? That is the message …
Ms LAWRIE: As I have said, all Australian jurisdictions are shifting away from reliance on gaming taxation. You listen to the gaming debates: move away from your reliance on gaming taxation. Well, hello! We are doing it.
Mr WOOD: I thought gambling was a problem. I thought making revenue for governments to raise revenue from taxing gambling was the normal thing. I have not heard of this great change. If it is, I would like to hear the basis on why you think it is not important for governments to take tax from gambling. If the government is simply using that as a freebie, maybe you have a point. We should put that money back into helping people with problems – it may be not only gambling problems, one of the major problems in the Territory is alcohol.
Some of that money should go back into programs which are desperately needed in many parts of our community. We should put it back into programs like petrol sniffing programs and drug rehabilitation. I would rather see that $5m not go back into the hands of the poker machine industry, but go back into those sorts of areas which we desperately need money for. Maybe Amity House has enough money for gambling rehabilitation. I will have to ask them. I know that our society certainly does not have enough money when it comes to alcohol rehabilitation programs in the Territory. We are screaming out for money for those programs. Do not put that $5m back into the hands of the gaming industry; put it back into alcohol rehabilitation if that is what is needed.
I just looked at the figures and profits. The industry does not need that $5m. At the end of 2007, the hotels made a total gross profit of $19.867m. The clubs made a profit of $43.83m. In total, they made $63m, and we are now giving them a $5m discount. On top of that, we have the casinos profit of $104.1m. I do not believe we should be giving them a reduction at all.
On that alone I will not support it, if this is what this means, which I did not understand when I had a briefing. If that is what it means, I will not support a reduction in the taxation through this bill. That is sending the wrong message. We should be using that money for looking after people.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the bill be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Conlan
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Ms Lawrie Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Scrymgour Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the reason we are not supporting this bill, although we are sympathetic to the principal of tax, is that this government has been, to say the least, disingenuous with Territorians.
The media release on 17 September was to advise Territorians that these caps were necessary because of the problem gaming in the Northern Territory, and all those sorts of things. What they did not say was what we finally dredged out of government – it took a while; only got it last Monday - that the powers that the minister claimed that he needed to put a cap on was going to be contained in the legislation he was putting before the House. It has become patently clear and the minister by his own admission has accepted that the powers to put a cap on poker machines were already in existence.
The real question that arose in this debate is what is really driving this particular amendment. In a letter I received last Monday in my office, on my desk - someone had opened the door and put the letter in; that is normally how the stuff arrives - the real issue was buried in the bottom of the letter where it said: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’ ...
Ms Lawrie: It was in the second reading speech.
Mr ELFERINK: No. Reference to a trading model was in the second reading speech. But, the second reading speech was designed to make the reader think there was nothing else, and this was a legislative instrument that was going to enable the minister to be able to put a cap on poker machine numbers - a power he already had.
The minister has come into this place demanding a power that he already has; to establish a trading model we know nothing about. There were some questions asked during the committee stage of this bill about the model and, out of those questions, some details were filled in. The minister has asked the members of this House to do the equivalent of signing a blank contract – ‘Do not worry about it I will fill out the details later’ - on the pretext that he needed a power that he already had.
We, as legislators, have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory to ask critical questions. On this occasion, we have visited this particular issue, asked a few critical questions, and found the government profoundly wanting on some very important details - in particular, the details of the trading scheme that the minister, by his own admission, says that he does not know enough about.
He cannot even tell me the value of the levies. The only reference that he can direct us to is the Queensland model. He has not even come into this House and tabled the Queensland model as a point of reference for us. It is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to take our responsibilities very seriously indeed. We cannot come in here and sign blank cheques for the minister to say: ‘Trust me, I will fill in the blanks later’.
The other thing that I am profoundly concerned about, that has come out as a consequence of this debate - and it goes to the very heart on how this government conducts business - is a letter from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory dated 6 August to Mr A Hay, the President of Clubs NT Incorporated. In that letter the Chief Minister said to Mr Hay:
There is a whole list of individual taxpayers, and these are the individual taxpayers to whom Mr Hay, as I understand, was referring. It is reprehensible beyond imagination that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory would allow a person who writes to him in all sincerity to form an opinion which is untrue. The Chief Minister needs to contact Mr Hay as a matter of urgency and apologise to him for the disgraceful conduct of signing that letter. This bill demonstrates that the government, in dividing up the Racing, Gaming and Licensing portfolios between two portfolios, has caused mass confusion.
That is why we have the extraordinary situation where I was told at the beginning of this particular debate that the person who would be answering my questions would be the Attorney-General. Yet, because Treasury still carries half of the portfolio responsibility, half of the questions were being answered by the Treasurer. The reason the law is broken by this minister was explained to us as partly because of the breaking up of the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission between two departments. What a three-ringed circus these guys are running.
How could we possibly, as sensible and serious legislators, support a bill in this place which will have the effect of giving the minister a blank cheque when the whole area of the Racing, Gaming and Licensing is in a state of disarray under this government?
I, in no good conscience, could offer the votes of the people of Port Darwin to support this minister in this folly and this deception, and I will not.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with what has come out of this debate. Whilst I have no complaints about the capping of the bill, I believe I have been literally led up the garden path in relation to taxation. I will read from the second reading speech what the minister said in relation to taxation:
When I asked that question I did not get that answer. The answer I got from the Treasurer was: ‘Well, we are going to lose this $5m because it is not the policy now of governments in Australia to be relying on that sort of revenue’. We did not get an answer that tax from these machines will continue to benefit the community. In fact, that has not come up in this debate. Basically, what the minister has said is that we are going to introduce a taxation scheme that will give the clubs a $5m windfall because it is not the policy of modern governments to be relying on revenue from gaming. That is what was said. If that is the case, then that is a disgrace.
I ask the government to say here and now whether they made some agreement with the clubs before the election, promising that if they brought in a capping mechanism for poker machines, they would give them a taxation reduction that would, in effect, be a gift of $5m. I would be very concerned if that happened. I cannot see any reason why the clubs should not continue to have the same taxation revenue removed from their profits as is happening now. I do not accept the minister’s argument that that is the modern way other states are doing things and not relying on taxation.
I live in a Territory that has major problems with gambling, alcohol, and drugs. We should not be taking some of that revenue away from an industry which is, basically, sucking money out of people. It is not a productive industry. It is not about growing fruit and vegetables. It is not manufacturing. It is purely an industry based on statistics; that is, you will lose if you put money in there for a few hours - you can guarantee that. If that is the sort of money that people can throw away, then the government should take some of that money and put it back in to help those people who are sucked in to being captives of this industry.
We are dealing with poker machines that are in licensed clubs. Licensed clubs naturally sell alcohol. I have no problems saying we should be putting some of that money into alcohol rehabilitation. We complain, time and time again, about the number of people in prison because of alcohol-related offences. This is sending out a terrible message to people that the clubs will get a $5m windfall, and the people who need to be helped will have $5m less which can be spent on them. I agree that we should cap gaming machines.
I am one who uses the pokies myself every now and then. As I said before, I am not Nick Xenophon. However, I realise that we have major issues in our society, and the way to help with those issues is to raise taxation - not to diminish it - and put it into those areas that we most need. I am very disappointed that the government has done that. That is a retrograde step which sends out the wrong message. For that reason, as I said, I will not support this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
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 Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Drysdale:
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to present this matter of public importance tonight.
I will tell a story. I came to work yesterday at about 7.30 am and, as I drove in, I saw an amazing sight. It was not the great skyline across the beautiful Darwin Harbour …
A member: The lights were on.
Mr BOHLIN: The lights were still on. It was not the great views as part of The Esplanade. It was, in fact, a poor soul sleeping in their car parked just on the entry road to Parliament House. When I left last night at about 11.00 pm and drove out to my house in Palmerston - my home, my castle - I saw the same person parked in the car park near the exit, all set up for the night.
While I drove home, I felt thankful that I have never really had the rug pulled from under my feet and been left homeless. Today there is no such thing as emergency housing within Territory Housing, with a three- to four-year-plus wait. This is not a response to Territory Housing. It is not a response of a developed nation, and that of a Territory which is supposed to in an era of economic boom. How is it, on one hand, a glowing report card that you, the government, tell the people, ‘We are having a great economic time’, yet, on the other hand, there are people sleeping in cars around the Territory? This is not growing pains, as the Chief Minister would have us believe, but a housing crisis.
Minister for Housing, how many other people are living in their cars? And then, there are those who do not even have cars to sleep in. How many? There is one, for the last two nights, who camped just out here ...
A member: There were five on The Esplanade this morning.
Mr BOHLIN: Five on the Esplanade this morning, thank you.
We are not talking about people caught up in urban drift. We are talking about the underbelly of our social backbone. Many have full- or part-time employment but, for many reasons, some of which are of their own cause, they have no home. They go to work, like many of our friends, but have no home. I have taken time to speak with both Mission Australia and Somerville Community Services recently, and I will continue to speak with other agencies. I spoke to the people working the floors, and they told me many stories. Some were from within their own ranks, some are friends and people they personally know.
One such story, among many, was of the service only being able to supply a tent for a complete family – a tent for a complete family - because they have no more emergency housing. No more emergency housing is available, so they can only supply a tent for that family. Even getting camping grounds, they do not get a generator, but just a tent. Getting a space in a caravan park is getting difficult now. We can supply a new tent for emergency housing to our people - to the Northern Territory people.
Why? With the Northern Territory Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement, funding public housing stock between 1996-97 to 2005-06, to the tune of nearly $135m as a base funding - and that base funding does not include Community Housing Programs, Aboriginal Rental Housing Programs, or Crisis Accommodation Programs. We have seen the Territory buck the national figure, where the housing stock is lower today than in 1996-97.
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, I will concede, up-front, that until the election in 2001, the CLP also sold large numbers of stock.
Mr Vatskalis: Twelve hundred houses in two years.
Mr BOHLIN: However, there was a consistent swing of decreases and increases of stock …
Mr Vatskalis: Twelve hundred houses over two years, and not one built!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BOHLIN: … yet, that swing stopped once this government took hold of the reins. Since 2001-02 through to this year, there has been a solid decrease in stock numbers - down, down, down.
Since the peak in 1997-98 of 8072 houses in stock, to today, 2007-08, the numbers are only 5288. That means 2784 fewer homes, and Territory Housing estimates, for 2008-09, it will continue to drop to 5251. That would be 2821 fewer homes in Territory Housing stocks.
We have nearly four-year waiting lists, people living in their cars, and families being offered a tent as crisis accommodation, as there is no other accommodation available. We keep reducing stock levels. With the pending sale of 16 units on Emery Avenue, recently advertised for sale, that is 16 families without housing and, as they are empty and have been for some time, that is 32 or more people capable of being housed right now. Much better than a tent, one would think.
Approximately 16 units in Blain Street in Tennant Creek have been empty for two years. A source suggests potentially 20 in Tennant Creek. They are not in mass disrepair; many have been refurbished. Perhaps another 30 people could be housed there. There are 60-odd units in Parap, I believe at the Wirrina flats where, potentially, 120 people will be displaced, with no plan of relocation at this time. Yet, we are going to run a bulldozer through it.
Mr Knight: Have you been there?
Mr BOHLIN: I am not saying that they are great, but you have no plan of where you are going to put 120 people. Where are 120 people going to go? Maybe we can buy another 120 tents. The member for Katherine tells me that he knows of at least seven empty houses in Katherine, and that is without searching around and looking.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Closer to a dozen.
Mr BOHLIN: It could be closer to a dozen - thank you for that. There are housing problems in Katherine as well. That is family homes, no tent required with those.
Not to forget Alice Springs where there is limited stock of houses, and in a state that sometimes resembles a rubbish tip, with no control and many in disrepair.
The Northern Territory Housing Annual Report 2006-07 titled Reporting on our Performance. How is it that in the public’s eye in a performance that is poor, that we are still decreasing stock in today’s climate? I point out that I am not an economic whiz but, in America, many people are becoming homeless right now. We are now continuing to reduce our stock, just in case that happens here. Let us get rid of our housing stock.
I thank the Housing Minister for answering the question posed to him today during Question Time on the Northern Territory HomeNorth scheme, which is based under Territory Housing and implemented financially through TIO. It was great to see a proactive spruik by this government less than an hour after I had a meeting with Territory Housing and HomeNorth Xtra. It is great to see that my questions of these executives today prompted you to make comments about reviews that you are going to carry out. Thank you for that. I appreciate you have brought that up now. One hour or so after I had a conversation with him and bought up these issues and suggested reviews needed to be made into the scheme and elements of that scheme, he decides to bring it to the Chamber. I appreciate he has acted so promptly and indicated there will be reviews, because there needs to be further reviews since housing is not affordable.
The scheme is good in foundation but is still lacking. It is great to see some people are eligible for the HomeNorth Xtra scheme. However, one example put to these executives today - and I accept that without the appropriate calculators or other supporting documentation this information is not qualified - I received a dramatically different financial position for an amount a person could borrow on a home through the HomeNorth scheme, to that given to a person two months ago by the service provider, TIO. I got one figure today, and the person in question got a totally different figure only a couple of months ago through the TIO provider - a difference of $53 000 to $63 000 on the same figures provided.
Yes, we have had an interest rate decrease and, yes, there has been an increase in the federal First Home Buyers Grant, and we are, hopefully, going to get a further decrease in interest rate figures in the near future. But $53 000 to $63 000 difference is a huge difference in anyone’s term. This, by itself, is a concern to me; that two elements of the same scheme can come up with huge marginal differences. I have asked for a proper clarification on those figures and we can wait for that. However, it alarms me that, on basic figures, there are huge differences.
Here are just some quick figures to support the HomeNorth scheme. In the year 2007-08, there were 82 new HomeNorth Xtra sales made. So far, year to date, there has been 30. The Territory Housing Annual Report indicates massive decreases since 2005-06. Reading this report, maybe I get this report wrong, but it is the annual report 2006-07 from the Internet …
A member: Got it off the Net?
Mr BOHLIN: It was not hard. New home ownerships under the scheme for 2005-06 was 406; in 2006-07 they dropped to a target of 145; and actuals for 2006-07 were 146. We are not looking anywhere closer than that …
It says it in the report; it is your report.
On ABC radio this morning - at about 7.15 am to 7.20 am, so you can look it up - an industry person claimed that, for Territory Housing to build a home at the moment would cost them about $340 000. That is before land costs. So, if it is $340 000 plus $340 000, that is $680 000 for the next Territory Housing house you will be selling off. We cannot afford to buy or build in Bellamack either. Maybe I exaggerate, but you never know. That is in today’s climate, and let us hope it does not change much.
We, the Territory people, need land available now - not in 12 months. We need it now, or at least by February or March 2009. You have had plenty of time; you have been spruiking about releasing this land. Let us get it moving so that we can have it. We need to have Territory Housing slabs being poured in the first few months of next year. We need to prepare ourselves. We need to plan. We need to have affordable housing models arranged by the first few months of next year. We really need it today, so that people can sleep with the belief that this government is truly following the Territory Housing business line of public housing outcomes which is: ‘access to safe, secure and affordable housing for Territorians’ – all Territorians.
Well, I am sorry. They do not sleep well for the rain on the tents, rain coming through the window of the car, or simply the wind that blows the rain under the eaves of wherever they have sought refuge for the night. Have they failed this very simple business line to supply access to safe, secure and affordable housing for all Territorians? The answer, Madam Speaker, is on the street. It is on the street tonight when you go home.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the scenarios the member for Drysdale has used. This government - and I am sure many other governments over time and throughout the world – is confronted with housing and homelessness issues. It is an increasing problem in Australia. It is interesting that when the Rudd government was elected last year, they made homelessness one of the biggest issues that Kevin Rudd wanted to address. He sent his ministers back into their electorates to see what was happening in their own electorates throughout Australia regarding homelessness and housing affordability.
I have been to one Ministerial Council already and I have another one this month. The Chief Minister has been to COAG, and homelessness and crisis accommodation and affordable housing has been front and centre from the federal Labor government. It is something that, having been …
Mr Tollner: Hasn’t reduced the price of petrol yet, has it?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, all right.
When I got the …
Mr Tollner: They produced the inflation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: I just wonder whether it was you sleeping in the car out there, member for Fong Lim. I do not think it has anything to do with homelessness.
Madam Speaker, when I got this portfolio, the Chief Minister made it very clear to me and to other members of Cabinet that he wanted to take public housing, crisis accommodation, and affordable housing very seriously. A body of work is being pulled together. The Chief Minister has made it very clear that we have to deliver, and deliver soon.
It is a huge task to undertake. It is exacerbated in the Territory, and particularly in Darwin, by our strong economy - a strong economy which has really grown over the last few years. This has increased property values. People are coming to Darwin in their droves looking to participate in the very strong economy generated by this Labor government. Obviously, we have to cater for those new homebuyers coming into the market. It is putting pressure on two areas: (1) the home purchase area, and (2) the rental market. We are trying to tackle housing affordability on a number of fronts.
Our housing affordability is a central issue of this government. Part of that is getting more stock out there. We have had a number of announcements. One is Bellamack, 700 blocks going on to the market, of which 15% will be for affordable and public housing. Those blocks will come on to the market, I believe, in the first half of next year. They will be followed up, and work is being done, on those other suburbs of Mitchell, Johnston and Zuccoli, with some 3000 blocks; Berrimah farm, 650 blocks; and the Lyons development, with another 300 blocks. Larapinta and Mt John Valley in Alice Springs are going ahead, so there are more land releases. This is government looking forward to …
Mr Elferink: But when?
Mr Mills: You live in a fantasy world.
Mr KNIGHT: I told you, if you were listening.
Mr Tollner: There are also a couple of schools at Rosebery.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Fong Lim, I do hope you speak on this statement ...
Mr Tollner: Six hundred kids go to one of them, 800 go to another.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: This government has roughly 5000 blocks in the pipeline, which will come on to the market to cater for future growth in the marketplace.
One of the other aspects is HomeNorth. This government is committed to helping Territorians buy their own home, and our HomeNorth Xtra scheme is specifically focused on the middle- to low-income earners. As I stated in the House today, almost 1100 Territory households have been bought since 2004 through this scheme. To date this year, 30 households have bought with an improved rate, reflecting the improved introduction since Budget 2008-09. We have raised the income threshold and lifted the price cap, better reflecting the market conditions.
We passed on the full 1% interest rate cut to HomeNorth customers, repeating what I said today. It is a saving of $100 per month on an average home loan of $140 000. The important factor of HomeNorth Xtra is this careful assessment of Territorians’ capacity to repay the loan. A default rate of less than 1% is a testament to that. It is a good scheme. It is one that we keep an eye on. We have modified it now twice and, obviously, we will be looking at the market conditions about how we can improve it, as you should, into the future.
We are also looking at tax benefits for people moving into the homebuyer market. We have cut the stamp duty for all Territorians, we have increased the stamp duty threshold for first homebuyers to $385000, and this is a concession of up to $15 000. It is welcomed by those first homebuyers. Also, there have been a number of schemes that the Labor federal government have announced in and around the increases to the First Home Buyers Grant. With that federal grant, in Palmerston alone, there are over 300 vacant lots that are eligible for the full $21 000 offer by Prime Minister Rudd.
One of the other areas is public housing developments. This government recognises the need to address the way public housing is delivered across the Northern Territory. This will be part of the work that the Chief Minister has asked me and other ministers to pull together around these issues. One of those areas has been mentioned by the member for Drysdale. He seems to dislike, and I know that his party do not like what this government is proposing at Parap, at Wirrina. I have been there and met the tenants. I have seen the aged facility there - and I do not mean the people; I mean the infrastructure. It is dangerous, it is very old design, it is something that needs to be changed. I congratulate the member for Fannie Bay for his leadership role in this project. We have the foresight to do something about the poor social housing model. Having high density hot spots of social housing just does not work, either for individuals, the complex in its entirety, or the community around it.
Mr Mills: Do the people there know where they are going?
Mr Bohlin: We do not dispute that; we want to know where the people are going to go.
Mr KNIGHT: I know you do not like it. You keep objecting to it. It is a good model. I hope you have a good look at it and that you support the government in that type of social housing change because the hot spots do not work. There is a plan for the decanting of those people whilst construction takes place. We will be building more stock there. We have many good people working on this whole project.
With respect to Emery Avenue, there are four units occupied at the moment; two are moving out in the next two weeks, and the other two will be moving out after that. So, there are not 16 families who are going to be kicked out into the street. That was a ridiculous statement. This gives us the opportunity to get some affordable housing out there. The two-bedders will go on the market for around about $220000 to $240 000, so that is well within the HomeNorth cap. The income that people could earn was around $40 000, so people who are earning $40 000 could buy one of those. Emery Avenue is a good location …
Mr Bohlin: That is not what your industry expert told my candidate the other day.
Mr KNIGHT: Your candidate? Do you have candidates now?
Mr Bohlin: My constituent. $207 000.
Mr KNIGHT: I did a media conference, member for Drysdale, and I am happy to produce the figures. I stated that they will go for $220 000 to $240 000. You work backwards from the formulas and you arrive at those. It is different for couples with dependants, and so on, but that is a good result. That gets 16 individuals interested in affordable housing right next door to the Sacred Heart Primary School where my daughter goes, and where the member for Nelson’s wife worked, and where their grandchildren go, I believe. It is a great school. It will be a great buy soon for someone with a small family. It also generates some income that we can use on other Territory Housing developments. There still needs to be work done on that.
There is a huge need for seniors accommodation in Palmerston. That is something I would like to see the revenue go to. In doing that, that allows us to free up a great many three-bedroom homes in the northern suburbs which are occupied by seniors - either as a single person or as a couple. This project at Emery Avenue gets us affordable housing, some brand new seniors’ accommodation possibly, and frees up some three-bedroom homes in the northern suburbs. The model that we have used with both Wirrina and for Emery will go into plans for future developments to get more stock out there both in the public housing and the affordable housing areas.
With respect to our public housing stock, currently we have 5268 public housing dwellings across the Northern Territory and another 330 properties are leased to community and crisis accommodation agencies. Since 2002, the Northern Territory public housing stocks have decreased by 13% from 6062 to 5268 dwellings. More than half of these have been sold to tenants of those premises, which has allowed those low-income earners to get into the housing ownership market, which is great to see.
The member for Drysdale put his hand up - and good on him - for their time in government when, in the last few years of their government they averaged 340-odd property sales a year. In our first years of government, we only averaged 130, so we certainly were not keeping up with the huge sell-off that was experienced under the last few years of the CLP government. One of the other important factors in all that, member for Drysdale, for a bit of history for you, is that we put all our money back into public housing stock and the CLP put back very little of that money ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I have the figures; I have quoted them …
Mr Elferink: Do you know this is a policy that Syd Stirling actually supported? Do you know why? He supported it because he realised the sale of some assets were going into the building of different types of assets because there was a different demographic …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The minister has the call.
Mr KNIGHT: That all happened at the time the member for Port Darwin was in the party, contributing to the philosophy of selling off public housing stock in large chunks. We are working with the federal government. I said from the outset that it has only been …
Mr Tollner: You just make it up as you go along.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Order! Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair. Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Are you going to get up and talk, member for Fong Lim? I would like to hear your contribution.
From the start of my contribution, I highlighted that the federal Labor government, after coming into office last year, made housing affordability and homelessness its highest priority. That has not been the case for many years …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It is interesting the information that gets discussed at these Ministerial Council meetings. There have been some calculations done that, over the years of the Howard government, they actually ripped off all the states and territories to the tune of $425m in their recurrent funding. That is an absolute disgrace. The Howard government, the government that the member for Fong Lim was part of, ripped off base funding to the states and territories for public housing obligations to the tune of $425m. That is an absolute disgrace.
It has only been the Rudd government that has put this issue front and centre for being resolved. This Henderson government is making housing affordability for both purchase and rent an extremely high priority. We are doing something about it. We have land release, we have public housing renewal, and we have a great low-income home ownership scheme.
What is lacking in this debate is any sort of policy from the other side of the House …
Mr Tollner: What about employing nurses? Does that get a run?
Mr KNIGHT: I would be illuminated. I hope the member for Fong Lim could give us his contribution about the policy of the possible CLP government …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Mills: It is an excellent policy.
Mr KNIGHT: I will wait to hear your policy on public housing, homelessness and home affordability …
Mr Elferink: And you would want that because you do not have one?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Essentially, there is a hearing problem here, Madam Speaker, and the member for Katherine has just woken up. I have detailed right from the start about our housing affordability, our land release, our home ownership program. Also, in this House less than a month ago, I talked about our support for crisis accommodation. The member for Drysdale ...
Ms Carney: You support everything, but you do not do anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: If you listened, member for Araluen …
Ms Carney: Oh, go and save a whale!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Araluen, countless times in this House, I talked about the amount of money that we are putting in to non-government organisations which are providing crisis accommodation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it is to the people who are providing crisis accommodation: Katherine Women’s Crisis Centre, St Vincent De Paul, YWCA, Dawn House, Tennant Creek Women’s Refuge, Anglicare - a whole range of non-government organisations providing crisis accommodation. There is support going to those organisations which are best suited to provide crisis accommodation, because they provide ancillary services around the accommodation itself.
Madam Speaker, this government is doing a huge amount of work in this area, and we will continue to do so. Watch this space; we have a lot more to come.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this matter of public importance, as has been originally highlighted by my colleague, the member for Drysdale. Public housing in the Territory is at an all-time low, with public waiting lists getting longer, housing stock decreasing, and a public housing private rental market becoming chronic in affordability and access.
There is a problem, and it is a big problem, and it is getting worse. The waiting lists for public houses or units are pushing over to three years plus, as we have heard. Houses are being left vacant for extended periods of time such as the Blain Street units in Tennant Creek, which we heard about, for nearly two years. Then the Emery Avenue units - yes they were sold, yes, there were a couple were rented, but there were 16 units. One of my constituents, an elderly lady, has a property in Cunjevoi Street, Nightcliff that her daughter and family live in. Opposite them is a public housing house that has been vacant for nearly two years. That is just an example of some of the public housing that we have on our book but, for some reason that is not being articulated by government and the minister, they are either not being maintained or let to people who are in need.
We have had 110 units taken off line in Fannie Bay and 16 in Palmerston. Where are those people going to go? Where are they going to be relocated?
Much of the Territory Housing accommodation is in a sad state of disrepair. Many are not maintained, if maintained at all. It comes back to the maintenance schedule. It has been left wanting, at best and, at worst, completely neglected - a bit like our power and water system – with slow release of land, if not no release of land anywhere, to provide this magical affordable housing.
We have the highest rate of overcrowding in the country in the Territory, and the ensuing issue of mobility between the remote and urban communities. Some would argue that this problem has become worse following the intervention, with more people moving from communities to regional towns and centres, and moving into house and units with families and friends. We have, as we know, extraordinarily low vacancy rates, which means not much accommodation is available to rent even if people wanted to rent. Of course, the current prosperous times for private property rental means that much of that type of accommodation is out of reach for many people.
Some of the other issues we have with our public housing is that they are just not managed well. In Alice Springs, there are many problem streets of public housing including Heidenrich Court, Ptilotus Crescent, Kulgara Crescent, Bougainvillea Drive, Kurrajong Drive, Spearwood Road, and Hibiscus Street. These all have public housing. Some of the public housing properties in these streets have become suburban town camps - hundreds of empty beer cans. I have been to Alice Springs and I have gone to these areas. There is filth, rubbish, parties all night. Children are up all night, running amok, while parents are drinking and having a good time.
Most responses to complaints of nearby residents are not being addressed. People are being warned but not evicted. In some cases, the problem has been continuing for months, with no remedy, no redress. The public housing in these streets, as in some of the streets in Darwin and Palmerston, is affecting everyone, and it is creating social and community disharmony.
These are just some of the issues currently before the Territory. We know we have the highest uptake of public housing in the country - about 8% of our total housing tenure type - and 35% in public housing are Indigenous households. Perhaps this is due to the legacy of our history of being a public service town; more due to this government, however, moving public housing concept from the general public and housing to housing for low-income and disadvantaged people and families. Perhaps this is due to the pressure also from the federal government for the territories and state governments to establish policies for those most in need. Maybe that is so, and perhaps that is not a bad thing. However, it means people in public housing tend to be on pensions, and are least likely to be able to afford increasing rents to meet rising maintenance costs.
Most of the states seek to get a mix of low-income earners and the needy into public housing. In the past, new dwellings were added every year, increasing the amount of public housing, but this is not happening now in the Territory. We are losing public housing, and the government has failed to address the issue in any systematic and coherent manner. This government has not invested very much in new public housing over the last five to 10 years. Old stock has not been replaced, and existing stock has been increasingly targeted at those most in need. What happens to those who are not in so urgent need and who want to live in public accommodation? What happens to the woman who lives in the northern suburbs with seven children who was turfed out of her accommodation because the landlord put up the rent?
Some may argue that many of these issues currently being experienced are out of the government’s control. I argue to the contrary. Most, if not all, are under government’s control, it is just that this government has no control, no real control over their agencies, has no plans, and has no decent policy for future directions in public housing.
Government talks about affordable housing, but what does that exactly mean? I will tell you, Madam Speaker and, for the benefit of the member for Barkly, it comes from a report, Levers to Promote Affordable Housing in the Northern Territory. Their definition is:
How does that definition fit with our Territory Housing? It does not. Our public housing is not safe, not secure, not well serviced, not affordable, and not accessible due to the inefficiencies of government in delivering sound public housing.
New land is not available. Rental people living in public housing are taking up options to buy, depleting the stocks even more. Government has no clear policy on public housing as we move into the next phase of the Territory’s growth. Government has no clear policy or position on our ageing population. The demand from older people for public housing has not yet peaked in the Territory. Older people have higher and changing expectations. Many will need support, and the size of their housing unit is too small, below community standards, and no longer meets the expectations of the elder and older people. What will happen to these people in the near future?
We are not facing a crisis in public housing. We have and are in a crisis of public housing. This government has failed to act, and the people are suffering as a consequence. We should not be surprised that we have serious social issues. We should not be surprised that we have escalating crime rates, as research from all parts of the country will tell us that there is a definite and direct link between poor public housing systems procedures policy and crime and social upheaval.
Adding to all these issues and problems, we now have a situation where this government has taken it upon itself to discriminate against the people who live in the rural area who, by choice, live in a structure called ‘a shed’. It has been well accepted for many years that rural people build sheds to live in, and we know that these sheds have been built properly and soundly. No self-respecting caring couple is going to accommodate their family in an unsound structure. Nor would they scrimp on safety in the structural design. It just would not happen.
Why has the government been sending out their officious and bumptious officials who threaten to evict residents in front of children and, without permission, taken photos and videos of their property? Where is the evidence that these structures are not up to standard? Where is the evidence that proper processes have not been followed by the builders and the owners? All the builders I have spoken to are qualified, competent, and provide certified dwellings.
The actions of the building department have been outrageous and caused an enormous amount of grief to many of my constituents and the constituents of my colleague, the member for Nelson, which has been unwarranted, uncalled for, unnecessary, and boarding on illegal in their potentially trespassing activities.
Where are these people meant to go, once they have been evicted from their property? Go into public housing? No, sorry, full up. Into caravan parks? No, they are full too. The only possible place for accommodation will be sharing with friends or family, resulting in overcrowding issues and associated problem, or living in their cars in public places, like friends and family who are living at the back of Parliament House.
Madam Speaker, all these issues I have spoken about are symptomatic of a major problem; that is, this government’s inability to plan and its ability to spectacularly fail when it comes to public housing policy settings, accommodation requirements, and protecting rural life style.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government will say many good things about what they do. I am not going to say some of those good things do not help. I have to look at the statistics, and that is the proof of the pudding, if we are making the Territory an affordable place for people to live.
I take up the issue of public housing. I tried to find out, for instance, how many people are on the waiting list. I would not expect that to be something that would be covered by the terrorism act, or ASIO, but you cannot get the information on how many people are on the waiting list. I put the minister on notice. I would like to find out how many people are on the waiting list for public housing in the Northern Territory.
I cannot find that important information, so I have to look up the wait times. NT Shelter presented a document to the Senate select committee earlier this year, and they quoted some of the waiting lists for three-bedroom homes in the Northern Territory. In November 2005, the waiting list for a three-bedroom house in Alice Springs was 34 months; in July 2006 it went down to 25 months; in March 2008 it went to 39 months; and according to this, the latest off the web today, it is now 44 months. So, on it goes. I picked a three-bedroom home because, if you want to have a family, I assume that is the type of regular house you need. In Darwin and Casuarina, it was 25 months in 2005, 28 months in 2006, 40 months in March 2008, and 44 months in September - nearly four years to wait for a three-bedroom house.
I looked at a one-bedroom pensioner unit in Palmerston. I am asked quite often by people who cannot stay in the rural area, who would like to get on the waiting list for a one-bedroom unit in Palmerston. In 2005 it was 21 months, in 2006 it was 23 months, in March 2008 it was 33, and according to this now it is 40 months – 3 years. As one person said to me recently, a pensioner: ‘I will be dead by the time I get my one-bedroom flat’.
If things are so good in the Territory, if we are keeping up with the demand, why do we have such long waiting lists? I expect to have a waiting list, but why is it getting worse not better, if the government says everything is okay? The government has also said that it is going to knock down various Housing lots. Some of them they are selling. I have no problem with them selling Territory Housing houses to people who are on a low income. But, surely, if it says they reduced the number of houses by 13% since 2002, at least you would have thought they have increased the number of houses in the public domain by 13%, to try to keep the status quo. However, they are continually going down. The figures show it; we are losing public stock. That is part of the reason we have a long waiting list.
It is also proof of the pudding that land affordability and housing in the Northern Territory is getting harder and harder. That is why we need to see the numbers of people on the waiting lists. The waiting lists get longer because people cannot afford a piece of land or to buy their own house.
People have heard me say that I believe the system of selling land, particularly Crown land in the Northern Territory, is the wrong way to go. It was introduced by the previous government; it has been brought to a fine art by this government where Crown land from a government’s point of view is actually worth nothing. You can put the value you like on it when you own your own block of land, and they own the Crown land. They can add value to that land by putting water, sewerage, roads next to it and, then, if they want to put on a market price they can. If you own a block of land you can sell that land at any price you wish. The government has Crown land, so what does it do? It sells it off to a developer as they are doing with Bellamack. That developer has to recover that huge amount of money he has spent buying that land, and that is how the cost is passed on to people - especially first homeowners. He will sometimes sell that land to a builder who wants 20 blocks, who will also put his little layer on top. So, up and up and up the land goes and, then, someone has to buy a house on top of that.
I believe the system is no good. We should be able to sell land much cheaper than we do. I do not think the government is going to accept the principle that the government should be able to retain some land itself when it is doing those subdivisions, and sell them purely at the cost of developing it - that is, putting in the water, sewerage and electricity - maybe with a small margin to those people who fit certain criteria. The government does not seem to want to do that. If it does not want to go down that path, it should investigate how much it is costing Territorians to buy land in, say, the new suburbs of Palmerston compared to the actual cost of the land itself.
I had figures today from an ex-developer - he has not developed any land for a while - who estimates it would cost a developer around $50 000 to put in the water, sewerage, electricity and bitumen road for a block of land in Palmerston. There are some other levies. There would probably be some land taxes and some taxes from the council. Then, he would have to recover a portion of the amount of money for which he bought the land from the government. The amount of money he paid the government to buy that land in the first place would be divided up by the total number of blocks.
So, say $70 000 and then he wants a profit on top of that. All right. What is a reasonable profit? Maybe 20% - another $20 000, $30 000. If he took $30 000 profit, he would be at about $100 000 it would have cost him to get that land ready to sell. What does land sell for in Palmerston? It sells upwards of $240 000, $270 000, $320 000. The government should be investigating what the cost is of developing land in Palmerston compared to what land is being sold for. I do not have a problem with businesses making money, but you have to remember the land that is developed in Palmerston is Crown land. It is our land, the people’s land, that the government has already sold to someone who makes enormous profits which, in the end, means it is much harder for Territorians whose land it was in the first place, to buy a portion of it. We should investigate where we are going with the way we sell land in the Northern Territory.
It is obvious that people cannot buy. There might be people who have bought homes down south and sold them and come here to invest. There might be two public servants on fairly high levels of wages who might not have any children who can afford it. They can live in Lyons but not many other people can. They might be from the Defence Forces, who have subsidised housing. But the ordinary bloke who might be the mechanic working for the local garage, a truck driver, or he might move a few cattle around the Territory and his wife might stay at home - he is the person who struggles.
The member for Goyder mentioned the issue about the shed. That person in the shed had to buy a block of land at about $270 000 on a HomeNorth loan and about $50 000 to build a house. You tell me where you can build a house in Palmerston for $50 000. They would not let you. So, he built a shed and got it upgraded to a house to code. However, even if he did not, it shows you that people are struggling. I do not have a problem with people living in a shed. Sometimes, the government should butt out. I do not think a builder should say to people: ‘I am building you a house’. If the builder builds a shed, he should be very clear and say: ‘This has no Certificate of Occupancy. You should not live in this shed, especially if there is a cyclone. I have only built you a shed’. If he builds you a house he should say: ‘I have built you a house’ and have the Certificate of Occupancy. After that, it is not his responsibility.
I would rather poor people living in a shed, who could go to a cyclone shelter in a cyclone, and at least have a roof over their head on a block of land they can call their own, than have them on the street or have them in Somerville emergency accommodation. There are times when government should be wise in the way it uses its rules, especially when people are struggling to make ends meet and to put a shelter over their heads.
There are a number of people in the rural area now applying for granny flats. That is a reflection of what is happening. I would also love to know how many people have their children and grandchildren living with them. I say quite a few. Granny flat applications, I believe - and I am only giving anecdotal evidence here, but I do see planning notices go past my office quite regularly - are going up because people’s children cannot afford to buy. That, to me, is the real evidence that shows you that people cannot afford to buy land.
The Treasurer has been talking about the rural land and how many blocks are available. Well, they are $270 000 upwards. It is not encouraging people on the land. I have asked the Treasurer to open up some of the forestry land into one hectare blocks, which she could sell at cost price, which would enable young families to get a start and have a semi-rural lifestyle, which would be a great way for young people to start. Not in a crowded place like some parts of Palmerston and Darwin where you can hardly grow a tree because it would have to squeeze up between the eaves, or you cannot play cricket in the back yard unless it is very mini-cricket. I believe the rural area is a great place to raise families. Look at the crime rates. We do not have no crime, but we certainly have a lot less crime than in other parts of the Territory.
There was mention of other forms of accommodation. Well, caravan parks. We closed down Sundowner. Those people had to find a place. We found places for some of them. The rumour is that Shady Glen is going. What happens to all the people at Shady Glen? What do people have to pay now for being permanent at a caravan park? That has increased considerably. Because rents have gone up, people have started to look at caravan parks, and we know the cost of renting is so high that it is impossible for young families.
Minister, I know the government has the HomeNorth system. I know the government says it is opening up land. However, when I hear it say there will only be 15% of the land in Bellamack for public housing, and they are going to reduce the price by 15% or something – I am not sure; there will be a lower price. Listening to the ABC, if you have a block of land at $280 000 and you chop off $15 000, you still have a pretty expensive block.
I really think we need to inquire into the actual cost of servicing land in the Northern Territory. Let us start to come back. Let us do the things that we can do; do not rely on the market. We need to ensure that land is cheaper, because land itself does not help the economy. The economy is helped when people can build a house on land. That is the start of purchasing – the whitegoods; the television, the chairs, the rotary clothesline - although looking around Palmerston lately, the new southern developers do not allow rotary clothesline. It is not the right thing in some areas …
A member: Not enough room.
Mr WOOD: Well, probably not enough room, but does not go along with the black roofs, the green verandah, the look-alike southern suburb. For some reason, Hills hoists have gone out the door. I would have thought they would have been good in this part of the world for reducing carbon emissions.
I also look at places like Somerville. I went to the opening of one of Somerville‘s new establishments, and I also went to an open day. One of the questions we asked was about emergency shelters. Somerville has two houses for families who have no shelter. I asked the lady in charge of Somerville: ‘What happens when they are full?’ They can only stay there for four months, I think it is, and after that they are out. I said: ‘What happens to them?’ She said: ‘You will find them in a caravan park living in a tent’. It amazes me that, when we talk about things like INPEX with $25bn of input, and the wealth of the Territory, that we cannot put shelters over people. We talk about employment being great in the Territory, but we conveniently forget many of the isolated Aboriginal communities which have high unemployment.
We tend to look at the gloss, at the Lyons suburb, at the new suburbs in Palmerston, and we think all is roses, but it is not. When you dig down deep, you have long waiting times for public housing. You have unaffordable land. You have people staying home with Mum and Dad because they cannot buy. The reality is one thing; the government might believe another thing. We must do something. We need to make some radical changes. We can do it if we start to really look at the cost of developing land, and we have to put a bigger effort into public housing in the Northern Territory. Things can be done, it just needs a will.
We need not be worrying about the market. That always irks me, coming from a Labor Party. We should be helping the battlers, the families, and the first homeowners. They should be the priority – not the market all the time. The market is important but it is not the end the world. It might be if Wall Street crashes, but we will not have any control over that. However, we do have control over our own future, and we should do something about it.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for raising this topic as a matter of public importance. I am very pleased to be able to respond, particularly in terms of my own electorate which, of course, is a bush electorate. Before I do, there are a couple of matters I would like to bring to the member for Drysdale’s attention.
The waiting list for public housing is 36 months. We are trying to do more about this, but this is amongst the lowest waiting time in the country. There are some jurisdictions that have waiting lists of up to 15 years.
The price cap that the member for Drysdale inquired about regarding the review of HomeNorth, is reviewed regularly, as the member for Drysdale was told during his lunchtime briefing, and that the next review is scheduled for around November ...
Mr Bohlin: I did welcome that.
Ms WALKER: You need to be careful with the cap, as it is about getting people into home ownership, not into home stress. It is about fitting the cap within the means of low- to medium-income people, because we will not set Territorians up to fail.
A couple of points also about homelessness. We are rolling out practical measures to respond to homelessness. We have set up short-term managed accommodation options, with facilities specifically for homeless people, and we are working towards a tenancy sustainability and support program to assist people into sustainable living solutions.
There is a National Action Plan on Homelessness being developed by the Prime Minister, as my colleague, the minister, has already referred to. The plan aims to substantially reduce homelessness by addressing the individual and structural barriers that lead to homelessness. Three main strategies are being explored in this area. The first is prevention and early intervention to stop people becoming homeless. The second is to break the cycle of homelessness to help people get back on to their feet. The third is connecting the service system by driving integration, introduction and outcomes-focused approach. My colleague, the Minister for Housing, will be travelling to the ministers’ conference next month to progress this work. I look forward to hearing his feedback from there.
As I was talking about my electorate, the member for Drysdale is quite correct, there certainly is a need for affordable accommodation to meet not only the demand, but also to reduce waiting lists. In Indigenous communities in particular, we need to meet the needs of chronic overcrowding. I am concerned about people who are sleeping in cars and tents for want of a roof over their head. I am just as concerned about communities where there might be 20 people living in a house and, yes, using a tent to supplement their housing for additional family members.
I am pleased to be part of a government that is focusing both on delivering new housing stock and also on rebuilding and refurbishing stock that is in disrepair. The East Arnhem region has been earmarked for around $51m to be spent over the next few years as part of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Project, better known by its acronym SIHIP. SIHIP, as I am sure the member for Drysdale knows, is a joint initiative of the federal and Territory governments which will see $647m to build new houses and to refurbish existing houses in communities across the Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: We are deceiving him with facts again.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms WALKER: SIHIP will cover 73 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. $420m will be invested in major works in 16 communities, including additional service land and related essential services infrastructure, new additional and replacement housing, and refurbishment of existing housing. Fifty-seven communities have been selected to receive refurbishments to existing housing valued at $124m. A further $103m will be directed to those living in urban living areas, what we probably more commonly refer to as town camps. We know that $647m is not sufficient to address the housing problems for all NT communities and all Territorians, but it is an excellent start to addressing overcrowding and is a key part of allowing us to deliver on the Closing the Gap initiatives of this government. We know access to affordable housing and reducing overcrowding will have a positive impact on a range of outcomes for Indigenous people, including education and health.
A memorandum of understanding was signed in September 2007 between the federal and Territory governments, laying out the priority order for the SIHIP program. The areas of greatest need were looked at to assess where the biggest difference could be made. First order of priority will be the larger and growth communities which have greatest need. Second order of priority will be smaller communities where upgrades will be carried out. The third order of priority will be other communities including outstations.
In the East Arnhem region, where the Nhulunbuy and Arnhem electorates are, there are a total of nine communities which will receive 23% of the SIHIP capital budget, and all nine of these communities are receiving major capital works. In my electorate of Nhulunbuy, the SIHIP program will deliver a mix of new and refurbished housing to the tune of $33m at Galiwinku on Elcho Island, $16.5m at Yirrkala and $1.4m at Gunyunarra. At this stage, I cannot provide a clear time line as to when exactly people in these communities will see works commence, but the alliance partners who are Earth Connect, Territory Alliance and New Future, have been announced and the next step will be to scope each community’s needs in very close collaboration with community members.
This government recognises that it is critical that people on communities must be consulted with and have the opportunity for input. There is not a standard generic house design already chosen. What suits Central Australian desert communities will not necessarily be suitable for Top End coastal communities. It is important to mention that the SIHIP program will have at its core a deliverable commitment to provide training and employment in each of the communities for the people who live in those communities where the program is being implemented.
An important element of SIHIP is the alliance partner system, a partnership between governments, industry, and the community. The three alliance partners will be set specific performance targets and financial rewards for engaging local Indigenous Territorians in training and job opportunities through the program. That means long-lasting training and skills that will open the door to future job opportunities in the bush - a very valuable outcome, I am sure you would agree. Existing Indigenous organisations will be engaged in the employment and training structure where practical – real opportunities for organisations such as Julalikari
In addition to construction activities, other potential job and training opportunities include: transport of materials; services to support the construction camps such as laundry services, cleaning, catering; and light industry support activities such as prefabrication works, plant maintenance and vehicle servicing. All of these skills are needed in communities in my electorate and the training will be very much welcomed.
I have talked about how the government is meeting the demand for Indigenous Territorians in communities. However, meeting the demand for housing which is affordable and available in the township of Nhulunbuy, which is home to around 4000 to 4500 people, brings with it some real challenges. In order to understand these challenges, members - including the member for Katherine who, if he is listening will be enlightened as to why Nhulunbuy is not part of the East Arnhem Shire - need to understand the unique circumstances which come with the situation of the town which is located on a special purpose lease.
It is an agreement which was set up in 1968 between the Commonwealth government and the participants of the Gove joint venture, which is Swiss Aluminium Australia Limited and Gove Aluminium Limited. Nabalco was the manager of the Gove joint venture. The first phase of the lease comes up for renewal and renegotiation in 2011. If negotiations are successful for renewal, the second phase of the lease, or what I understand is now referred to as a shared land use agreement, would see the lease then go through until 2053.
Currently, anyone who purchases land in Nhulunbuy can only purchase it leasehold and not freehold. Because of these arrangements, it is difficult to secure a loan. Having acquired the Gove operations in October of last year, Rio Tinto Alcan is, obviously, devoting a good deal of effort to see a smooth transition to the second phase of the lease.
The availability and release of serviced land on the special purpose lease of the township, for housing to address the shortage of accommodation, is a high priority for Rio Tinto Alcan, this government, and the business sector of that community. All parties have a requirement for housing which is essential to attraction and retention of employees. I also recognise that there exists a need for government to provide housing for public housing tenants.
I would like to share with members a couple of instances where the Northern Territory government has worked in partnership with local stakeholders on two projects in the last couple of years to see additional units of accommodation developed in new subdivisions in Nhulunbuy.
The Malpi village subdivision located on land next to Gove District Hospital was developed on land donated by Rio Tinto Alcan to Bunuwal Investments, an organisation which represents the Rrirratjingu clan. The village contains a dozen or more homes, and extra three-bedroom and two-bedroom duplexes. Most of these are leased back to the Northern Territory government to house government employees, amongst them police, teachers, and Customs officers.
This year, we have seen in Nhulunbuy the completion of 12 single-bedroom units which, again, were constructed on land made available by Rio Tinto Alcan in an area which locals have named Ark Park, so named because the 33 company homes in the subdivision were built by Ark Homes. The driver for this particular project was in response to a cry for help from local business people to have affordable units of accommodation for their employees.
The former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, was part of the working group with the Chamber of Commerce along with Rio Tinto Alcan and local businesses. Syd was successful in securing $120 000 through government to enable headworks to be completed. Those units are now all built and fully tenanted at rents that are capped which make them affordable.
This government certainly is taking steps - big ones, in light of the SIHIP program - to address the issue of providing housing. I thank the member for Drysdale for raising this matter of public importance.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers? Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I seek leave …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You gave the Chief Minister the call
Mr HENDERSON: I was going to move that the Assembly do now adjourn, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister had the call. Member for Port Darwin, was it your intention to speak in the debate? You certainly did not indicate that.
Mr ELFERINK: No, there was no question before the House, Madam Speaker. What I was going to do …
Madam SPEAKER: No, the Chief Minister had the call.
Discussion concluded.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I raise an issue of considerable importance to many Darwin sporting clubs and organisations; that is, the issue of corporate sponsorship and signage. Participating in and watching sport is an intrinsic part of the great Territory lifestyle. That is why I was disappointed to read in yesterday’s NT News that the Darwin City Council had voted to maintain its current signs policy. This policy prevents the sporting bodies of some of the Territory’s most popular sports from procuring valuable sponsorship dollars from advertising signs.
Territory sporting organisations, like others across the country, rely heavily on sponsorship revenue to survive and prosper. Corporate sponsorship is the lifeblood and the revenue strength of many of the sporting associations at Marrara. To deny these sporting associations the opportunity to advertise this sponsorship, makes it extremely difficult to continue to do the fantastic job that they do. As the main selling point and part of the sponsorship package for the sporting associations to leverage a sponsor, is the ability to advertise the sponsor’s naming rights and association with the sporting body.
This government absolutely supports the efforts of Territory sporting bodies to seek extra revenue from such sponsorship so that they can grow and improve their sport for the benefit of all Territorians, particularly of our young generations. I urge all those aldermen who voted against the proposed changes to take into consideration the importance of corporate sponsorship and the role that it plays in the viability of these sporting clubs when council next considers this important issue.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine region to participate in the launch of Nu Steel’s new homes in Casuarina Street, Katherine East. Nu Steel, the proponents of this project, were represented by the Katherine and Darwin General Managers, Mr and Mrs Jacobi, and by the Adelaide proprietors of Nu Steel, Sylvia and Neil Scarce. Nu Steel has built three top-quality display homes in Katherine - one of which they have already sold - and have plans for the construction of another four in 2009. During the constructions of the houses, 30 local businesses were engaged in the project. This is the first time in many years that housing construction of this magnitude has occurred in Katherine, and demonstrates the confidence business has in the town.
As all members of this House can attest, land release for housing is of paramount importance to the development of regional economies. I am sure we have heard many of those stories today in the MPI. In early 2009, the government will release approximately 35 serviced blocks, also along Casuarina Street, which will prepare Katherine for future growth.
During my visit to the Katherine region, I was also able to spend some time in Pine Creek speaking to residents about their feelings concerning the unfortunate demise of GBS Gold. The strength of regional centres is undoubtedly about people. I had expected the residents of Pine Creek to be downcast and disconsolate about the future. However, it was quite the reverse.
Mr Ray Wooldridge, who is well known to members of this House, spoke passionately about the future of his town. He believes with gold reserves of over $1.2bn, new miners will be attracted to the region. His only concern was the reluctance of big companies to listen to locals who have a wealth of experience about the difficulties of expecting gold in the region.
I also had the pleasure of meeting a Pine Creek legend, Mr Eddie Ah Toy. I have known of him for many years, but this was the first time I had met him. Like Mr Wooldridge, Mr Ah Toy was very positive and passionate about his town and, like all long-term residents in the regional areas, he did not hold back his views on the electoral redistribution and what he expected from his local member.
Before moving on to Katherine, I had the opportunity to speak with Sue Valentine. Ms Valentine has been employed in local government at Pine Creek for nearly 20 years. Like the others, she was very positive and passionate about her town, and also indicated that new shire arrangements were progressing well.
Whilst in Katherine, I took the opportunity to visit Manyallaluk, Barunga and Beswick. These towns were formerly in the electorate of Arnhem and are now in the electorate of Stuart. I pay tribute to the member for Arnhem, who has handed over these three communities with a lot of support. I look forward to representing these towns, which are now part of the Roper Gulf Shire. Whilst at Manyallaluk, it was pleasing to see that the tour business is in full swing, swinging well - it is a bit late. While I was there, the tour operation and the art centre were open for business, and there was a tour bus with tourists being spoken to by the locals.
I was also pleased to hear that Outback Stores was reopening the old store at the community. In my last two visits, people raised concerns with me about having to travel to Katherine to do shopping, so, once the store opens it will be a relief for them. It was pleasing to see a Work For the Dole project under way, with three local men working with some supervisors from the Roper Gulf Shire.
I also had the opportunity to visit Mr Jim Sullivan from Cave Creek, near Mataranka; who had invited me to visit his property. Being in the region, I took up this offer and spent an afternoon with him and his wife, Barbara, and his daughter, the now acclaimed author, Rosemary Sullivan. I must say that Mrs Sullivan cooked some delicious cookies which went down well with a cup of tea.
Rosemary Sullivan has written a day-in-the-life story of a young Aboriginal boy living in a small town in the Northern Territory. I understand the inspiration behind the story was her time spent at Binjari, just west of Katherine. The book is called Tom Tom, and I recommend it to members of this House and anybody looking for a book suitable for Under 10s. The text by Rosemary Sullivan, and the illustrations by Dee Huxley, describes the rich, full life of a small boy living in a remote community. The book captures a moment in the Territory life that is familiar to all of us, particularly we bush members, but which would be alien to the majority of people living in the south and on the eastern sea board.
Mr Sullivan is a firm advocate for biodiesel, and would like to see the Pongamia native tree from India used on unproductive land to produce oil for diesel engines. The oil is contained in seeds which are 30% liquid content. Mr Sullivan is trialling Pongamia on his property, and has also provided seeds to the Katherine Research Station to trial. I thank Mr and Mrs Sullivan for their hospitality, and for showing me around their property, Cave Creek Station. I wish them both the very best in the future.
Whilst in Katherine, I met with the CEOs of both the Roper Gulf and Victoria Daly Shires. The shires are in their infancy, and the forthcoming local government elections were the major preoccupation for them.
In 2008, the Department of Sport and Recreation provided the Katherine Country Club with a grant of $50 000 to replace their old bowling green with a new artificial one. I was honoured to be invited to inspect the new surface by the County Club Manager, Mr Frank Dalton, bowls club President, Dianne Byard, and Sports Development Coordinator, Denise Kelly, who showed me around the new venue. The bowls club has approximately 100 members, and membership is expected to continue to grow. The Katherine Bowls Club has the largest junior membership in the Northern Territory. Mr Dalton informed me that the provision of an artificial surface means greater use of the facility, and potentially hosting the Northern Territory championships next year. It also meant that water would be used more sparingly.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my new community shires over the next four years, the people of Katherine, and people throughout the electorate of Stuart. It is a very diverse electorate. It makes it very challenging to get around, but the challenge is what makes it so exciting.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I am going to do an extremely unusual thing in this House. I am going to, for once, debate the actual motion that is before the House; that this, that the Assembly do now adjourn. I remind members of Standing Orders 41 and 42 in relation to the adjournment of the Assembly.
41. Except as provided by these Standing Orders the Assembly may be adjourned only by its own resolution.
There is no capacity for me to try to amend this motion on the floor of the House, and that is fine.
Over the years, the adjournment debate, in parliaments universal, has become a vehicle to raise almost any issue. An uninitiated person who turned up to a listen to a debate would turn their mind to the motion that was before the House and be quite startled that speaking in support of the motion, to listen to the contribution by the member for Stuart and then, of course, we will listen to other contributions which have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the motion before the House. It has become a useful vehicle to raise all sorts of issues.
The reason I jumped before - and I suspect that I may not have gotten the jump because of it - was that I was going to seek leave to move a motion. I wanted to move a motion to bring on the business of this House. This House has 10 items of business sitting on the current Notice Paper today. I appreciate it is 12.30 at night, but there are 10 items sitting there and the government and members want to go home. I actually want to go home, but I am mindful of our duty to Territorians that we pass the items that are sitting on the Notice Paper.
The government considered that Item No 3 on the Notice Paper was of such fundamental importance to the people of the Northern Territory they dedicated every dorothy dixer they had in yesterday’s Question Time to the same topic …
Ms Carney: Very important yesterday when the media was here – very important.
Mr ELFERINK: Profoundly important. Yet, we have a government that consistently does not want to bring the business forward because they want to go home on time every night. If they want to go home on time every night, then bring on more sitting days. Work harder; that is what I am arguing for. Either work longer on those days that we sit, if we are going to sit 33 days a year, or you work more days ...
Ms Carney: Or just work, that would be good.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms Carney: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House is a motion for us to shut up shop and go home for the night. Whilst I appreciate it is late, I am also conscious of the number of items that are sitting on the Notice Paper. No 9 on the Notice Paper, I think - I do not have one in front of me - is the Auditor-General’s Report in which he reports there is some $5m in unexplained credit card transactions attached to government. I would like to debate that issue. The fact is that we do not get the opportunity to do this. We have speeches consistently truncated …
Ms Lawrie: You will get the opportunity, do not fret.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this point is eloquently made in page 479 of the House of Representatives Practice:
This is a place where we speak, talk, debate, and do the work of the people of the Northern Territory. I know it is late, and it will be late again tomorrow, and we are going to lose a day of work next week because of the visit of President Ramos-Horta. We must dedicate ourselves to our task more completely. I know the government is weary; it is late for them. They want to go home; they want to go to bed. They want to avoid having to discuss those …
Ms Lawrie: No, no, speak for yourself. Do not speak for us.
Mr ELFERINK: They want to avoid their responsibilities to the people of the Northern Territory, and all the responsibilities that have been thrust upon their shoulders ...
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong. You are very wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that we are in this adjournment debate is a testimony …
Ms Carney: You were just re-elected, you should have energy. If you are tired, give it up.
Ms Lawrie: Have you been drinking, Jodeen? Have you been drinking?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Leader of Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business just asked either me or the member for Araluen whether we had been drinking ...
Ms Purick: He doesn’t drink.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I now ask and demand that both the member for Araluen and I are breathalysed.
Ms Lawrie: I did not ask John.
Mr ELFERINK: This outrage has been perpetrated already once in this parliament and you have demanded the perpetrator …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no need for a breathalyser test. Leader of Government Business, I ask you to apologise and withdraw, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the question to the member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: As you should.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, can I just ask her to repeat that. I was not sure if I was included in that.
Ms Lawrie: You definitely were not. I did not ask the question about you.
Ms Carney: Stand up when you are talking.
Ms Lawrie: Of course, Jodeen.
Ms Carney: Well, you have no manners.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: On a point of clarification, I asked the question only of the member for Araluen. I certainly would not ask that question of the member for Port Darwin. I withdraw unreservedly on the question to the member for Araluen.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I now pause in my speech to dwell on this point. This slander has been used successfully in the past to besmirch the reputation of a good man. I am talking specifically of the former member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham, when that very dreadful accusation was levelled at him by the not-so-squeaky-clean Len Kiely, the former member for Sanderson. Because the member for Drysdale, on that occasion, had had a wine, the headlines screamed in the newspaper the next day that he was drunk: ‘Shadow minister, member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham denies he was drunk’.
Madam Speaker, you are aware of this as, as is the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister. We have no defence against this allegation other than to demand that we be breathalysed. If the allegation is levelled at us, we have no way of doing anything to prove that we have not been drinking - it is just not available to us. Yet, the promise was made and the reassurance was given to us that this would stop. Yet, this very day, the second day of the second set of sittings in the Northern Territory Assembly, once again, I find myself on my feet defending not only myself but my colleagues in relation to that scurrilous slander ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is beyond belief that they would continue down this path. What, I ask, is available to us to defend our reputations and our honours, other than a breathalyser test every time that scurrilous slander is repeated? It is reprehensible that they continue to return to this gutter politics on every occasion ...
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, how long before we hear the question shot across the Chamber: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ How long before …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, behave yourselves. You protest too much.
Ms Carney: The Chief Minister asked it in the term before last, as a matter of fact.
Ms Lawrie: You go too far.
Ms Carney: He did. The bloke whose job you want, he asked it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know what to do about it. I do not know whether I should be moving a motion tomorrow that this matter is sent to the Committee of Privileges. What do I do to protect the reputation of those people on this side of the House against those slanders? I do not have a vehicle available. Madam Speaker, perhaps you can illuminate me on this because, clearly, no matter what counsel or caution you choose to give, there is no chance that this government will stop engaging in this sort of gutter sniping and slander. I am at a loss to know what to do. Yet again, we find ourselves having to request of you that you demand an apology out of the offender.
We need to do better than this. The members opposite put out media releases that we are a rabble. Well, goodness gracious me, think about what they are trying to do because, even if this sticks in the smallest way, the headline will scream tomorrow: ‘Shadow Attorney-General, member for Araluen, is forced to deny that she was not drinking in parliament last night’, and she can prove no evidence at all that she has not been. I genuinely believe the time has come that this House should purchase a breathalysing machine, which provides a read out, and that we should start looking seriously at drug testing our members. It is the only way we can start to defend ourselves against these awful accusations.
Madam Speaker, clearly, the remedial actions that you have taken up until now have been insufficient to prevent this conduct. Unless you can suggest anything better, I strongly urge this House buy such a piece of equipment so that we can protect our honour in the face of these scurrilous and dreadful accusations levelled at the lowest end of the political spectrum.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will come to another part of my adjournment debate shortly, but on the motion of whether the House adjourns, I return to some of the comments made by the member for Port Darwin.
It is somewhat insulting to INPEX. Yesterday, the Chief Minister, in his statement, referred proudly to the relationships that he and the government had formed with so many people involved in the INPEX project. Yesterday, the government spent all of their questions in Question Time talking about INPEX. The statement was very important yesterday. It is not, apparently, important at all today. I believe that those involved with INPEX would be very interested to know about the attitude of this government. On the one hand, they say that they embrace INPEX, on the other, they say it is not even worth staying back at work for an hour or so, possibly longer, to talk about INPEX. Why on earth would you distribute to members a statement of INPEX and, then, not even bother to finish it off even in the same day? Not even the next day!
It could be that the INPEX statement might be treated as badly as the very important statement, as it was apparently on 16 September, about the economic direction of the third Labor government. I understood that another item on the Notice Paper, increasing police presence, making communities safer, done on 18 September was important too. These are not completed.
This government is just a gammon government; they are not fair dinkum. They come in here, get their little headline in the paper, a couple of speakers from government and, then, they walk away. I wonder whether it is because this government has so much inertia that they are embarrassed by the state of their Notice Paper, and at least this way they can have a few things building up over time. There are 10 things on the Notice Paper. Maybe that might make members of government feel proud but, in fact, they should be ashamed of themselves - ashamed in particular of their inability to do what appears to me a good day’s work.
Parliamentarians are paid well for the work they do. Those opposite seem not to appreciate putting in a good working day. Much is expected of parliamentarians anywhere in this country and, indeed, others. This lot seem to think that turning up late, going home early, is a good way to operate ...
Ms Lawrie: You are ridiculous.
Ms CARNEY: The people of the Northern Territory, Madam Speaker, expect and deserve …
Ms Lawrie: You are ridiculous, we do not turn up late, and we certainly do not go home early.
Ms CARNEY: Well, if you want to contribute to the debate, you can have your go ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: The Leader of Government Business has so much to say, Madam Speaker - very verbal from her seat opposite me; however, not sufficiently motivated to say to her colleagues: ‘Let us finish off a couple of statements’. Very mouthy from the seat, but not able to get up and say: ‘We are going to finish the statement’. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory, and the Chief Minister, have spoken much about the value of INPEX: ‘It is going to be worth billions of dollars to the Northern Territory’. They cannot even bother to finish the statement they introduced. No, it was not the opposition that introduced the statement; it was the government.
The opposition has to wait until next week for its General Business Day. We can guarantee that we will be working twice as hard as you lot on our General Business Day. Why? Because we are not afraid of hard work. If we were on the other side of this Chamber, we would be working harder than you.
I am frankly surprised. We only had an election 2 months ago. You would think, as a government, you would have some sort of spring in your step. Where is it? You are just warbling away, thinking: ‘Oh, what are we going to do now?’ You cannot even finish your own statements! You should be ashamed of yourself.
We appreciate that the last 2 months have been torrid ones for members opposite. There has been disaster and embarrassment after disaster and embarrassment. You would have thought that this would motivate government to pull up its collective socks and think: ‘Okay, we are going to have to work really hard’. Being in government is not just about being driven around in white cars and having your staffers hanging off you, saying: ‘Yes, minister; yes, minister’. It is about putting in the hard yards. In the short 2 months since the election, what have we seen? You lot are an embarrassment - you are just an embarrassment ...
Ms Lawrie: So you say.
Ms CARNEY: No, no, no, lots of people are saying it. You need to get out of this building, and do what you did not do in the last term - go out and talk to people. There was a really bad smell about the government before the election. Everyone knew there was a bad smell except the government. That tells you that this lot reek of arrogance, in addition to incompetence. I do not know what tag is worse - arrogance or incompetence. Certainly, if a government is both, then that is very sad, indeed, for those whom the government represent.
Getting back to the INPEX statement - and I will not pursue the adjournment that I was going to do tonight, I will wait until tomorrow night. I feel certain that the government will want to knock off early again tomorrow night. I will get back to my adjournment tomorrow night. With a bit of luck the government might - oh, I do not know - last until 8 pm. Would that be a big day for you? That is nothing; you should put in the hours. However, I digress.
In the INPEX statement yesterday, the Chief Minister made reference pretty early on in the statement that the INPEX project was an historic one for the Northern Territory. Historic? Yes, it was and, yet, they do not want to talk about it. They are going dangerously close to talking down the INPEX project, and showing their contempt and arrogance by not even giving INPEX and, indeed, Territorians, the benefit of completing a statement. It is not that hard; you have more members than us. You would have thought that you would be able, as a group, say: ‘Who is going to talk on INPEX?’ Maybe just two or three more speakers - even that would have been an improvement. We have a few speakers ready to go, but this government is just bedded in inertia and lost, apparently, in an abyss.
As the member for Port Darwin said, this goes to the heart of the parliament. The parliament is meant to do so much for the people of the Northern Territory yet, sadly, under this government the parliament is, I fear, being treated, not unlike INPEX, with contempt ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. That is outrageous. That is scurrilously outrageous.
Ms CARNEY: People reap what you sow. You reap what you sow.
Maybe there is no coincidence, but the statement on 16 September, The Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government, was very important. INPEX is very important, but you do not want to talk about them. As long as you get your pictures in the paper, you think that is enough. Well, you should have learnt that lesson in the last term of government. You should have learnt it, and you went dangerously close not to pick up the lesson. I am very interested in the economic direction of the Labor government, as are every one of my colleagues. That is in stark contrast to the lazy members on the other side.
In Alice Springs - Making Communities Safer. Making my community safer is something that I and my colleagues from Alice Springs are deeply interested in. Yet, not members opposite. A couple of speakers on the other side, and you just could not be bothered finishing it off. Well, you cannot keep ignoring Alice Springs. You cannot keep doing it and, for that matter, you cannot keep ignoring the safety concerns that so many Territorians have.
I am embarrassed by those opposite. I just cannot believe that they do not like hard work. Two-and-a-half months after an election, their get up and go has got up and went. Their get up and go has got up and went. Two-and-a-half months in. Shame, shame, shame …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in this place, we should be talking about this, and we will demonstrate to those opposite any day of the week that we are ahead of them in each and every respect.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, my adjournment speech is not quite like my colleague from Araluen. I want to talk about something a little more sedate, and that is Fogg Dam and…
Mr Elferink: Fogg Dam, damn it.
Ms PURICK: Well, I know you are all pretty excited about it. Recently, I attended the Fogg Dam Field Day which was a great success. Approximately 400 people attended the dam and the park area. It was an initiative of a group called the Friends of Fogg Dam. This group – and I encourage members to look at their website because it is a very good website and very user friendly – is a group of dedicated people from in and around that area who share the vision of putting Fogg Dam back on the map and in the hearts and minds of people, such that they can truly appreciate not only its history but what it is now. The Friends’ purpose is to promote, protect and enhance the ecological, cultural and aesthetic values of Fogg Dam, and to assist visitors to enjoy, understand and appreciate the unique place that it is.
Some members in this House may know the history of Fogg Dam. It was a rice growing project many decades ago. It was not terribly successful in the end for a combination of reasons including the ubiquitous magpie geese, but that was not the only reason that it failed. It is a man-made dam but, over time and through some neglect on everyone’s part mostly, it has been invaded with a whole lot of weeds, and sediment has built up. Through groups such as the Friends of Fogg Dam, they are starting to turn the corner and bring it back to quite a spectacular environmental piece of our Territory.
Attending the day, I could see that many hours of work had been put in, spent on planning the day, coordinating the speakers, organising activities for adults and children, and making sure that the logistic arrangements for the day were clearly understood by all the committee members.
I could see that great consideration had been given to safety and the comfort of visitors, given it was a reasonably hot day. They had bottled water available at no charge and moved the people around in minibuses. The main display area and the presentations were under the large shade trees towards the entrance, which was a very pleasant experience.
Activities for the whole family included guided walks for birds, butterfly inspections, and plants. There were talks on the research that has gone on at Fogg Dam. The first two presentations were about water pythons and cane toads. The presenters gave up-to-date research and information, plus had live specimens there so that we could look at them and learn. Both of the talks educated people, as well as entertained them. We learned about the native wild rice at Fogg Dam and its importance as a food source for the birds - not only the magpie geese, but the others that are there. Also, we learned about the dusky plain rat, which is most interesting, and there was a talk about the significance of the floodplain for measuring carbon and greenhouse gases.
There was an opportunity to visit the floodplain carbon flux monitoring tower. I did not do it, but some of the friends I went with did. The final talk was on the effects of climate change on the predator/prey biomass, which was thought-provoking, given that many people do not know that Fogg Dam has the highest biomass of a particular python you could ever find, and there is a good balance of the dusky rats and the python. The rats are there because of the grain, and the pythons come because of the rats, and everyone has a lovely time eating each other.
There was a walk through the rainforest and a walk to track and find butterflies. I did this walk and had a lovely time. I did not find any butterflies, but managed to find only the orb spiders which I stayed well clear of. The afternoon workshops were sketching animals and the environment, and wildlife photography was very popular. There was also a colourful history of Fogg Dam which was fascinating. Throughout the day, there were activities for the children which included a couple of treasure hunts which were not the normal treasure hunts - they were linked into the environment. There was water discovery through microscopes to see all the different things that were there, junior ranger activities, and colouring-in competitions.
There were displays from the various groups associated with Fogg Dam, Parks and Wildlife, Landcare, and Friends of Fogg Dam. They coordinated free buses to and from Fogg Dam which is a little way down the Arnhem Highway. The day was complemented by the Litchfield Lions who sold refreshments, which was welcome. As I said, it was a hot day. The minister for the Environment was there, and also my colleagues, the members for Brennan and Nelson.
The Friends of Fogg Dam is about two years old. It is an incorporated association which is well organised. They are a very active and dedicated bunch of people. They can be proud of their consolidation as a group and also of their achievements. The membership has increased from 33 to about 40 as of this year, and it keeps growing. Their achievements are positive and they have attracted a good level of donations to their group, and also to help with the work of preserving and improving Fogg Dam.
They have improved the signage for the visitors so they know what they are doing and where they are going. They are further developing their website which is a really good website. They have lobbied and worked with the government to get infrastructure improvements, including the monsoonal boardwalk. They work well with Parks and Wildlife, the Landcare groups, scientists, various universities - not just the Northern Territory but universities from New South Wales amongst them - community groups and, of course, the traditional owners who were also there on the day.
The Friends of Fogg Dam is to be commended for their dedication to preserving this area and working hard at taking this special place and its characteristics to people, both local and the many visitors who just happen to come across. I make a special note of Heather Bolden and Gerry Hempell who have been a driving force behind Friends of Fogg Dam and are committed to not only protecting, but also improving this very special and pretty place.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night in this House your good self, the member for Barkly, pointed out that I had included in an adjournment speech information gained from a published source - that being the website of the award. I thanked the member for Barkly for educating me, and thank him again tonight for him entering into his role as a teacher.
I dealt with that particular matter last night, but have since discovered that, in a speech I made about another debate regarding breast cancer; I have included information from a report I located whilst researching on the Internet. I now, although belatedly, would like to acknowledge that report, titled, Breast Cancer in Australia: An Overview 2006 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and National Breast Cancer Centre, published in October, 2006. I point out that there was no gain for me in using this information, but it served only as a backdrop to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers generally, and also friends and relatives of mine who have been touched by cancer, including one friend who recently died from secondary lung cancer; and my electorate officer, who has survived breast cancer.
There was no ill intent in using this information, and I apologise to the House, and to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and National Breast Cancer Centre, for not making this acknowledgement at the time of making that speech.
On 4 October, I was pleased to attend the annual October Business Month Dinner in Katherine, which was held at the Paraway Motel this year. The event was extremely well attended, and I am led to believe organisers had to disappoint more than 50 people who booked their seat too late and missed out. This is a great example of how like-minded local people from within the business community will gather together to network and catch up with each other in a casual and relaxed environment.
I also attended the October Business Month Dinners in both Pine Creek and Mataranka, held on 16 October at the Territory Manor, and 18 October at Pussycat Flats Turf Club respectively. Again, both were well attended and I was able to catch up with some people I had not seen in a while. I also had a chance to make some new acquaintances.
Although neither Pine Creek nor Mataranka are in the Katherine electorate, Katherine is the hub around which these two communities revolve in terms of the provision of many goods and services. I am pleased that I was able to find the time to meet and consult with Territorians in Katherine’s greater regions.
All of these events were well organised, well patronised and ran very smoothly due to the hard work of a group of individuals from the Katherine office of the Territory Business Centre. I must offer my congratulations to Morag Dwyer, Caryn Chalk, Andrew Mathieson and Margaret Richards for their hard work and their commitment in making these events such a success.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak for a couple of reasons. One is to pay my respects for someone who passed away on the weekend.
Much has been spoken about the Masters Games last week. I had the fortunate opportunity to play cricket with a team from the Gillen Club called the West Has Beens. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, also played in that game - not very well - but he also played in many games with us. One of the founding fathers of the West Has Beens, which has been operating for many Masters, passed away on the weekend - Neil Richardson, from Alice Springs. He was a founding father of that cricket team, and it was something he lived for every two years. He had been quite unwell with cancer, and was waiting until the Masters came around. Many of us thought that specifically what he was waiting for was to hear how we went in the cricket. As soon as the cricket was over on the Saturday, unfortunately, he passed away.
I will read some of my information here from his eulogy - not to plagiarise, but it is from the eulogy. I did not know Neil, but many of the people in our team were very good friends with him, so I would like to pass on their respects:
I pay my respects to Neil, and also many of the other people who played on that team, including a lot of people whose names end in ‘y’ – Glydey, Hodgy, Wensky, Safety Dave, Pecker, Rick Dravid, Leo, Wayne, Kelvin, Bobby, Lakey, Dave, Gary, Griffo, Schmidtty, Neil, Craig, Doctor Doctor, Sally, Clarky, Francey, Burnsy, Maxy, Choko, Boothy, Tolly – who played this year - and Gilesy, me. We all pass on our respects to someone who was on that team. The West Has Beens Cricket Team, through the Gillen Club, will continue on next Masters, and on into the future, and people will keep in their heart the memories of Neil Richardson for all he has done for the club and for Alice Springs.
I also talk about someone whom the member for Katherine mentioned, I think it was yesterday - well, it was yesterday, because we have only been here for two days – Rob Cook from Supplejack Station near the Western Australia border. He was seriously injured in a helicopter crash while mustering. He was medivaced to the specialist spinal injury clinic in Adelaide, and his wife, Sarah, and two young sons are by his side at the moment. It is a very sad time for the family - emotionally - and financially hard for the Cook family.
A foundation has been set up to help support the family and to try to raise money. On 31 October, there will be a black tie function at Alice Springs Racecourse to raise money for the family. I encourage anyone in Alice Springs who is keen to attend. If the members for Macdonnell, Araluen or Greatorex happen to be there, I will be getting auctioned off as a slave on the night to raise money for the Cook family. If you would like me to work for you as a slave, by all means come along and raise some money and bid on me. And I am not wearing a mankini mowing a lawn!
I also thank Tony Wright from 8HA, who recently ran a fundraiser for Shane Heal, a young boy from Alice Springs who is also in Adelaide with a debilitating illness. It is costing the family a lot of money to travel to Adelaide on a regular basis. 8HA heard about the story and pulled together a fundraiser, an auction held at Bo’s Tavern. Many businesses throughout Alice Springs donated a lot of goods and they were auctioned. A lot of money was raised for the Heal family, and I thank Tony for all his hard work done there.
I would like to talk about the very sad event that happened at the Alice Springs Reptile Centre a couple of weeks ago, when a young seven-year-old boy broke into the Reptile Centre at 7.53 am and caused an enormous amount of damage to the Reptile Centre in terms of its reputation but, specifically, by maiming and killing several of the animals in the Reptile Centre. I heard about it on the radio and immediately went to see Rex Neindorf and his staff, and inspected what had actually happened. Amazingly, this young seven-year-old avoided $40 000 worth of security such as cameras, wires and fences. It was amazing how he got around everything. He was there for half-an-hour and managed to kill 13 animals and feed them to the crocodiles, and slaughter turtles. What happened there was just horrifying.
The people who manage the centre are, understandably, very upset and so is much of the public in Alice Springs. I am not sure what happens to that child now but something serious needs to happen to that young boy. If you have that intention at that age, one cannot be sure how he might grow up. I hope that the support is put around that child to ensure that he has a fruitful life.
The upset of Rex Neindorf, I believe, could have been overcome slightly had the parents or guardians at least made an apology to the Reptile Centre, but no one has been to see them - not one person has been to see them. Kids get up to mischief. This is more than mischief, but no one has come to apologise to him. Surely, someone has to take responsibility for what this kid did, whether it is the parent’s responsibility, services or otherwise. Even the seven-year-old could go there and say sorry, but no one has been there and that is disgraceful.
I will talk about a death which occurred in Braitling just after the storms in Alice Springs. Unfortunately, a pedestrian was hit on the highway outside the Northside shops in Alice Springs. I have written to the member for Karama about it, the Transport minister. It was an unfortunate accident. There are circumstances involved in that accident that I am aware of, and I am not here to apportion blame. What happened is very sad.
The location where this incident occurred, I would say, is probably one of the most trafficked crossings that I know of in the Northern Territory. It does not have lights; it has a little fence on a medium strip where people run across the Stuart Highway. On one side, you have the shops and on the other side you have a couple of town camps. The traffic that passes along there is amazing. As a person who uses that crossing as I walk down to the shops, when you have to run across a four-lane highway in front of road trains to try to get to the other side, my opinion is that it is completely unsafe.
I am not a scientist but it is a very unsafe area. If you are coming from the town camp to the shop or from the shop to the other side, and you are a mother with a couple of kids trying to drag them across the road in front of a three-trailer road train, it is quite unsafe. I have written to the member for Karama, asking if her department could do an investigation to find out if that is a safe location and whether other things need to change to make that place safer - whether that is reduction in speed, lights, pedestrian crossings, or something to ensure that is safer.
In the past, there have been people who have been hit there and, unfortunately, killed. We have just seen this happen again. I know there are other circumstances around that incident, but it really needs to be investigated so that people do not get hit there again because, sure enough, other kids will get hit there. It is pretty sad.
In between sittings, I did a number of things but one place I went to and I love going to - I know the member for Macdonnell has recently been there - is the Tiwi Islands. I was fortunate enough to be escorted through the Tiwis by the Tiwi Land Council and had many meetings on the Tiwi Islands. I spent part of the time with Great Southern Plantations which I have been to see a few times. I thank the land council and Andrew and Craig and all the staff from Great Southern Plantations.
The thing that amazed me about Great Southern Plantations, is this is something that can be done. We all sit around and talk about Aboriginal employment and investment, and regional economic development. Here we have an island with a thriving forestry industry. I know the member for Arafura is not the greatest supporter of the forestry on the island, and the business itself does not employ as many Tiwi people as I would like to see employed. This is where you can see an opportunity where investment can happen in a regional location and has potential for economic generation, financial generation, and for jobs to be created. This is what we should be replicating across the Territory. The member for Stuart, as the Minister for Regional Development, should be supporting this process and putting pressure on.
We can create the economic opportunities - and there are not many places in regional parts of the Territory where those economic opportunities are. However, when those economic opportunities are created, we have to get tough with things like welfare. There is no point having jobs over here and having people sitting down over here on sit down money. You have to provide the policy direction and the certainty to move people from welfare into those jobs. They have jobs sitting over there right now while all these people are on CDEP or welfare. We have to provide the leadership to make that happen. I know it is very tough. I know from people who are local members in those areas it is very tough to make those decisions and those recommendations, because people do not like change and have had sit down money for so long.
If we are going to make positive change, if we are going to get those people into work, get the kids to school, and people to start buying their houses, you have to make the hard decisions. That is why I am prepared to say that we should get rid of the permit system. If we are going to try to make economic advancement and economic certainty in communities we have to get rid of the permit system in communities so we can start generating an income. We have to have 99-year town leases, so that we can start subdividing the land in those communities, creating businesses, giving some certainty to banks so they will lend in those communities and small townships.
I ask myself this question: how can we grow places like Ti Tree? Ti Tree is almost the sixth town in the Northern Territory. I go to Ti Tree and ask: ‘How do we get this place going?’, and they say: ‘Well, it would be good if we had some land’. They need 45 housing blocks so that they can start getting some houses in Ti Tree, so that the staff who are going to work for Arafura Resources at Aileron have somewhere to live.
The local traditional owners there, some of the elders there, want to open up a supermarket or a hardware shop. There are people there with ideas about the economy, about how they can have development, about economic growth and job creation for local people. But there is no leadership to make it happen. I know it is not easy. People will say: ‘Oh it is easy to set up there. Member for Braitling, you stand there, you can say this is how it is done, and it is not going to happen’. Well, it has to happen. You have to do it. If you do not have the intestinal fortitude to have some vision, some driving commitment and make decisions, and make things happen, nothing will change. People will keep sitting on their backsides and drinking, if I can generalise. People will keep sitting on their backsides on welfare, because nobody is creating the opportunity, or the pathway, or the kick in the backside - the carrot and the stick.
A member: It is about leadership.
Mr GILES: It is about leadership - that is right. I have a lot of time for the people on the Tiwis. I have a lot of time for Great Southern Plantations. No matter what position they are in, they have jobs in a regional location. This is the model that we should be replicating across the Territory, however that fits. And when we get the model, tighten the welfare guidelines, tighten the school guidelines, open the business opportunities, create tax incentives, and get people moving in there.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about concerns of constituents in my electorate in relation to the power situation. From the Power and Water Corporation website, there are a number of maps available. It is very clear. It says here, ‘the Casuarina Zone Substation affected area’, and it is a shaded area which, supposedly, is fed by the Casuarina Substation. I have no reason to disbelieve that that is an exact and accurate map of the situation. However, on the same website, there are a number of information sheets.
On page 1 of the first one titled Information for Northern Territory Government Employees, it says numerous things. I will quote from this particular document in relation to a number of items. One is: ‘Why is the power supply so vulnerable?’ It says that about two weeks ago there was an explosion at Casuarina Substation which supplies approximately 15 000 residential and business customers in the suburbs surrounding Casuarina. Last week, there was a further major failure at the substation.
It goes on to say that Power and Water has been unable to isolate the exact cause of these failures, and that independent experts are assisting Power and Water to determine the cause. In the meantime, Power and Water believes it is prudent to put plans in place in case there is another failure.
The next heading on this particular information sheet says: ‘What areas are affected?’ I quote from the document that is available on the Power and Water Corporation website:
It is very interesting that a number of people in my electorate, and outside of my electorate, but outside also of the Casuarina Zone Substation area, are experiencing power failures and intermittent supply. In fact, my electorate office in the Northlakes Shopping Centre has suffered numerous interruptions in supply, some for short periods of time, others for anywhere between half-an-hour, perhaps 40 minutes, and then the power is trying to get back on, flicker, off again, etcetera. The businesses in that shopping centre are all blacked out except for Coles which, fortunately, has a generator. Unfortunately, we cannot tap into that generator.
There is a concern in my electorate. I live in the electorate and my home is suffering power failures as well. Yet, in the information here it says that other areas are not affected. Having lived up here for just short of 30 years one gets used to power outages especially in the Wet Season. When I first came here, power outages were frequent. However, as time went by those outages became fewer and fewer with the introduction of lightning arrestors and a maintenance schedule.
We have heard numerous things about the supposed, or apparent, lack of maintenance. I do not intend to bore anyone in the House with anything along that nature. However, it has come to my attention, from different people who have spoken to me, that we do have an issue and a problem in relation to power all over the greater Darwin area. I have had a friend supply me with some photographs. This particular person used to be, up until a time in the recent past, part of the teams that went around and did the maintenance on this electrical equipment. After the incident that occurred at Casuarina Substation a number of weeks ago, they did a little drive around the greater Darwin area and had a look at all the infrastructure that keeps the reticulation of power going to that particular area. This person – who, I might add, is a person who worked on maintaining this very equipment that he has taken photos of - wishes to remain anonymous. He indicated to me, made some notes, and gave me a briefing on just what the issues are.
I must say that I am quite stunned at the level of disrepair that our electrical reticulation system is in. When he showed me the photographs, I as someone who has no qualifications in that area, may not notice anything. But he certainly did. He supplied me with photocopies of particular books, one called the Transformer Book by A C Franklin and D P Franklin. He made a note and said that these books are not the sort of things sitting in library shelves; they are books that people who work in the industry and maintain these industries have. These are industry standard books.
He gave me a copy of parts of this book, and pointed out to me that these were the sort of things that one needs to do and maintain if you want continuity of supply. It is with great interest that he points out, for instance, transformers in Winnellie which have severe oil leaks from them - and oil, of course, is a coolant for these transformers. They also house switching gear which is bathed in that oil, and the oil is a coolant and insulation for the switches housed inside the transformers.
There are also other areas where we need to direct attention. At the Berrimah Zone Substation, there is - sorry, I will just go back to Lee Point Road and Buffalo Creek Road, which is outside the map supplied by the Power and Water Corporation. At Mindil Beach, there is the marine cable that joins the aerial cable supplying power to the Cox Peninsula. There are broken insulators which need to be replaced. They become porous, they absorb water and, prior to the Wet Season, these are the sort of things that are going to cause major problems.
If you have been around Darwin long enough in the Wet Season with the high humidity, most of us have seen the jumping and the arcing that occurs from poor insulation or wires that get too close together. So, on the high voltage lines, there are actually some issues. There are numerous photos of the Casuarina Zone Substation and transformers within the area marked on that particular map.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not know what I will tell my constituents, when the website shows that the area surrounding the Casuarina Zone Substation map and other areas are not affected, when these people are having continual power outages. I do not think they are as long as the ones that have been occurring at Casuarina; however, they do occur.
The other issue is that, on the second page of the same brochure that is available on the website, it says: ‘What else do I need to know?’ I quote:
This would clearly appear not to be the case. It would be interesting if the Minister for Essential Services could do a check, and enlighten the House as to how often these power outages have been occurring in areas outside the Casuarina Zone Substation affected area, and the duration of those outages.
I record the concerns of my constituents and bring to the House’s attention that there are some major issues outside the area of the Casuarina Zone Substation area.
I address another matter that has arisen out of an adjournment debate that I gave in this House on Thursday, 18 September this year in relation to the Centenary Year of Australian Scouting. I wish to thank the member for Barkly for pointing out that the facts and figures I took from the Scouting Australia website were not acknowledged in my speech.
In my enthusiasm to support Scouting Australia and recognise their outstanding contribution, it was genuinely an oversight and not one that will be repeated. That said, considering that this was not something other than recognising an outstanding group, potentially, the member for Barkly could have found another vehicle for bringing this to my attention than coming into this Chamber and drawing my attention to it. How the member for Barkly chooses to conduct himself is, of course, his own business. I reiterate that this was an oversight, with no loss to anyone concerned. I will endeavour to ensure that that matter does not occur again, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Mrs Hilda Muir
Death of Mrs Hilda Muir
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you that at 11 am there will be a condolence motion for the late Mrs Hilda Muir. Should a member be speaking at that time, I will interrupt so that we can move the condolence motion forthwith.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Masters Games 2008
Masters Games 2008
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this report.
Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Alice Springs Masters Games which were, once again, a huge success. With over 4200 competitors, Alice Springs was certainly buzzing. We also had a record number of local competitors - well over 1200 – and, with over 35 sports, there was something for everyone.
The Masters Games proves that age is no barrier for competing and enjoying your particular sport. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit most sports and present many medals. I have to say one of the highlights for me was being able to present the Games patron, Dawn Fraser, with her silver medal in swimming. This Australian icon made her return to swimming at the Masters Games, and it was a thrill for many to see her in the pool again. She has assured us that she will be back in 2010. I also presented a 97-year-old lady, who still competes in the swimming, with a medal, and I presented a medal to an 82-year-old lady who had just completed the 5 km cross-country event. This epitomises what the games are all about.
For the first time, there was an AFL Masters Games, with the Alice Springs team competing against Darwin. I had the pleasure of playing in this match, which Alice Springs won, of course, and it was great to see one of the AFL legends from the Northern Territory, Michael Long, out there for the Top Enders. The man of the match was Dick Kimber, our own legend from Alice Springs. Dick was thrilled to kick a goal for the Alice, albeit only 10 m from the goals, and I believe he celebrated accordingly that night. Dick also competed in quite a few swimming events - not bad for a man of 68 years of age. A local Alice Springs identity, Wayne Kraft, donned the boots for Darwin together with many ex-footballers from both ends of the Territory. This event was a big success and drew a large crowd at Traeger Park. Given the success, I believe it may be included in future Masters Games events.
The Alice Springs Masters Games is a major event and it takes a huge amount of organisation to stage such a successful one. Congratulations must go to the people behind the scenes, such as the volunteers - all 550 of them. The volunteers include the ambassadors, umpires, time scorers, sports coordinators, and many more who give up their time and even take annual leave to work tirelessly for the week of the games to ensure their success.
I visited the Masters Games headquarters at the convention centre and saw firsthand the hard work of the volunteers. I met with Kathy, Wolf, and Ray who were part of the transport team, and Brian Webb, who is an important part of the media for the games. To Peter Hoey, the Chair of the Masters Games Board, and the board members, the committee members of the Masters Games, and the staff of the Major Events, congratulations to all of you.
The local business people who provide support and sponsorship for the games, both monetary and in-kind, also make a huge contribution to the games success. The Masters Games Daily, which was printed by volunteers with over 7000 copies distributed daily, is an example of the in-kind sponsorship provided, with the paper, printing, etcetera, part of the sponsorship.
I had the pleasure of hosting a thank you luncheon for the 23 business sponsors and, once again, they showed their generosity. Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers had kindly signed their Masters Games T-shirts, which Daryl auctioned at the luncheon with the proceeds going to the Breast Cancer Council, with over $1000 raised.
Lincoln Jenkin, from the Foster’s Group, also gave a talk about what the Masters Games sponsorship means to their company. Foster’s has been sponsoring the Masters Games since 1986, and all indications are they, with the other sponsors, will be on board again in 2010.
Madam Speaker, work is already under way for the 2010 Alice Springs Masters Games, with most participants already pre-booking their accommodation. Alice Springs really shone during the Masters Games week. I congratulate all the people of Alice Springs on another fantastic games event.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation. He is correct; the Masters Games in Alice Springs was a fantastic event. I could only visit and view some of those sports for a handful of days while I was in Alice Springs. They were fantastic – the people, the spirit of everyone who came to Alice Springs shines brightly for the rest of Australia; the way games should be held. The spirit in which they are run is truly fantastic to see in today’s climate.
They call them the Friendly Games and I can tell you that the people who were there were friendly - although some wore rather brief outfits while playing cricket! I am glad none of our members participated in bikini cricket. It is a time where fun is joined with great sportsmanship. It is great sportsmanship when you see a 97-year-old lady compete in a 50 m swim and take what seemed to be forever to do it. That lady still had the strength to climb up the steps out of the pool, and the crowd appreciated every stroke she swam. It was an amazing event. That was just before Dawn Fraser swam. I saw that as well, and I was very impressed.
The volunteers did a fantastic job; the grounds around Alice Springs were immaculate. They were so well manicured the SCG would have been proud. I commend everyone involved in preparing for the games, in running them, and everyone who competed in the spirit of the games. This is truly the Friendly Games and I look forward, personally, to participate next time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, two minutes is all I have, and two minutes is probably what it would take to run the 400 m – and that is why I pulled out! No, it is not.
The games were great. As Damien Ryan said to me last night, he felt for the first time ever that Alice Springs people took ownership of the Masters Games. Meeting all the volunteers and all the locals, I say that is exactly what it was about. There was a great feel about Alice Springs and it was most enjoyable to be there.
There were a few politicians who participated. The member for Fong Lim actually stood on the football field during the AFL match; the member for Braitling missed a sitter in the cricket - I am not sure why he was fielding; I did not see the member for Drysdale, but I gather he was giving out medals; the member for Araluen has continuously shaken some sort of silver or gold or bronze so, obviously, she won something in some participatory occupation …
A member: Golf.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right; I think it is called golf. The ex-member for Greatorex was involved in table tennis. I played with him, which did not help – we lost quite easily. There were many people participating, including politicians, which is good. It shows we are and should be working with people and showing the way, especially for older people, to keep participating in sport. We should remind ourselves that, as we get older, we should try to keep fit. That is what the Masters Games promotes.
There are possibilities with The Ghan, for instance. As there are many people in the Territory who are involved in the Masters; perhaps they could put some extra carriages on the train on the Saturday or Sunday before the games and take teams down, and the same to come back. We could use The Ghan as part of the promotion for people in the Territory to get to the Masters.
We need to look at the price of accommodation. It certainly goes up a long way when these games are on, and it needs to be looked at ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their contributions and their involvement in the games over the last week. To all members of the Assembly who participated, thanks for coming down and being involved. I also acknowledge the Chief Minister for the opening, and the Minister for Central Australia. The member for Barkly also participated in presenting quite a few medals; it was great to get him down there and he also attended the luncheon.
I thank the Mayor, Damien Ryan, for his and the council’s work over the week. They have done a fantastic job in not only preparing the facilities but in many other ways.
I will take up those issues the member for Nelson has raised regarding The Ghan and accommodation prices.
All in all, particular thanks to Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers, two great ambassadors for the games. They are people who are very popular and well accepted by the Alice Springs community. Well done, and I look forward to 2010.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the minister has endeavoured to put a question before the House at the opening statement as he said: ‘… this report be noted’, I presume he was referring to his report only. Is it the case, under this new system, where there is actually a question before the House in ministerial reports that we are going to be putting the question after each report, or at the end of the three reports?
Madam SPEAKER: It has been the custom, as it will continue to be the custom, to put the question at the end of all ministerial reports. I refer to page 43 of Standing Orders 96A, Ministerial Reports No (5):
- At the conclusion of Reports or after 30 minutes, whichever is first occurring, the Speaker shall put the question that Ministerial Reports be noted, which question shall be put without further debate or amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was just that I did not quite understand the language. He simply said ‘this report be noted’. I appreciate that the government at least is trying to dress this farcical exercise up as a question.
School Environment Grants Program 2008-09
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report today on the 2008-09 School Environment Grants Program. These grants encourage young Territorians and their school communities to engage in positive action on environmental issues. School-age children receive a lot of information about matters affecting the environment, and it is important for them to be empowered to take personal action to make a difference. It is also important that students learn about our unique Territory environment in an interesting and a hands-on way.
Hundreds of young Territorians benefit from the School Environment Grants, and the Territory will benefit into the future from the knowledge that our young people gain about conservation and biodiversity. This year’s projects include:
Angurugu Community Education Centre on Groote Eylandt for their Caring For Our Local Environment project.
ANZAC Hill High School in Alice Springs for Our Place proposal;
MacFarlane Primary School in Katherine East for their native bush tucker garden;
I make special mention of Alawa Primary School in Darwin which received two grants, one for the purchase of solar panels for their school farm, and the other to create a cane toad-free haven for lizards and frogs.
Madam Speaker, I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I congratulate each and every one of these schools on their motivation, imagination, and commitment to our environment.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement regarding the School Environmental Grants. It is always good to support this kind of activity in the primary school, in particular, given that is where children start to form their views and attitudes towards life. If it is in the primary schools, middle and upper primary school, that is an ideal place to start. I believe it is from children that we actually learn things regarding looking after our environment, recycling, and turning off taps.
Schools have done audits using resource material that we used at the Minerals Council, called EnviroSmart. The children used to take tasks back to the government asking for dual flush toilets instead of single flushes. I recall the Adelaide River Primary School used to have all the children put their names on their Poppa drinks so that, if an empty Poppa container was found on the ground, they knew exactly which child had dropped it. That way, through peer pressure, the children started to clean up their school and make it look nice. In fact, Adelaide River Primary School won awards for environmental matters.
Schools such as Bees Creek Primary School, for example, have an organic garden which the children maintain and attend to. They have outside help from Chris Nathaniel, who is well known for his horticulture, agriculture, and organic gardening and produce. They are very proud of that garden. Taminmin High School has an agricultural component. I was there the other day and was shown around by Greg Owens. They are doing a terrific job there. I do not know, at this stage, if they have put in for any of the School Environment Grants but, if there is one school that should benefit from government assistance in regard to environmental research and management to encourage the children to work in this field and to protect and promote our environment, that is definitely one of the schools. I will be going back to that school to get further briefings and, if there are ways we can get additional grants for Taminmin High School for the agricultural program, then I would commend that to the minister. I thank her for her statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government on its environmental awards. It is important that young children, especially in school, have some basic knowledge about why the environment is important. We need to ensure we balance that. Life is not quite as simple as having a garden in a school. There are other issues later in life they will find come into play in regard to protecting the environment. It is good to see that we are helping young children find out more about the environment.
I remember science days at Humpty Doo Primary School, where we used to have Water Watch programs. We would look at macro-invertebrates. You would see on the faces of the young children how interested they were in something they knew very little about; that the water quality would affect these small insects, these small macro-invertebrates, which they did not know anything about until someone had come along and shown them. They looked through a microscope. They were able to find out things that they otherwise would not have known about. It is important that the government promotes environmental awareness, especially in today’s climate.
Madam Speaker, I made an omission in my previous statement. The minister for Sport is a wonderful footballer. He did participate in the Masters Games and I am sorry I missed him in my previous notes.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for Goyder and Nelson for their comments. When I was on the Tiwi Islands last week I went to one of the schools there where they were doing a study on the environment and the vegetation of the Tiwi Islands. I congratulate that school.
We are unique in the Northern Territory in the sense that we do try to get our children to understand the environment so that the Territory has a safer future - for us as oldies in the future, so that we have young kids looking after the future. This will only create healthy children, a healthy Territory and a healthy future.
Carers in the Northern Territory
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the immense contribution that carers make in our community. Carers play an integral part in making it possible for many people to continue to live in the community. Without their contribution and dedication, many of our frail, aged people, people with a disability, and people with a chronic illness would simply not be able to stay in their homes. It is timely that we consider the effort of these members of our community with Carers Week being celebrated from 19 to 25 October, with particular focus on Carers Day, which was on Tuesday. I was pleased to launch Carers Week on Monday.
The enhancement carers provide to the lifestyle of others cannot be reflected by statistics, but the official statistics do tell part of the story of Australia’s committed army of carers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has estimated there are 2.6 million carers who provide some assistance to those who need help because of disability or age. This may be to a family member, a friend, or as a paid carer. This is quite an amazing statics, because that is one in every eight Australians. There are approximately 26 000 carers in Territory and around 6000 of these are Indigenous carers living in remote communities. We are very aware - not only government but those who work with carers across the Northern Territory - that there are many in these communities who do not realise that they are actually carers; those who take on the role of caring for someone who is aged, or people who are living with kidney disease or with mental health in our remote regions. We are very aware, especially in this week of Carers Week across Australia, that we need to ensure those people have support and assistance, and recognise that they are carers.
Those who provide care to people with a disability are more likely to be older and/or have a disability themselves. Nationally, 24% of primary carers are aged 65 years and over, while people over 65 years make up only 13% of the total population. Of course, these figures do not and cannot detail the commitment and the compassion of our carers - that is immeasurable.
The Northern Territory government introduced the Carers Recognition Act in 2006 to acknowledge and recognise the role of carers as an essential partner in the caring role in our community. The act requires organisations to consider carers when making decisions regarding service planning and delivery for clients. Evidence increasingly shows that involving families and carers in service planning and delivery improved both the consumer and the carer’s wellbeing and outcomes. The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme provides assistance with the cost of living for carers. It includes concessions on electricity, water, rates, driver’s licences and spectacles.
In the Northern Territory context, working with carers and families presents unique challenges not necessarily encountered anywhere else. Engaging Indigenous carers and consulting those involved in an individual’s environment in accordance with traditionally family and kinship structures in remote and often isolated communities is one such challenge.
The Northern Territory government funds a range of support for carers including respite care, centre-based day activity programs, counselling services and training and support. Older carers benefit from the Northern Territory government/Australian government Respite for Older Carers program which provides respite options specifically for our older community members, and support for planning for the time they will not be able to continue to provide care.
During the recent election, the Chief Minister committed to providing $20 000 towards Carers Week. I am pleased to say that this commitment has been fully honoured. This funding was provided in recognition of the important work that carers undertake every day within our community. I urge all Territorians to get involved in Carers Week activities and to actively support the carers they know.
Carers NT represents unpaid carers in the Northern Territory. They suggest that people may wish to acknowledge the work of carers in their communities by making the effort to spend some time with them or to give them a call. This is quite a simple thing we can all do to say thanks to the carers in our community who are supporting family and friends.
Madam Speaker, I give my personal heartfelt thanks to all our carers who selflessly give of their time and energy to help others to continue to live in the community.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. The opposition joins with her on passing on our heartfelt thanks for the work carers do - often underestimated. I do not think it has been until relatively recent times that organisations and governments had actually tried to particularise or calculate the benefit that carers make or give to the community. It is a fitting ministerial report and Carers Week should be appropriately acknowledged, both in and out of the parliament.
Two questions arise from your report though, minister. You referred to the ABS statistics that 26 000 Territorians were carers. Then you said that not everyone recognised they were a carer. The question is: how is it measured, and to what extent are those who do not recognise or consider themselves carers taken into the figures? Or is that a separate figure, and what is the estimate in that regard? Second, you referred to $20 000 given by government for Carers Week. What for? How is it expended, and where exactly does it go?
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opposition spokesperson’s heartfelt thanks. I am sure carers across the Territory will appreciate that the parliament and every parliamentarian is aware of the work that goes on in our communities across the Northern Territory.
In relation to your first question on how is it measured, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimation is 2.6 million, whereas one in eight Australians is the figure we have taken. The estimation is based on Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures. My inclusion of the Indigenous carers who are, perhaps, unaware of their position as carers is an acknowledged fact. It is not statistical evidence; it is based on basic knowledge …
Ms Carney: So, it is in addition to the 26 000?
Ms McCARTHY: Yes. I can relate to people I know within the constituency of Arnhem who just would not think they are carers, caring for their aunty or their grandfather. They do not realise that they are considered as carers.
Regarding the $20 000 for Carers Week, that is a contribution to carers for their barbecues, for their programs that they have held this week. It is our contribution for them to use in whatever way they see fit.
Ms Carney: For the week?
Ms McCARTHY: Yes.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Luncheon and Dinner Breaks of Assembly
Luncheon and Dinner Breaks of Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That on Thursday, 23 October 2008, the Assembly:
(a) suspend at 12 noon and recommence at approximately 3 pm on the ringing of the bells; and
(b) on the sittings being recommenced, they continue without observing the dinner break period until adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst I suspect I know the reasons for this motion being put to the House, the minister, on standing in this place, has simply put the motion, sat down and invited further debate by sitting down. It is a matter of courtesy to this House that such motions be delivered with an explanation as to why they have been introduced. I suspect I know why. I suspect it has a lot to do with the arrival of President Ramos-Horta next Thursday. However, the procedural …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, we are referring to tomorrow.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I can help with the clarification for the member opposite. I am aware that on Monday you alerted the Opposition Whip that in order for members to attend the funeral on Thursday of ‘Aunty’ Hilda Muir, for whom we have a condolence motion today, we would be recommencing at 3 pm and, accordingly, make up the hour by forgoing the normal dinner break. The Government Whip has been communicating that to the Opposition Whip as a reminder. That is why I did not go to some length and detail because there has been communication through the Whips.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, whilst I accept that, that explanation took about two minutes. That is all that was really required.
However, that these procedural motions are brought before House and there is an absolute expectation that they will pass without so much as an opportunity to discussion them, is just another liberty that this government likes to take in this House. Motions of this nature need an explanation when they come to this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I close the debate by saying …
Mr Tollner: Close the debate – well done!
Ms LAWRIE: I put the motion and there were no other speakers …
Mr Tollner: Close the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I put the motion and there were no other speakers so, under debating rules, I am closing the debate.
The government clearly communicated the reason why we sought to change the proceedings on Thursday. It is to attend the funeral. The timing of the funeral was the family’s decision. This is not about ignoring procedures in the parliament. We went through the Whip. If, in future, that is not sufficient, then by all means, I will have a conversation with the member for Port Darwin about what process would satisfy the opposition. However, we have stuck to convention by going through the Whip.
Motion agreed to.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS) BILL
(Serial 11)
(Serial 11)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to set up a modern pecuniary interests register for members of the Legislative Assembly and those closely connected to them. The new scheme will replace the existing scheme implemented by way of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act 1982. It was an election commitment of this government to review the old scheme and introduce an up-to-date transparent system for the registration of pecuniary interests and for public inspection of this information.
Due to the nature of our work as parliamentarians, as legislators, as the managers of public funds, and as policy makers, it is necessary to suppress certain privacy considerations and to require members of the Assembly to disclose specified personal and financial information. The interests that have been disclosed are designed to ensure there is an open and transparent system of government. They are designed to identify and avoid possible conflict between the member’s public duties and their private interests.
The review was delegated to the Standing Orders Committee. This committee considered the matter and arranged for a draft bill to be drafted. On reflection, however, the proposed new scheme was considered to be too complex and would have required many members to obtain the assistance of professional accountants to comply. The committee subsequently arranged for a simpler bill to be drafted, which was largely based on the Commonwealth’s House of Representatives provisions.
The Chair of the committee submitted this revised bill to government with a view to having it approved for introduction. With the exception of two amendments that I will discuss in a moment, the government has accepted the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee and its revised bill.
In order to ensure that the new scheme is as wide as possible, the government has put forward a bill that imposes disclosure obligations in regard to the pecuniary interests of MLAs’ de facto partners. Under existing legislative definitions, this extends to de facto same sex partners. The current scheme imposes disclosure obligations in regard to the financial interests of an MLA, a spouse, a de facto partner and to dependent children. The bill recommended by the committee only extended to the financial interests of a member, a spouse and dependent children. There seems to be little justification in making the disclosure provisions narrower than they already are. A modern, transparent pecuniary interest register should extend to the interests of all people the member is closely connected to, and where there is a possibility of a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest.
The second difference between the bill that has been introduced and the bill that was recommended by the committee concerns the conditions upon which the register of members’ interests is to be made available for inspection. The committee’s draft specifies the register to be available for inspection under conditions laid down by a committee of members’ interests from time to time. Conceivably, at some stage in the future, such a committee could impose both cost and time restrictions that would place significant obstacles in the way of reasonable and open public access. To ensure the open and transparent intention is maintained, a minor addition has been made to this clause so that the conditions of access laid down by any future committee have to be reasonable, and that the information should be generally available to the public unless there is good reason to restrict its availability. Both amendments proposed by the government will result in a broader, more open scheme.
In regard to the committee that determines the conditions upon which the register of interests is to be available for inspection, I note that the federal parliament sets up a specific Committee of Members’ Interests to undertake this task. The former Chair of this Assembly’s Standing Orders Committee suggested that the establishment of a new dedicated committee for this task is unwarranted in the Northern Territory. He further suggested that the existing Standing Orders Committee could undertake the role.
The essential components of the proposed scheme are as follows:
within 28 days of becoming an MLA, the member must provide a statement of defined pecuniary interests in regard to themselves, and in regard to related people.
directorships, interests as a beneficiary, landholdings, partnerships, debts, bonds, bank accounts, major assets, gifts, sponsored travel or hospitality, and any other interests
where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise.
The new scheme is straightforward, comprehensive, and easy to understand.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS) BILL
(Serial 12)
(Serial 12)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill establishes a Code of Conduct which sets out enforceable principles of ethical conduct and standards of behaviour for members of the Legislative Assembly. It is based on the Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 24 March 2004, and follows legal advice from the Solicitor-General regarding how to make the code more enforceable.
The government decided to place the code into law to ensure it was made more enforceable and to elevate its status in the eyes of the public. It is a policy position which the Labor Party has had for some time and which we enunciated in 2001. In June 2002, the former Chief Minister subsequently tabled the draft documents in this House titled Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
The document was referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and advice. The committee, with assistance from officers of the Department of the Legislative Assembly, researched the matter extensively, conferred with experts in the field, and undertook a public consultation process. Issues considered by the Standing Orders Committee included the following:
how the code was to be enforced. Rather than just have an aspirational document, the consensus view was the code should have legislative force with enforceable provisions.
available as a public document.
and, if established, treated as contempt. Lesser breaches could be referred to the Privileges Committee and, if proven, a reprimand would the likely outcome.
The Standing Orders Committee considered Codes of Conduct in Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. The content of the various codes varied widely. However, common elements include: disclosure of conflict of interest; bribery; gifts; use of public resources; use of confidential information; and responsibilities and duties of a member of parliament. Some other matters dealt with in the interstate codes include: obligations on the members not to abuse their freedom of speech; obligations not to mislead the parliament or the public; impartiality of members in relationship with lobbyists; the private conduct of members; post-parliamentary employment restrictions, and guidelines for use of member entitlements.
A copy of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, which had been tabled in the House, was posted on the Assembly’s website, and the public was invited to make submissions on the matter. The Standing Orders Committee received and considered submissions from the New South Wales Standing Ethics Committee, the Queensland Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, the member for Nelson, and the Auditor-General. It met with Mr Howard Whitton, the consultant who had prepared the draft code, and with the New South Wales Standing Ethics Committee.
Findings and recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee were set out in a report. The committee arranged for a revised Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards to be prepared, and it was this document which was submitted to, and adopted by, this Assembly in March 2004.
The committee recommended the Clerk of the Assembly seek appropriate legal advice on a number of issues which had arisen during its investigations and consultations and, following resolution of these issues, that a bill be drafted.
Advice was subsequently obtained from the Solicitor-General on matters relating to: consistency with provisions of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act; the enforceability of some of the proposed offences, because of the subjective nature of some of the concepts being described; the enforceability of the self-dealing provisions regarding MLAs and government contracts; and whether it was possible to enforce restrictions on former members’ post-separation employment.
Following consideration of this advice, Parliamentary Counsel was subsequently instructed to draft a bill implementing and enforcing the code, and to make the necessary amendments to the code. It is this bill and revised code that is currently before the House for consideration.
The proposed bill contains the Code of Conduct as a schedule. It establishes principles of ethical conduct and standards of behaviour for members of the Legislative Assembly under four main headings: integrity, accountability, responsibility and public interest. The code notes that it is not to be regarded as an exhaustive statement, and that members must use their own judgment to determine the appropriate course of conduct in situations not explicitly covered. This conduct should be in accordance with the general principles of ethical behaviour which are set out.
Part 2 of the code sets out the essential principles and standards. It contains 11 sections:
Integrity: members must act with integrity in the exercise of official functions duties and responsibilities.
Conflict of Interest: members must avoid conflicts, or apparent conflicts, between their private interests and their official functions and responsibilities.
Declaration of Interests: a member must not vote in any division on a question affecting a declarable interest unless the member has first declared the interest to
the Assembly. In regard to this provision, it is noted that a minor amendment has been made to the version that was prepared by the Standing Orders Committee
and subsequently adopted by the Assembly. The declaration of interest section defines such interests as including an interest in a contract with the Territory. A
provision which seems to suggest that a member could vote in a division concerning such a contract would be inconsistent with the absolute prohibition in section
21(3) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 which says that an MLA with a direct or indirect interest in a contract with the Territory shall not take part in
a discussion of the matter or a vote on the question.
- Accordingly, a note has been added to the end of item 3 to provide that the declaration of interest principles set out in the schedule only applies in cases of conflict, or possible conflict, of interest where the statutory prohibition in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act does not apply. The note has only been added as a guide and to avoid any doubt since Principle 8 in the schedule dealing with government contracts already provides that a member must not hold, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or arrangement for the provision of services to or for the Territory.
Commitment: a member must not engage in any other employment or business activity that involves a substantial commitment of time and effort.
Honesty: members must act honestly in all their official dealings and must take care not to mislead the Assembly or the public.
Respect for Confidences: a member must respect the confidentiality of information obtained in confidence in the member’s official capacity, and not make
improper use of it to gain a private benefit.
Gifts: a member must not solicit or encourage a gift or private benefit from a constituent or other person with whom the member deals with in an official capacity.
Unsolicited gifts and benefits over a certain value will need to be disclosed under the disclosure of interest legislation.
Government Contracts: a member must not hold, either directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or arrangement for the provision of services to or for the Territory or
an agency or instrumentality of the Territory.
Accountability: members are accountable to the Assembly, their constituents and the public generally.
Responsibility: members must act in accordance with the principle of responsibility. That is, they must endeavour to ensure that their decisions reflect a proper consideration
of all relevant matters. They must also endeavour to foster respect for democratic institutions, rights and freedoms, and the principles of good governance including: respect
for the institution of the parliament; the rule of law; recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity; fairness and integrity in official decision-making; freedom of reporting
by media; a non-partisan public service; freedom of speech; and access to justice.
The Public Interest: in performing official functions, members must act in what they genuinely believe to be the public interest. The legislation provides that the Assembly may
refer an alleged breach of the code to the Privileges Committee and, if the committee finds a breach established, may deal with it as a contempt of the Assembly.
The principles and standards set out in the proposed legislative code are wide-reaching, simple to understand, and based on best practice after looking at what other Australian jurisdictions do. As the code notes:
- Public confidence in the integrity of parliamentary decision-making is essential to an effective democracy. In order to maintain that confidence, it is essential, especially in a relatively
small community, for members to avoid any suggestion that they are exploiting their position to gain an improper personal benefit.
It goes on to further note that:
- The public’s confidence in the institution of government is strengthen when Members demonstrate the high standards of professional competence, efficiency and effectiveness, uphold the Constitution and the laws, and seek to advance the public good at all times.
The implementation of these clear and enforceable principles will be an historic day for the Assembly. The process to reach this point has been convoluted and time-consuming, but I am confident that members will agree that it was worth the wait and it was worth doing the job properly. Together with the new disclosures and interest legislation, this represents a new era in parliamentary democracy in the Northern Territory, entrenching an open, transparent and accountable system of government.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statements to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 14)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements the government’s commitment to legislation encouraging and facilitating the disclosure of information about serious misconduct or mismanagement in the public sector - also known as whistleblowing. The public sector covered by the bill includes local government councils, police, government-owed companies, and bodies established by an act for a public purpose. The bill intends to protect persons who make disclosures. It also establishes a framework, including appointment of a Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, for investigating the disclosures and ensuring that the appropriate action is taken where a disclosure is found to be valid.
Persons who make public interest disclosures play an important role in exposing serious public sector wrongdoing. They assist in ensuring that public organisations are accountable, and that officers in public organisations are accountable for their actions. The ability to make a public interest disclosure leads to higher standards of performance and increased public confidence in the public sector.
This bill is not a response to any lack of professionalism within the public sector; it is a demonstration of support for the principles of open and accountable government. The bill is a result of a long and extensive consultation process, including the release of the discussion paper and a discussion bill for public comment. The submissions received during the consultations were supportive of the aims of the legislation. We are grateful to all the people and organisations who contributed to the development of the bill through their submissions.
We consider the bill to be a comprehensive and appropriate legislative scheme for the Northern Territory. The proposed legislation provides that any person can make a disclosure about a public officer or public body. The information and identity of the person disclosing the information will be kept confidential. Furthermore, the person making the disclosure cannot be sued or dismissed from his or her place of employment for making the disclosure.
The bill comprehensively defines a ‘public officer’ and ‘public body’, ensuring there is wide coverage under the legislation of persons and bodies about whom a person can make a disclosure. A public body includes public service agencies, local government bodies, the police force, the university, public hospitals, government-owned corporations, bodies established under legislation for a public purpose, and other prescribed bodies supported by government funds or controlled by the Northern Territory. Public officers include the members of the Legislative Assembly and local government councils, members or employees of public bodies, and public office holders who are appointed by the Administrator or a minister. Some persons are excluded for public policy reasons consistent with the operation of similar legislation such as the Ombudsman legislation. For example, judges and the Auditor-General, and bodies such as courts, tribunals and boards with judicial or quasi-judicial functions performing deliberative functions are excluded. These persons and bodies are either independent of or accountable to the parliament.
The main features of the bill are as follows. Disclosures may be made by any member of the community who believes that a public body or public officer has engaged, or is engaging, or intends to engage in improper conduct in their public capacity, or has caused or threatened harm in reprisal for a disclosure.
Improper conduct is defined as conduct in the performance of official duties that would, if proved, either:
constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for dismissal involving bribes, improper inducements or other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of
public trust, or misuse of confidential information, or
Matters that are purely policy or personal, including employment-related grievances, will not fall within the legislation. The bill makes it clear that, to fall within the protection of the legislation, the disclosure must concern behaviour that is sufficiently serious to either constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for terminating the employment of the relevant officer, or behaviour that is substantial. That is the threshold for the conduct.
It is an offence to make false or misleading disclosure, carrying a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units, which is currently $44 000 or two years imprisonment. This reflects the serious nature of the disclosure and the possible consequences flowing from it. Further, the commissioner has the discretion to not investigate disclosed matters if satisfied that the disclosure is: an abuse of process, for example, vexatious; or contains misleading information; or the information is trivial or has already been investigated; or where the person making the disclosure had knowledge of the matter for more than 12 months before making the disclosure; or there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining relevant information.
The threshold test of criminal, or dismissible or substantial misconduct, together with the discretion to investigate, will ensure that inappropriate, vexatious or trivial disclosures will not be investigated. The bill provides that the disclosure can be made to either the commissioner or to the chief executive of the appropriate public body, except where the disclosure relates to a member of parliament. Disclosures which relate to a member of parliament must be made to the Speaker, who determines whether or not the matter should be investigated.
Where a disclosure is made to a chief executive, it must be referred on to the commissioner to deal with. This ensures that, in a small jurisdiction, the expertise for dealing with disclosures is maximised in the commissioner’s office. It also ensures consistency of procedures and decisions, and can prevent the doubling up of investigations where a matter may be reported to more than one chief executive.
For a disclosure to be protected under the legislation, it must, if true, show improper conduct, and must also be made to the appropriate person in accordance with the prescribed procedures under the act. A disclosure made in some other manner, for example, to the media or at a public meeting revealing information which would be confidential, will not be protected. Information that is an abuse of process or that the discloser knows is false or misleading will also not be protected. However, a person may make a disclosure anonymously and about the conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the legislation.
The commissioner has a duty to investigate disclosures unless they fall within the discretion as to vexatious, trivial, old matters, etcetera, or are referred to another body such as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General or the Police Commissioner. Investigations are private and, while there is no requirement to hold a hearing during the investigation, the commissioner may do so. For disclosures to be fully and properly investigated, the commissioner has similar powers to those of a Royal Commissioner, to require information or documents to be provided, or persons to attend for examination to answer questions under oath or produce documents. If a person is required to attend before the commissioner for examination, the commissioner may allow the person to be legally represented. The commissioner is also able to enter and inspect premises of public bodies and public officers for the purposes of conducting investigations at any reasonable time.
One of the critical aspects of the bill is the requirement for confidentiality. It is vital to protect the identity of the person making a disclosure as far as possible, as well as the information revealed during the investigation, to encourage people to speak out about improper conduct. Therefore, information collected during the course of, or as a result of, a disclosure investigation, not being information in the public domain, is confidential information. It is an offence to improperly disclose or use information, for example, to benefit or harm a person, with a penalty of 400 penalty units which is currently $44 000 or two years imprisonment.
However, the information may be disclosed in limited circumstances for the purposes of performing official functions under the legislation, or in proceedings in relation to an offence against the legislation, or for the purposes of consulting a legal practitioner.
The identity of the person who makes a disclosure and the identity of the person about whom the disclosure is made are further protected. The proposed legislation requires that information tending to identify a person should only be disclosed: with their consent; or in connection with a prosecution or reprisal action; or in obtaining legal advice; or where the commissioner considers natural justice requires it; or that the information must be disclosed to effectively investigate the disclosure or in the public interest.
A person’s right not to incriminate him or herself is provided for in the proposed legislation. Though the commissioner has power to require a person to produce documents, give information, or answer any question, any information produced in response to the commissioner that would tend to incriminate the person is not admissible as evidence in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, except in relation to proceedings for an offence against the act or reprisal action. This balances the person’s right not to incriminate him or herself. Restricting the use of information obtained during an investigation encourages persons who have information to come forward and give that information fully, protects the identity of the person who has made a disclosure so as to minimise the risk of reprisal action, and protects the rights of the person who is the subject of the disclosure.
Clause 14 of the bill sets out a range of protections for persons who make public interest disclosures. For example, a person who makes a public interest disclosure does not incur any civil or criminal liability or become liable for disciplinary action for making that disclosure. In particular, the protection extends to the disclosures made in breach of an obligation of confidentiality. Thus, confidentiality provisions in contracts of employment or under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act do not apply to the making of public interest disclosures.
There is also a provision from defamation actions. A disclosure of public interest information is to be treated as absolute privilege. However, the protections do not extend to disclosures that are an abuse of process or where the discloser knows the information is misleading or to their own conduct. Thus, if a person who makes the disclosure has taken part in improper conduct that they are reporting, then they are not protected in relation to their own conduct. The bill also protects disclosures by making an offence, punishable by up to 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment, to take or threaten detrimental action in reprisal against the person who has made or intends to make a disclosure, or has cooperated in the investigation of the disclosure, or has been a witness or provided information to an investigating official.
In addition to the offence of taking reprisal action, the bill provides a right of action in court for the person who is the subject of that reprisal action to sue for damages. It enables the person to apply for an injunction or an order requiring the person who took or is taking reprisal action to remedy that action. Further, the bill ensures that employees are not unfairly treated during an investigation of a disclosure. It enables an employee, under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, who has made a disclosure to request relocation because of reprisal action. A public sector employee also has the right to undertake the grievance procedure under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act where he or she has been relocated as a reprisal action.
I now move on to other important features of the bill. As mentioned earlier …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have much to go? It is 11 o’clock.
Dr BURNS: Probably another three to five minutes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I ask you to resume your seat and continue that after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mrs Hilda Muir
Mrs Hilda Muir
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 30 September 2008, of Mrs Hilda Muir, a very well-known Territorian and member of the Stolen Generations.
__________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the galleries of family and friends of Mrs Muir. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, at completion of the debate, I will ask members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) express its deep regret at the death of Mrs Hilda Muir, a member of the Stolen Generations, whose life represented the tragedy and hope that so many Aboriginal
Territorian have experienced in the past, and a woman whose incredible optimism was a shining light to all who knew her, and
Aunty Hilda was a woman whose life sums up for us all the tragedy and hope that so many Aboriginal Territorians have experienced over the last century, and a woman who also showed us incredible optimism and deep love for family friends and community.
Hilda Muir was born, as she was later to say, at ‘a proper bush birth’ on Yanyuwa country not far from Borroloola in 1920. The day of her birth is unknown. In one of those great ironies of those past policies of enforced removal of children from their families, some eight years later, the day she arrived at Kahlin compound in May 1938, she was assigned an arbitrary birth date to celebrate – 26 January or Australia Day.
Her life at Kahlin could not be contrasted more greatly than that of her existence with her mother and family in Borroloola. It was a life that was undoubtedly affected by the pastoral industry of the Gulf and the Barkly, but one which was also steeped in traditional lifestyle, in travelling across country from Manankurra, her mother’s country, to the islands of the mouth of the McArthur River. It involved a rich ceremonial life and relationships with land and sea country that stretched back many thousands of years. It was country she was to be taken from for nearly half a century, country she was not able to be truly reunited with until she was 80 years of age, when she was accepted as a traditional owner of Yanyuwa country in 2000 under the law of her people, as well the Australian law of the land.
Taken by police on horseback to Katherine, then by train to Darwin, Hilda was removed from her mother, brother and sister, from her kin and country. She described it in her 2004 autobiography:
- They put us in the half-caste home in Schultze Street, what they called the Kahlin Half-caste Home. That’s how at six at night on 11 May 1928 I stopped being a Yanyuwa child and became a nowhere person.
Life at Kahlin was extraordinarily grim. As she described it, starvation, isolation and punishment was the regime for children under the care of the state at this time. As she told Delsey Tamiano of the Koori Mail four years ago:
- Once we were taken away we were made to forget our identity and our Aboriginal family and our language.
Oh, that was the cruel part of it. You just ignorant or whatever or got no knowledge of what's happening, just accepted that you been taken away and then you going into this home there …
If somebody went and get bit of scraps out of garbage and your friend was there or if you was on your own and you went and get bit of scraps from garbage next door, or people used to throw bit of scraps for the chooks — but I think we used to beat the chooks sometimes potato peel, onion, cabbage, and other kids, whoever saw you (said): ‘Hey come on, what you got, I'm gonna call Matron’.
All right, you start sharing these bloody peels to shut them singing out to Matron because when we got flogging, oh, we didn't get little flogging — big cane, you know, so sad to remember but that's how it was with us, you know. Just for a bit of survival, you even scratch the ground for wattle seeds.
Madam Speaker, this regime existed here, in Australia, in the Northern Territory, barely a mile from where we sit today.
Today, we are just two days short of the seventh anniversary of this Legislative Assembly - in one of the first actions of the Clare Martin government - giving a parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations. It was something we did even though the Northern Territory was not constitutionally responsible for those terrible policies of the past. We did it because it was right, because we had a moral obligation to our fellow Territorians. I was incredibly privileged on that day to be able to tell some of Aunty Hilda Muir’s story to the Assembly. She was delighted to be asked. As I explained to her, telling her story would mean that her words would be here forever. They could never be taken away, and they never will be.
I have known Hilda - Aunty as I rapidly came to call her - along with just about everyone else here in Darwin for many years. I cannot remember exactly when, but it was almost certainly at an ALP barbecue or other such function more than 20 years ago. She would attend all such events, whether it was for bigwigs like Prime Ministers Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, or for a local branch fundraiser. I doubt that Aunty Hilda was a member of the party for any rigid ideological reasons; it was more that she saw Labor as being a party for ordinary people, for people from all walks of life. Above all, she was incredibly comfortable with everybody. I cannot remember her ever having a hard word to say about anyone. She would always ask after my kids and give them a hug when she saw them. She took a shine to my then Electorate Officer, Ryan Neve, who quickly got into the habit of running her home every Wednesday after she did her shopping at Hibiscus.
There was also a quiet inner strength to her - a strength which supported her throughout a life that was not always kind to her. She married the love of her life, Bill Muir, in 1940 but, less than a year later, was evacuated to Brisbane in the face of Japanese attacks. On her return to Darwin, she raised a large family only to face the devastation of Cyclone Tracy in her middle years.
Later still, of course, she was selected with Alec Kruger to represent the interests of the Stolen Generations in their High Court action, which was to end in disappointment in 1997 when the majority of the court ruled against them.
She was to write later:
- I was happy to be one of the party lodging the writ because I wanted some respect and recognition for my culture. We weren’t asking for anything big, just the recognition that what been done was wrong. I’m not the sort of person to hold a grudge or ill-feeling. I’m a happy person, really, but when I think about it all, I still get choked up with emotion.
Beyond the politicking, parliament is rarely a place of deep and abiding emotion, but telling Aunty Hilda’s story was one of those moments for me here in this place. It was a privilege to tell her story then, just as it is a privilege - although a sad one - to commemorate her life here today. As I said on that day in the parliament, Hilda ‘is one of the reasons why my heart tugs when I talk about the lost and neglected generation’. As I say today, Aunty Hilda is one of the reasons why we strive for a more compassionate, understanding society here in the Territory.
Perhaps after her passing, I would beg to have a small disagreement with Aunty Hilda. That long journey from Yanyuwa to Larrakia country she spoke of in her autobiography did not make Hilda a ‘nowhere person’. Quite the opposite. She became a woman who influenced the lives of many people in the Northern Territory and beyond. As a Yanyuwa woman recognised by her own people, she excelled in her life’s long journey. Her love of family and friends and of her community will truly live on. She lived a life that was marked by much sorrow, but she did not allow it to make her a bitter woman. The one thing that was denied her - to be able to see her mother again - I believe strengthened her commitment to her family and also strengthened her resolve to extend that love to the people around her.
Her surviving children, as well as her many grandchildren, know this and so do many other people in the Northern Territory and beyond. It was a great life - a life truly worth living and one which enriched all who knew her. I thank her for her kindness, friendship, and advice over many years.
Madam Speaker, I extend my condolences to all her family and friends.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to reflect on the strength of human spirit as reflected in Hilda. I cannot say that I knew her, but I knew of Hilda. I had spoken to Hilda on a number of occasions, and I recognised that sweetness and beautiful strength. It is fitting that we reflect on this because that example informs and nourishes us for the challenges we face today and into the future.
One of the most memorable occasions was quite recently when we addressed the issue of the apology here in this parliament. For those of us who have had the opportunity to dwell and to think deeply about these matters, we recognise it is a matter of healing, and of recognition of loss and separation. It is also a recognition that separation of a child from a mother, a family, a home, is not an issue that cuts between race; it is an issue of national significance. The way in which Hilda Muir carried herself through this issue has provided hope for this nation, in the attitude towards this significant issue that strikes deep into the heart of a person and of this nation. She provided us with hope and a guidepost of how we may proceed with these significant matters.
For those who are close to family, and close to heart, we know how loss of family and home affects - we only reflect on our own families. However, to lose family at the age of eight! We must also recognise that those of us who live in Darwin are all connected in one way or another. Those who have made this their home, and those who have become familiar to the family networks and the history of this place, it does not take too long before you feel that you are a part of the fabric. In that way, I feel that I am a part of that fabric and I say that with great respect, not to assume. I acknowledge that, one way or another, just as Darwin shows that we are all connected in one way, so, too, we are all connected to this very important issue of loss and separation in one way or another. That is why it is important to acknowledge the way in which Hilda Muir carried this matter as an example for us all to consider.
The loss and separation from mother and home is a wound difficult to heal. It is a wound that can only be mended if, together, collectively, we respond in order for that to be mended. The fact is that, when one suffers, all of us suffer - that is the truth. As people living here in the Northern Territory and as Australians, whether we are Indigenous or not, it is a burden and a wound that we all bear one way or another. It is quite touching to reflect on the story, and the identification of the passage of life as a journey that started in the Borroloola region, was interrupted at the age of eight, and that journey continued on. Here, today, we are speaking of the end of that journey.
For those of us who have faith, we recognise that this is just another step in that journey. For those of us who reflect on that aspect of that story, that journey which has been recounted, that the mother would look down the road to see whether the daughter was coming back, day after day, look out to see whether the daughter was returning and, all of those years later, was able to come down that road and that mum had gone.
I hope that Hilda’s mother, who waited and kept looking down the road, will now see her daughter walking up the road to finally meet her, and may that loss and separation be evaporated as she steps the next step on this journey into the loving arms of eternity where she may be reunited with her lost loved ones.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I support this condolence motion. It is a sadness tempered by the knowledge that we have witnessed the passing of a woman who has left the lives of all of those who knew her richer for having been with us.
Aunty Hilda Muir was someone who was a part of our lives and community in ways difficult to describe for many people who have more recently called Darwin and the Top End home. The Chief Minister touched on it with his words earlier during this condolence motion when he spoke of the many lives touched by Aunty Hilda Muir through the long journey of her life.
Growing up in Darwin, first in Nightcliff and then The Narrows, was a process for me of growing up within a network of different Darwin families and their different interrelationships. It was a learning that always seemed to me pretty natural and organic as a kid - often mediated through sports such as softball and football, where so many of these families would meet.
Later, I recognised these as far more complex relationships involving local Larrakia families, but also families whose traditional lands were close to Darwin, such as my mother’s family, the Tiwis, and other groups such as the Kungarakayn, Wadjigan and further afield to the Daly, the Alligator Rivers, and Katherine. Added to this melting pot of Darwin of the 1960s and 1970s were Greek and Italian families, together with Chinese, Filipino and Timorese.
An essential part of what it was to live here, something that was woven into the fabric of our lives, was the networks of families who were drawn from what become known as the Stolen Generations. This was a very real thing to my family. My father, Jack, as a small child had been removed from Central Australia and, after a time at the Bungalow in Alice Springs, ended up with other kids on Croker Island, before he wound up in Darwin and met my mother. He never returned to Central Australia, and my generation has never been able to properly reunite with his countrymen. This story is common. Darwin and the Top End then, as now, has a hidden history of these families, of my family and many others.
Aunty Hilda Muir, for me, was very much part of growing up, and she was Aunty Hilda to me from my earliest memories. As well as painful memories, there was the camaraderie and the respect amongst those generations of people taken from their families in the 1920s and 1930s.
I remember, for example, my father would regularly go to church with Aunty Amy Randall and Aunty Hilda and sometimes he would drag them home to one of his daughters’ houses after church. Dad, of course, would have a few beers. It was not that which Aunty Hilda would object to but, so close to going to church, she did not take kindly to Dad’s more colourful turns of phrase and would mildly reprimand him. Dad would always apologise to Aunty Hilda - he always called her Mum, even though she was only a few years older than him - ‘Sorry, Mum,’ and that would be that until the next Sunday.
As the history books now tell us, Aunty Hilda, with Alec Kruger, stood up for their generation of children taken from the families in their High Court challenge in 1995, which was to fail a couple of years later. The legal action was taken after the historic Bringing Them Home Conference held at Kormilda College in 1994. Aunty Hilda was one of the key people at this conference and she, with others of the Kahlin generation, set in train momentous changes in understanding the terrible chapters in our history. It led, as we know, to the unsuccessful litigation, but it also led to unprecedented parliamentary apologies to the Stolen Generations in every jurisdiction of the nation, culminating in the most historic apology from the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, in the Commonwealth parliament on 13 February 2008.
We remember Aunty Hilda today as one of the heroes of the Stolen Generations and the legacy they have left us all. What came from that conference was historic in itself, but it was also the first time so many of the Stolen Generations and their families had ever come together. It was a homecoming of great sadness for many, but also of joy and reunification.
I spoke a moment ago of the camaraderie and respect amongst those of the Stolen Generations. The sad part of this is that such solidarity was born of such tragedy. Perhaps, in large part, this was because they were the generations of children who had nobody but themselves to depend upon; they made their own families. This was best summed up by Aunty Hilda a few years ago speaking of her early days at Kahlin:
- You haven’t got your Mum or Dad there, and of course all these other little children, they all come crowding around you and then you get into little groups and as a little family together, that’s all, you are happy now, you in a little group and like sisters and brothers.
That was just one of those things, you didn’t sort of still feel lost or sad or nothing because you have these other little children.
It was, as I said, a solidarity born of terrible tragedy. When future social and political histories of Darwin and the Top End are written, researchers will do well to listen to the words of Aunty Hilda. Although she was never reunited with her mother, Aunty Hilda managed to reunite with her countrymen and women on Yanyuwa country around Borroloola. It was an achievement tragically denied many others of the Stolen Generations, but something she certainly deserved.
In 2000, just prior to the land claim in which she would be recognised as a traditional owner of her adopted father’s country, she was taken to Manankurra, her mother’s country. It was like, as she said later, being ‘kidnapped back home’, as NLC lawyers and anthropologists took her on this surprise visit. The anthropologist, John Bradley, said the visit ‘was if country that should have nurtured her through life was making up for lost time’. Aunty Hilda was just as direct and she said:
- You belong. It was true, the spirit is there. You believe in your own world, and part of that country. I felt so strong afterwards, so rejuvenated. From that time I never looked back. I still feel the strength in me, that same way.
Aunty Hilda, we know your spirit has returned to the lands of your Yanyuwa ancestors; that your spirit will imbue those lands with the power and lessons of your life, and will be reborn to give strength to future generations. But know, too, that your spirit will also dwell here in Darwin to nurture all of those you have left behind and those who come after you – your friends, your family. Farewell.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I too, acknowledge a wonderful woman and to share with the parliament that Nanna Hilda Muir, in the Yanyuwa way, is related. My term for her is noughie, which is my grandmother’s mother relationship. It was a really important time of Nanna Hilda coming back to country, and I will share the story with the parliament.
It is 80 years ago this year when her life changed - and I guess every one of us have moments in our lives where decisions impact so greatly. This was a young girl who grew up around Manankurra and the Sir Edward Pellew Islands with her people. They would go fishing, and she spoke language; she spoke the language of the Yanyuwa. She joined in with all the ceremonies with her mother, her grandmothers and her grandfathers. They travelled all through that country in dugout canoes. Nanna Hilda, like so many of my people, lived in the dugout canoes as they travelled from island to island, and sometimes those trips would take a long time. So, they made their own fire in their canoes and cooked their fish as they went. Nanna Hilda would hunt for sugarbag or go fishing.
She learned about that country just like so many of our mob, and the teachings of our people of the jungkayi of the ngimaringki. I want to share with the parliament from her book, Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It, that important day in 1928 and the lead-up to that day which saw her life change. It began near Vanderlin Island where she witnessed, and was part of a witness of something that happened - a very bad thing that happened.
I quote from her book:
- An Aboriginal man named Gilprey killed two people, a husband and wife on Vanderlin Island. Some people say they were getting turtle eggs on sacred ground and had transgressed Aboriginal law by walking on sacred ground. The gossip was that Gilprey was after their young daughter, Ida, for his girlfriend. I believe what other people say that the people were sung. Ida’s mother and father were sung for going onto sacred ground and getting turtle eggs. If you are sung, it had to happen; according to Yanyuwu law you would be killed. But I do not know anymore. Ida must have been seven or eight like me. She was not very big built; she was only a small thing.
At the time of the murder we were all there, all kin - my mother and Ida’s mother and father roaming around Vanderlin. We were all sisters, brothers and cousins - one family from Manankurra. Was Gilprey after this young girl, Ida? I do not know. A long time after this happened I had been taken to the half caste home in Darwin and this same Ida, my cousin, Ida Hampton Ninganga, told her story to the anthropologist Dr John Bradley. She told him in Yanyuwa language what they reckon happen on Vanderlin Island when her father and mother were killed. By this time, she had a lot more things than I remembered or knew, and Ida had stayed with her relatives and they kept talking about what had happened, the way families talk about big things like murders.
This is Ida Hampton Ninganga’s story as it was recorded in the Yanyuwa language in 1991:
- My elder sister, her name was a-Jawinjarama. Her whitefella name was like mine, Ida. She was with my mother and father when they were killed. They were at Yiyininbinda. My mother’s name was a-Aralka and her whitefella name was Melba. My father’s name was Jayungurri and his whitefella name was Peter or Friday. We were on Vanderlin Island not far from Mulawa (Cape Vanderlin). Also with us was my mother’s sister a-Manankurrmara and her daughter, Hilda. I think her name is a-Marryimara. There were others with us too. My father, mother and sister had gone out hunting for the day. My father said to my mother ‘I am going to go and get some turtle eggs’.
My mother and sister were there. They had just made a fire and had got some water when my mother saw that old man Gilprey, or Walala, running towards her. He ran to my mother and began to hit her. My mother got away and ran eastwards across the flat country. Gilprey saw her and chased her, but my mother ran quickly and crossed over a creek. So Gilprey got a spear and speared her. The spear went into her chest and came out near her armpit. My mother, the poor thing, pulled the spear out and kept running. She rested and tied her arm up with a rag. My sister, she had hidden herself away in the scrub when that old man had come. My father was still there in the north gathering turtle eggs. Gilprey Walala had left my mother because she had died. He just left her there.
Gilprey went north to Mamarla looking for my father. He saw him in the distance so he climbed a tree to wait for my father. My father came back bearing with him a paperbark bundle of turtle eggs. Gilprey speared him. From the tree he threw the spear, he speared my father in the thigh and my father fell. Gilprey climbed down from the tree and hit him until he died. Gilprey then dragged my father and hid him. We never found his body and nobody ever found it. Maybe his body was thrown into the depths of the sea. We just don’t know. Gilprey would never tell us. My mother was dead and my sister came back to the camp where we all were. She came alone.
It was because of this horrible murder that occurred on Vanderlin Island that my Nanna Hilda then found herself on her way to the Borroloola Police Station with Ida and a young girl named Sarah. Ida, Sarah, and Hilda were then placed on a horse. They were placed on the back of that horse in April 1928, and they made the long journey to Darwin. Nanna Hilda’s mother took her to the police station because she thought her daughter was going to give evidence about a murder. She thought, by letting her daughter talk and tell the story about what she knew that happened on Vanderlin Island, that that was the right thing to do; that, somehow, this man Gilprey would be brought to justice for what he did and for the wrongs that he committed against a people, a family.
Nanna Hilda took that long journey on the back of a horse thinking that it was just like any other journey for a child in those days when they would go with family. There was a big mob of people who travelled to Darwin to give evidence in this court case. But, when they got to Darwin, it was Nanna Hilda and Sarah who were then taken away from the group. They were then taken to the half-caste compound, where a lot of other children who were known then as half-castes pulled together from their families.
Meanwhile, little Ida, who had also travelled on that horse with them, was taken to the court. As it turned out, the court could not do anything about this man, Gilprey. He was found not guilty because the courts did not take evidence from Aboriginal people. Think about that then, Madam Speaker. So, this man, Gilprey, got off, and Nanna Hilda found her whole life had changed dramatically. Here she was with so many other children of mixed descent, all because her father was white, and she never did see her mother again.
The people in Borroloola and the Yanyuwa people of the Gulf country waited for her to come back. My family always talked about the children who went away. So when Nanna Hilda came back, everyone waited for her. All the old people had waited so long for her to come home. That country welcomed her back, her people welcomed her back. Even though she could not speak language any more, her spirit was still strong with country and with the stories of that land.
I say to this parliament and to all Territorians that it was Nanna Hilda’s spirit of endurance, persistence and survival, with great dignity and love, that she could forgive and, in forgiving, she was able to build a life here, on Larrakia land, with her own children - all my Kuku and Kukurdis and then your children and your children’s children, who grew up here on Larrakia land. You were never, ever forgotten, and people of the Yanyuwa waited for you all to come home. So, this year, when our Prime Minister of this country stood up in the parliament of this country for all Australians and said sorry, we all said thank you.
Nanna Hilda, who was there for all of that, saw it all right to the end. She saw her country, she saw her people, and she heard this country, Australia, say sorry. She died peacefully, and for that I say thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I join with parliamentarians today to recognise a very wonderful Territorian, Aunty Hilda Muir. As a Darwin girl, my memories go back a long way with Aunty. I first met her 24 years ago when I was a 17-year-old, because I had the privilege to be raised within the Bonson family. Roseanne was a mum to me, so Nanna Daisy was nanna. I have grown up in the sphere of Nanna. On weekends, my little homing pigeon at the footy was going back to Nanna and sitting down in a deck chair.
My first job was as a cadet journalist at the NT News. I got a call from Roseanne and she said: ‘Nanna wants you to come and meet her sisters. They want to tell their story and they trust you. They will tell their story to you’. I saw my boss and said I have been asked to go and hear the story of some women who were raised in Kahlin Compound who were having a reunion for the first time. I called Nanna and said: ‘Nanna, the paper said can there be a photographer’, and she said: ‘I do not want them to make us look silly’. I said: ‘No, no, I will make sure it is okay’.
In July 1984, I went around to Nanna’s house where she was having a sisters’ reunion with Aunty Hilda, Ethel Buckle, Daisy Williams, Pearl Graham, Eileen Sambono, Evelyn Baird, and Suzie Markham. This is in the days before the term ‘Stolen Generations’ existed and when the stories were starting to be told. The NT News printed my story; the headline was ‘8 “sisters” remember’. I would like to read that story because I know Nanna would want me to when we are here talking about her sister.
Daisy Ruddick still remembers the day 49 years ago when she was taken from her weeping mother on Limbunya station, 500 km south of Darwin.
It was a traumatic experience which will always remain fresh in Daisy’s mind.
But on Friday she recalled those bitter memories under far happier circumstances.
With seven other women forced to go through the same ordeal, she held a reunion of Kahlin compound inmates.
Kahlin compound was set up by the 1925 federal government and run by then Native Affairs Department.
The compound was home for nearly 100 children forcibly taken from their parents because the government of the day decided they would be better off away from the tribal situation.
The official version had it that they would receive better schooling and a higher living standard.
‘Nothing could have been further from the truth’, Ethel Buckle recalled.
‘We hardly had any food, mainly bread and jam, and we got what we could from the bins’.
‘We had no family, we became like sisters’.
- Daisy and her seven ‘sisters’ told how they would pass time playing in the Aboriginal camps resigned to the fact that they would never see their parents again.
Ethel Buckle was playing in the Katherine police station when she was taken by the authorities in 1927:
‘There were no goodbyes or last words, I was just taken away’, she said.
‘Generally the police just came and rounded up the children and took them to the Kahlin compound’, said Eileen Sambono, who was at Newcastle Waters when she was taken.
Daisy Williams, Hilda Muir, Pearl Graham, Suzie Markham and Evelyn Baird all had similar stories to tell.
Now, as time passes away for the ‘sisters’, they’ve decided it’s time they keep in closer contact and rekindle the strong bond that existed between them in their early years.
Their reunion was the first of what are intended to be regular meetings and hopefully the sharing of many more memories.
Madam Speaker, that was when I first met Aunty. Over the years I met her many more times. I was always guaranteed a hug, and her hugs were deep, loving, warm hugs. Right through my adult years to today, I always loved the hugs from Aunty Hilda.
We have heard the speakers in the Chamber talk about the strength of her spirit and the deep kindness that Aunty had. As we have heard, she had every reason to be bitter, but she never, ever showed bitterness. She was an embracing, generous, kind woman, who loved Darwin, deeply loved her family and her many friends, and extended that family to the sisters, the girls she shared her Kahlin days with, and their families. I am so glad that Aunty finally told her story fully in her autobiography Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It. We will genuinely miss the Aunty that we know. She has left a tremendous legacy of tolerance, love of community, and genuine forgiveness.
I am proud that this parliament and our federal parliament have finally said sorry to the Stolen Generations. ‘Stolen Generations’ does not quite capture all of the hurt and all of the pain that some of us have tried to talk about today. Aunty was a very beautiful woman in every way, and I feel truly enriched to have known her through meeting her through Nanna. I extend my sincere condolences to her family and her friends.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also add my thoughts and condolences to the family of Aunty Hilda Muir. I said in an earlier debate in this House that one of the great epitaphs that you could receive in life is that you have lived a life well lived.
It is clear that the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families caused profound dislocation. The consequences of that dislocation still reverberate through our community and our families, not only here in the Northern Territory but throughout Australia. Having represented Aboriginal people for eight years in Central Australia, the ties with family and land have become a lot clearer for me during that period, and it is not something I am unmindful of, which is why I speak today.
A western philosopher, a German fellow by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche, said to suffer was to actually improve. That is where we get the phrase, ‘If it doesn’t kill you, it only serves to make you stronger’. I do not actually subscribe to that to a large degree because, although suffering is something that many people do, we all face challenges in our own lives. The truth of the matter is that some people, for some act of faith or act of God, suffer more than others. And the fact is that suffering does not necessarily make people stronger; some people die as a result of their suffering. I am sure that many people who look at the Stolen Generations can remember people who simply did not recover from the experiences of the forced removals.
Some people merely go on to survive with being debilitated emotionally or spiritually, and they live a life which is best described as mere survival, until that life peters out. Some people go on to find some sort of happiness, and that is where most people end up; they learn to reconcile - although not necessarily with the world but with themselves – and they go on to live a life. However, some people go on to use their experiences of suffering to elevate themselves beyond what normal people achieve, and Aunty Hilda Muir is in that class of people.
Some people go on to use their suffering as a force for good and for graciousness. Two characters sprang to mind while I was thinking about it – one was Martin Luther King, the other was Nelson Mandela who, through extraordinary grace, used the suffering and negative experiences of their lives to enhance the world. There are quite a few people who move on like that. They do not become internationally famous like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, but they still reach out into the world and touch thousands in their own circles. It is clear that Aunty Hilda Muir fulfilled that role, and she did it in an exceptional way.
People like that become a beacon of hope for their families and those people who know them, that families and communities orbit around them. Such is their presence that, when they do pass on, their memory alone can carry sufficient gravity to maintain and keep that family together, and keep that family orbiting around that person because they have provided such an exceptional example of what it is to not only rise above suffering, but to bring joy in the process. It seems almost paradoxical that it is possible to move from such misery and, then, find a life of complete meaning, communication and giving.
It is all well and good for us to make noble speeches in this House, but the fact is that Aunty Hilda Muir’s memory alone will resonate through her family for generations to come. She lived an exceptional life and she lived a life well. I only hope that, at the end of my life, I am able to compare my life in a small way to the lives of people like Aunty Hilda Muir and be able to, at least, claim that I, to a smaller degree, have also lived my life well.
Madam Speaker, my deepest condolences to the family. The loss of such a matriarch is always a profound thing, but her memory will serve as a beacon of light and hope for generations to come. I am proud to be associated and to live in a Territory where we still can produce such extraordinary people.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, Aunty Hilda was a generous and gentle woman, and she was a much-loved woman. I first met Aunty Hilda about 10 years ago, and she had a lot of time for a young man. She spoke quietly and always had something interesting to say, a story to tell and, most often, she spoke about her family.
I remember when we first said sorry in this House. I was not a member then, but it was something I was very interested in. I had many long conversations with Aunty Hilda around then about her own life. She was very modest, and I remember when the member for Wanguri spoke about her life in the Chamber during that sorry motion she was a little embarrassed. She thought our Chief Minister was passionate, wonderful and mature for what he did that day. Personally, that is how I would also describe Aunty Hilda.
She made it clear at that time that family was important to her, that she missed her mother, and there is no better tribute to Aunty Hilda than her family. Many are here today. My heart and thoughts, and I know those of my colleagues, are with you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also extend my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mrs Muir.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 14)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I also offer my condolences to Hilda’s family.
To pick up where I left off, I will now move on to other important features of this bill. As mentioned earlier, the bill contains special procedures for disclosures about members of parliament. This recognises members of parliament are, ultimately, accountable to parliament and to the electorate. As the members of parliament are public officers, protection is given to a person who makes a public interest disclosure about them.
The bill also establishes the office of the commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. It is not intended to appoint a stand-alone office holder at this time, but that the Information Commissioner will take on the responsibility for this legislation with additional resources.
The bill contains provisions to ensure that the commissioner can carry out investigations fully and without interference. The provisions protect the commissioner against the making of a court order which would: restrain the commissioner from carrying out, or compel the commissioner to carry out an investigation; or restrain the commissioner from reporting on, or compel the commissioner to report on, the findings of an investigation; or restrain the commissioner from making, or compel the commissioner to make, a recommendation in a report on an investigation.
It is also an offence under the bill to obstruct a person acting in an official capacity, such as the commissioner or member of staff, from carrying out their functions under the bill. Appropriate protections are provided for persons exercising powers under the act in good faith, including the commissioner and staff.
Furthermore, the commissioner and staff cannot be compelled to give evidence in relation to matters which have come to their knowledge in the exercise of powers or functions under the bill, except in proceedings for an offence against the act or where it is alleged the commissioner or a member of staff have acted improperly in an official capacity. This reaffirms the confidential nature of public interest disclosure investigations, which is critical to balance the broad investigative powers given to the commissioner.
I am confident that the legislation will contribute to the high standards of governance in public bodies. I am confident that public bodies will make a strong commitment to this legislation and accept the right of staff to make disclosures, and the need for such disclosures to be properly investigated and acted upon when sustained.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Proposed Motion of Want of Confidence in Minister for Education and Training
Move Proposed Motion of Want of Confidence in Minister for Education and Training
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government accepts the censure.
MOTION
Proposed Want of Confidence – Minister for Education and Training
Proposed Want of Confidence – Minister for Education and Training
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly express a want of confidence in the Minister for Education and Training for:
1. lying to Territorians about sacking an award winning educator; namely, Mrs Margaret Banks;
2. not having the integrity of directly removing the CEO from the position, despite being met with on the very day she had Ms Banks sacked;
This is a very important motion. What saddens me is that members opposite would close their ears to the importance of such a motion - those who have, perhaps, not visited schools in recent times and understood how teachers are feeling at this moment.
It is a time when leadership is required, and we see the complete opposite in the Minister for Education and Training. Leadership is having the courage of conviction to address the issues of concern in education across the Northern Territory - not just Indigenous - and addressing those matters in a serious way. This is an issue that is affecting the whole continent. We have the most profound challenges in the Northern Territory and, at times such as this we have an appalling show of behaviour and attitude, and the lowest standard set by the Minister for Education and Training. I find it absolutely appalling.
I speak as one who has taken the time to walk with teachers, to try to understand how the heck we are going to get out of the problem that we are in, at the lowest point of morale that teachers are experiencing right here and right now.
To have a minister for Education whose second appointment …
Ms Carney: She has just left, Millsy. The minister has just left.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Very clearly, the member for Araluen does not adhere to standing orders. She should adhere to standing orders.
Ms Carney: I just thought people listening might want to know that the minister has done a runner.
Ms LAWRIE: No, the minister has not done a runner. You are offensive. A person has the right to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … get some information. You are a rabble.
Ms Carney: Oh, she is back.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Ms Scrymgour: You are a grub – absolute grub.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw that comment, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Before you continue, honourable members, I remind you that you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of members. Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I want to clarify that I went to grab some papers which I just printed out.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At a critical time in the Northern Territory, the annual report indicates a state of deep concern. The new National Assessment Program amplifies that further. I have had the briefings, and behind the words there is deep concern. This is not the time for the faint-hearted or for those who have shallow ethics and personal integrity, and are missing courage in a time when it is most needed.
If their rhetoric is true, and if those opposite genuinely care, they would be expressing concern about the lack of leadership. They would be raising the concerns themselves. You cannot say things in here for effect; it has to be followed through, for goodness sake. We are talking about young people across the Territory. I am unqualified to speak as I am from a different party; we guys are responsible for all of the sins of the world; we know nothing about it; we are unqualified. Well, get this straight: I know young people, and I know young people from remote and urban centres. I have spent enough time with those young people - I only have to hear a couple, but I have heard many - and worked alongside people who have given their life. They know that young people, whether they are in the urban centres or remote, have the same dreams of any kid, anywhere.
To gloss over it with statements made with the assurances that we care and not follow through on the ground, is appalling. This is a time for leadership. This is not the time to exit the building. This is not the time to make an appointment and fail to keep it because you now have another appointment. Those around you have some integrity. There are those who live by certain standards and they can tell whether the truth has been spoken or not.
You can have a person who is in a position of leadership standing before a community, and they can say whatever they like. Even kids can pick whether you are the real deal or not. This minister is not the real deal, because we have a situation here …
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is offensive to you because you are not the real deal either. You carry on as though you are genuinely concerned. You are not the slightest bit concerned about a darn thing. Check yourself.
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong – very wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Yes, well run your own censure motion.
Exiting the building, leaving the scene, walking out past the foyer - I bet you that was an uncomfortable time. But, perhaps for someone who is accustomed to living with dual realities it is not too difficult. You cannot meet because you have to go to the electorate office. This is the minister for Education in the face of the serious challenges that we all face: to scuttle out and depart and then front the media and tell a blatant and plain mistruth.
There are those around, Madam Speaker - the minister for Education and others - who know what is going on. The most extraordinary aspect to this is that there are times when there are certain actions of a government that opposition could respond to because we are required to, that you would find resident within the community - this strong sense of ‘Yes, you did the right thing.’ I do not find that. I do not find there are people who have judged Margaret Banks negatively. There are not people who found her a person who was offensive.
How was she so offensive to you? How was she so offensive? What did you find so offensive in Margaret Banks that warranted you walking past her, not having the courage to speak to her and, then, getting someone else to deliver your message? Why is it that you have said in this Chamber that there are times when government - this is that same kind of spin that means nothing – has to act with urgency? So urgent you cannot front, you cannot show the courage of your convictions, and speak to the person concerned? That is appalling.
I am not saying we are censuring you. We are saying we lack confidence in your capacity to attend to the challenges that we face. Walking past the CEO without the decency to stop and do the right thing is appalling. Further to that, leaving the building.
The teachers have expressed concern again and again about the way in which they have been treated by this minister and by other members of government. These are professionals. These are people who work in classrooms. Those who are educators know how difficult it is becoming with the raised expectation of how difficult it is to progress issues in education today with the demands that are being placed on them by the wider community. So much has been passed on to the classroom teacher. This is not the time to abdicate responsibility and neglect the need for leadership.
I believe it is two occasions that teachers have come to this parliament to speak to you, minister. Did you front at any one of those? No, you did not appear. This is a time to broker resolution, to try to get to the heart of this matter. There might have to be a bit of compromise, but it has to be a meeting of two. There has been no meeting. Getting on your high horse and yelling at teachers and their representatives behind the scenes is appalling behaviour.
You only have to treat a few teachers badly. Those who are representing other teachers – and do not frown at me as though you do not know what is going on; I know your antics. To treat teachers in such a manner has profound implications. You might get your jollies in exercising your power and authority and ‘don’t you know, after all, I am a minister, for goodness sake’. It is echoing some kind of deficiency you have yourself, and you are just wielding your authority over a couple of teachers who have come to represent the interests of the profession. It passes right through the network. I can tell you they are divided against you because they are, frankly, appalled.
They are making their best effort to try to hold up their obligation. It is a vocation; it is not just a job. They have been let down in their delivery of the most important business – as you have often said – in the Northern Territory. You have taken away some of that core strength that teachers need to operate in a classroom. You have neglected that moral authority that should come by inspirational leadership.
We have seen the absolute reverse. The second time the teachers appeared, you could feel that anger; you could feel that pain. It is a time when they wanted someone to help them get through it. Where were you? Where was the minister? At the beautician, getting her nails done - did not have time. On one occasion with the CEO: ‘Sorry, cannot sack you just now, I have to go to the electorate office and pick up a piece of paper. I do not have the time or the decency to stop - in fact, the courage - and do the right thing. I will send something through the mail’. In fact, I heard that the paperwork was delivered by a courier.
The next occasion the teachers arrived, once again, the minister was missing in action. In fact, we never see ministers turn up at any difficult situation, a time when they are most needed to see someone and help them - even to reassure them, even to show you have courage. You are at the beautician. That is appalling ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Oh, well, hairdresser.
Ms Scrymgour: Wrong. I will answer that.
Mr MILLS: Answer in your reply.
Then, there were a couple of other issues that have been raised. I tell you there are more issues than we have sufficient time to address in detail.
There is the impression gained through the answers to these questions, and the dishonest responses that the whole community bore embarrassing witness to, that the story has changed.
As a community leader, as a school teacher, as a father, I do not abide by lying. There is a register within this community that has the same response. Why would you? Why would a minister of the Crown lie? Perhaps it is covering up some state secret, or perhaps it is covering up something else - the incapacity to show leadership at a time when it is most desperately required. You have created the impression in here …
Ms Scrymgour: You are amazing - absolutely amazing.
Mr MILLS: Minister, you have created the impression that there is a need for urgency, as though we have to move decisively upon Margaret Banks so that we can fix education up. That is what you said in answer to the first question: there is a time for urgency. So urgent that you cannot tell the truth, so urgent that you do not have the courage to speak to the person concerned, so urgent that you have not had the time to detail the measures you are going to put in place.
What, precisely, will change now after you have had your little hissy fit? What precisely will change now in education? Now that you have managed to get yourself through this awkward period of having done what you wanted done - that is, get rid of this lady who was, perhaps, asking you questions that were a bit hard for you to handle - what precisely is it that you are going to change in education now? What changes would you, in fact, be making that were impeded by the presence of Margaret Banks?
The community is owed an explanation. If you have not had the time to tell the truth, we can move to the next base, because it has been established you are dishonest. Frankly, you are dishonest. I will call …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Well, that is dishonest. Frankly, you might easily skip over that, but that has to stay there and be dealt with. If you are going to try to establish that you are, in fact, honest and that everyone else who observed this and was able to add it up and have it plainly reported, is in fact wrong, you have a big job ahead of you.
Dishonesty against the minister is a very serious charge. A parent, a teacher who lies, is serious business. A minister of the Crown, a Deputy Chief Minister, is a very serious matter. You know the truth but, perhaps, you will say whatever you can now to try to slide over this …
Ms Scrymgour: No, I will not slide over it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Then, we get to the other matter which we need to touch on - the issue of honesty. Will you go any further and reveal what, in fact, the truth is regarding the Hewitsons? What matters of concern have been raised at Elcho Island? These are educators who I have seen referred to time and time again as the ones who led the way in the place that you want to take them. I have not taken away from the fact that there have been improvements in the delivery of secondary education; however, we need to assess the quality of that improvement, and whether it, in fact, does more than just create an impression. Is it a substantial change, or not?
You have celebrated them. There is even an award named after them. They were headhunted and they were sent to Elcho Island to improve Shepherdson College. I believe that is in your electorate, Deputy Chief Minister, Minister for Education and Training - in your electorate – and they had the commission to go into that school to raise the standards.
I believe the Labor government would know that it is easy to say things, harder to deliver, because it requires a certain amount of courage. To go into a school, and then be set the task of raising the standard, you are certainly going to be in a position where you are going to cause some existing orders to be challenged; some existing standards to be addressed and brought into line. You just cannot raise the standards by media release or glossy brochure. It is going to effect some change. Some questions need to be answered.
Is it the case, minister, at this school – you, the Minister for Education and Training and the Deputy Chief Minister, with these two recognised, celebrated and awarded educators who were hand picked to go into that school - in doing what they were asked to do, to raise standards in that school, caused some people to be a little unhappy because the old order was now being changed? Some questions were a bit hard to answer, such as: ‘If I did this amount of work, say, for three hours, and was expecting to be paid 30 hours, I found that a bit hard’ - you may know what I am referring to with this issues - and they go on and make some complaint to someone who is quite close to them; that being, our local member, perhaps someone we know very well, that being the Minister for Education and Training, the Deputy Chief Minister, who then acts in a way to ensure ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Scrymgour: They are not even in my electorate. Understand where the boundaries are.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I said …
Ms Scrymgour: And you can mislead. Tell the truth!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I said I understand it to be in your electorate.
Ms Scrymgour: No, you did not.
Mr MILLS: No, I obviously was incorrect. It is beside the point. Censure me on that if you wish. However, the point remains there are some very serious questions that you have failed to answer and I doubt whether you will, if you did not have the courage to speak to a CEO as you were walking past.
How is it that these questions of the role the Hewitsons played in that school became so offensive to that community that caused concerns to be raised, and those concerns were raised and were acted upon to the degree that an audit and a review was required, which resulted in the offending items being removed from that school - the Hewitsons? How could that be? And the minister knows nothing about it? Well, there is more to come on that, and I think you know. Or perhaps you hope that no more will come because there are some serious questions out there with regard to the involvement that you have had in that matter.
I hope that those questions are answered in a way that leaves you clean on this one. There are concerns within the system that there has been involvement which has resulted in something extraordinary: educators sidelined.
That is not to mention the Bartholomews who have raised concerns and have been sidelined, but that is another story for another day.
Madam Speaker, these matters are of genuine concern. We have not only had the failure to deal comprehensively with the teachers dispute, the failure to front, but it has gone from bad to worse. I cannot believe that this minister has the faintest idea of the impact of this appalling handling of the teachers dispute. To think of it as some kind of power play is grossly underestimating the effect of your mishandling. It is echoing into the classrooms. I have not seen anything like this: to have ordinary teachers across the Territory still motivated and mobilised to continue their protest to this government, calling upon this minister, obviously in vain, to hear them, and for this government to help them through. This government seems to think it is a power play but, in fact …
Mr Knight: You wanted to sack them. You wanted to reduce teacher numbers – 660 public servants.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Whereas, as one of your predecessors has described - and it sounds nice but, if nice things are to have any meaning they have to have some kind of connection to reality - nothing happens in education unless it happens to a child.
Your mishandling of the CEO, your failure to address the teachers, your capacity to mislead and to use words and cover your own tracks in a very clumsy manner, has an effect in education right down to the classroom. Whether they are kids in Palmerston, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs, Darwin, the northern suburbs, or any of our remote communities, it has an effect, rest assured. Maybe you have become so blind that you do not see the effect that your appalling handling of the CEO issue and of the teachers, has had on the sapping of morale of the teaching profession, which reaches into every classroom and to every child who is in every one of those classrooms.
We have another situation. Professor Helen Hughes dared to raise her voice of criticism and she was personally attacked and, then, a little while later she is agreed with. Anything that is taken as a personal attack is a demonstration of a serious problem with leadership.
Then, there is this rhetoric about reforms in education. New standards are going to be strived for in education, but we have had the abdication of any proper professional leadership, and we do not have the real investment in reforms in education. We barely hear anything from the minister regarding what is really happening in education, about the national curriculum, about how the realignment of senior secondary education is occurring, and how we are going to be led through this difficult time. We do not have any guidance or leadership on that; we just have reaction, spin, hype and dishonesty in this last appalling episode.
This motion goes to the heart of a concern; that we recognise the concerns in education need serious leadership. They need a level of courage that we have not seen from this minister, nor from this government. Those who raise their voices in opposition are dealt with one way or another, such as we have seen with Hewitsons at Elcho. That needs to be fully investigated and that is an investigation, I understand, on foot.
The teachers front up and demand and require an explanation and assistance in dealing with these matters, and behind the scenes there have been appalling shows of immature behaviour, or even lack of leadership or courage to address the teachers. We do not ever see that from this government. They never front up. They do not talk to the crowds that are hostile - whether it is the local government reform or the restructure of education. They never front up. When the teachers are crying out for someone to help them, they are not there, they are at the beautician ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: The hairdresser, sorry. The results in education; you can keep saying yes - well, you have finally said it is a disaster and we have a problem. However, when Helen Hughes said the same thing, she was lambasted and criticised publicly, but now you align yourself with the same message. That is also appalling behaviour. This is a reactive and dishonest approach to education. At a time when leadership is required, we do not have it.
The communication links between this minister and education and the wider community have broken down. There are many accounts of meetings that have been called for, that have not been kept by this minister. You need to show that you have the courage to continue on in these difficult times.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe we can continue on under this minister. I believe that this motion calling for a want of confidence in this minister should be supported in the interest of the kids in all those classrooms across the Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of misleading comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. This bloke stands in this parliament, hand on his heart, hitting the desk and preaching to people about telling the truth. He needs to understand about the interpretation of truth. I will go through what he was saying one by one. I welcome the opportunity to clear up some of the misleading comments he has made today.
The first one: your little mate who sits beside you, the member for Port Darwin, puts out a media release. He cannot wait for comments to come out of the media. Then he generates a media release accusing me of being at the beauty salon on the day when 20 teachers out the front with no notification, did not tell me that they were coming and protesting - and that was prior to my meeting with the Australian Education Union.
I have met twice, appropriately, with the Australian Education Union to discuss resourcing. That is my responsibility, Leader of the Opposition. You need to inform yourselves better regarding the administrative orders. I am responsible for working with the unions, looking at issues of resourcing in those schools. That is my responsibility. I have met with them twice: once with the Treasurer to work through what their concerns were, and then a second meeting with them to give them a firm commitment of addressing those resourcing issues which they wanted to put forward to me as the minister for Education. At that last meeting, I gave them a very firm commitment that I would take that list of resourcing issues to Cabinet.
It would be totally irresponsible of me, as the minister, to say: ‘Yes, two-page list, I agree totally with what you ask’, without going into that meeting or going out of that meeting without getting the proper costings done. No minister of this government can do that without knowing what those costs are on their existing budget. Looking at those asks the education union had put to me showed they were over and above what they had put on the table previously. At my meeting with the education union, I said very clearly that I was getting a bit sick of the goal post moving all the time because they continually kept saying resources, resources, resources.
I called them and said: ‘Come and sit down and let us work through what these resourcing issues are …’ - and it was not just about the bush, it was about town - ‘… so put your resourcing issues on the table, let us work through them. Let me take those resourcing needs that you have or you are putting to me to Cabinet. I need to have Cabinet’s deliberation and costings done. But I give you a firm commitment to work through and to make sure that government will address the resourcing issues, not over one year or two years, but let us look at how we can sign an agreement over the life of the EBA about how those resources roll out and how we can get proper costings, get the figures tested, to make sure that we build into an agreement - not the EBA, but an agreement between myself and the unions - to try to address those issues’.
At that meeting, clearly, they said: ‘We are not happy. It is the quantum. We are still going to strike’. I had a responsibility. At that time there were Year 12 students going into their pre-trial exams. There were also Year 9 students going into probably what was the biggest career expo. I had a responsibility to make sure that those kids were not going to be impacted on …
Mr Mills: Use work choices.
Ms Lawrie: What would you have done?
Mr Mills: That is not the point. Hypocrisy is the issue.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: You are a bunch of hypocrites.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are the hypocrite.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To say that I have not met with the union and, then out there that day - and I need to clear this up for the member for Port Darwin. On that day we had Cabinet and we left. My daughter had quite an urgent medical appointment, so I took her to that appointment. It was not a very good appointment because the outcome was that she was quite ill. I took her to that appointment. After that she had a waxing appointment, so I took her to that waxing appointment. I was sitting in that beauty salon while she went into her appointment, and I was spotted by a reporter, who I think has had a personal vendetta against me ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I have taken this up. I have taken it up personally because you chose to put out a media release, putting out misinformation about why I was not standing in front of those teachers ...
Mr Mills: You were not there, and you have never been there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Was I supposed to tell my sick child, my daughter, that I could not go with her to face the biggest of some tests that she was having - that I could not go?
Mr Mills: Could one of your colleagues not front up?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here is a man who talks about the responsibility of parents and is still attacking the minister after she explained that she accompanied her daughter to a medical appointment …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, Leader of Government Business.
Mr Mills: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you have the call.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I did not get notified that they were having the protest …
Mr Mills: What lines of communication are there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the afternoon, I had seen that there had been no appointments. I had cleared that afternoon so that I could take my daughter to her medical appointment and, then, to another appointment in the afternoon. The 20 teachers …
Mr Mills: There were more than 20 teachers. I saw your spies there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the 20 or 30 teachers - I think I was told up to 30. Not all of them were teachers, Leader of the Opposition ...
Mr Mills: So, you had your spies there? You organised for your spies to be there, but you could not be there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, when that protest was organised I had not - and I know that the Leader of the Opposition went down and carried on that I had not bothered fronting up. That was not true; I had not been notified. Also, there were allegations that I had been notified that that protest was happening and that I failed to turn up because I did not want to get in front of the angry hordes to address some of these issues. Well, I had not been notified. I had no information …
Mr Mills: How did you manage to get all your spies organised then, if you did not know it was going to be on?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … nor had I been notified that …
Mr Mills: I saw them lurking around. It was in the paper.
Mr Knight: The paper you do not like?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … that I had failed to turn up. Madam Speaker, I remember the ad being in it; it was the day of the protest when the ad was in …
Mr Mills: The paper comes out in the morning.
A member: You had time to arrange for one of your colleagues to go and represent you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because if I had been informed or invited to front the protest, I would have gone. Do you think that I would shy from my responsibility in addressing teachers in relation to resources? I have nothing to hide. I will go and talk to them. Unfortunately, on that day, there were a number of things - and I was not told …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, in terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion, as I said, I welcome the chance to set the record straight on a number of things. I have said before that there is no easy way to demonstrate the extreme urgency that is needed in the Territory’s remote Indigenous education reform. The Leader of the Opposition said it is not just about Aboriginal kids in the bush - so true. That is true. We have to ensure that we have the most robust education system, in our urban centres, our regional centres, and our remote communities. We have three different areas to ensure we have the most robust education system.
If the Leader of the Opposition wants to carry on, let us have a look at the last NAPLAN results. When you look at some of those results, we have some fantastic numbers coming from our urban centres. We can confidently say that any child in our Darwin schools or our regional schools performs as well as any child on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and that is a fact. That is a known fact, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that every child and every parent in our urban centres can be assured that we have a very robust and sound education system.
Looking at the data and some of the results in Darwin, I will give you an example: at one Darwin secondary school, 19 students achieved the highest possible band in reading; 41 students at that school achieved the highest possible band in writing; and 22 students achieved it in numeracy. We have some fantastic results in Darwin and our regional centres. So, where do we have the problems?
It is the urgency that I keep talking about; it is in our remote communities. We are seeing another generation of Aboriginal kids rendered absolutely illiterate and innumerate and, as government, we have a responsibility to ensure that we build the same robust education system in town as in our remote communities. An Aboriginal child in a remote community has the same right as any other child living in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I have said on many occasions that I will not stand by and do nothing about this. As I said during Question Time, there should be a collective sense of responsibility here. The opposition, in government for more than 25 years from 1978, totally failed remote Territory kids. Let us not pretend these bad results began to happen when Labor came to power in 2001. Sadly, there was a 25-plus year legacy of apathy and neglect that confronted us, particularly in remote education, in 2001. The glaring facts remain: not one kid who lived out bush graduated from high school in the entire time the opposition was in government. That is your legacy. I discussed the importance of these issues.
I discussed the importance of these issues with Ms Banks on numerous occasions.
Mr Giles: But do not talk about that because …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You have had a good education, have you not?
Mr Giles: Thank you, I have. Worked very hard for it, too.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes. We should allow all other kids to have a good education.
I look back on my education, Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell you, it was not under the CLP. I acknowledge Catholic Education and the education that I was fortunate to be able to receive ...
Mr Mills: Private education.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no. … on the Tiwi Islands and in Darwin. Every child in the Northern Territory should be able to have the same education that was given to me. If you look at any remote Aboriginal community and many of the elders who are out there, there is a 20-year gap between those elders who went to school and were educated under the mission system, to the little ones we have now, where the missions pulled out and we have a government system. It is an absolute disgrace that we have been allowed to have this happen. For a long time, it has been allowed to happen.
In 2001, a number of changes were made. Since becoming Education minister, I have said there has to be this urgency. We have to turn it around and we do have to put in a number of instructions. I have discussed, over a number of meetings, the importance of these issues with Ms Banks – Margaret. In the end, I simply felt there was no appropriate sense of urgency being generated at the top level. There is a great urgency needed to reform education, particularly remote education in the Territory. Ms Banks knew how strongly I felt about this.
With regard to Ms Banks leaving, she was appropriately advised, and there has been some misinformation about this as well about how Ms Banks was advised. She was advised by the Territory’s most senior public servant, the Chief Executive of the Department of the Chief Minister, Mike Burgess, that, as minister, I no longer had faith in her leadership of the agency. Simply put, she was advised her services were no longer required.
The Leader of the Opposition said that, on that Thursday, I did not even have the guts to talk to her. It is not my position. I made it clear to Margaret, on a number of occasions, how I felt. There was no sense of urgency in addressing some of the issues that were across the department, not just out bush, but also in our regional and urban centres. That was put very clearly to Ms Banks. Appropriately, I had expressed my lack of confidence in Ms Banks staying as the CEO of the department ...
Mr Mills: To her?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To the Department of the Chief Minister.
Mr Mills: There you go!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I told Mike Burgess that, as the minister, I had no confidence. This is coming on the back of - but you choose not to listen Leader of the Opposition - meetings where I had articulated to Margaret my concerns about where the department was going and what was happening and how the resources were being distributed.
As usual, in these matters, and out of respect for Ms Banks and her privacy, I put out a statement on my return from my electorate. I did not go down to my electorate office, as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, or misled Territorians. I did not just go down to my electorate office. I have a huge bush electorate; I was on my way out to my electorate …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Like all members of this parliament, we are elected by our electorates, and I was on my way out to my electorate. Ms Banks …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because the meeting was purely about Rosebery High School and to deal with the issues of that school. Appropriately, Ms Banks, because she did not meet with me all the time, I had set meetings with Ms Banks. In between those meetings, Ms Banks and senior staff of the department met regularly with advisors. That is, and always has been, standard procedure. The Leader of the Opposition was not a minister in the CLP government, so he would not know. Maybe he should talk to his colleagues who were ministers, who could tell him that CLP ministers, in between meetings with their CEOs, would have their advisors meet with their CEOs or other departmental staff.
We held regular meetings with Ms Banks articulating to her what was government’s way forward, and putting that forward to them. As is usual in these matters, and out of respect for Ms Banks and her privacy, I put out a statement thanking her for her important work, particularly reforming middle years education. Following the usual patterns of dismissal of very senior people, that would normally be the end of the matter. Speculation by the opposition about sacking or resigning is normal in these circumstances, but it usually ends there.
Following her departure, Ms Banks took the unusual step of going to the media and discussing matters about her dismissal. I am not sure what or who was best served by her actions, but the fact is, that is what happened. If I created the wrong impression when I mistakenly used the word ‘retire’ rather than ‘resign’ in relation to Ms Banks’ departure, I apologise. It was a genuine mistake, Leader of the Opposition. You cannot tell me you have never made an honest mistake in your life. That is a joke …
Mr Mills: You walked past her.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a purist. I apologise, and I apologised the other day.
I intended to be quite neutral in terms of Ms Banks’ departure as to whether or not it was voluntary. If I had my time again and, having gone through this, I can tell you I may approach the matter of Ms Banks leaving in a different manner, but we are all experts in hindsight. There is the expert over there.
Whether or not Ms Banks resigned or was sacked is immaterial to the core issue. The fact remains Territory Education is not performing. I feel I had communicated to the chief executive that things needed to improve rapidly, and I was not happy with the department’s response. The department’s response was Ms Banks’ responsibility. Ms Banks has now left and, as far as I am concerned, I have announced a restructure of the agency to give greater focus to changing these unacceptable results. It is my intention to improve Territory education across all measures. I will use all means at my disposal to achieve that because our kids and their families deserve nothing less.
The Leader of the Opposition thinks he is the only one who gets the phone calls and talks to teachers and other people out there. I have had a number of those phone calls, too. You get around Darwin and Territory people come up to you. I have been encouraged by the number of people who have spoken to me following these events, urging me to push on and really change things. I particularly inform members opposite that I intend to continue the process of reform even it is not to everyone’s liking. As I said, our kids deserve nothing less.
Leader of the Opposition, you keep asking why I did not inform Margaret Banks appropriately. I expressed to her my concerns. She knew that very clearly …
Mr Mills: Who by?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: By me. She was told what those concerns were, Leader of the Opposition - very clearly what those concerns were.
In terms of the censure motion from the Leader of the Opposition, our government is certainly determined to see improvements in literacy and numeracy results because that is a major issue here. I know a big part of trying to get literacy and numeracy is lifting the attendance of all Territory students. Our students in our urban centres, as I said, are achieving at rates comparable to any student in our southern schools. However, we need to see the improvements occur in our remote schools with our Indigenous students. I keep saying there is a sense of urgency needed, and I have said previously since taking on the Education portfolio my attention has always been constantly drawn to the profound contradictions in the results of our education system and what it achieves.
We have a system that produces student performances amongst the best in the nation, a system able to maintain academic standards which would see them competitively ranked in any national merit survey. Students who receive our top tertiary entrance results are well placed to get into the universities of their choice. Within and beyond the school gate we have the highest proportion of students undertaking VET and the number of participants in training. However, sadly, we have a substantial group of children and young adult Indigenous Territorians who are not effectively engaging with or benefiting from the system. I am Education minister for all of our kids - and I take that very seriously because I know that is an area, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that is not just about Aboriginal kids; it is about all kids. I agree; it is about every child in the Northern Territory. However, it is Indigenous education that presents my greatest and most urgent challenge. The fundamental …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister for Education is labouring under a misapprehension. This is not a censure motion; this is a motion that strikes at the issue of a want of confidence in the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for Education. The comments need to be in that area if you want to carry this argument, to reassure us that we should have confidence in the minister for Education.
Ms Lawrie: You are playing politics. Nothing is going to satisfy you. You are not genuine.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The whole thing has been political from day one with what has come out. If it was genuine and they wanted change, they would have been doing that a while ago to change the appalling results that we see. The member for Fong Lim stood up here because he does not like the history lessons. Well, they are going to constantly get the history lessons ...
Mr Mills: It is not going to inspire confidence with that kind of answer. You have been there eight years.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This bloke says what we confront on a daily basis out in those communities has to be fixed. I am not saying that this is just one issue that we have to fix; it is a complex issue. However, we have to address a number of things to try to get the literacy and numeracy rates put in place so we can increase and lift those appalling rates that we see in many of our remote communities. I believe we are on track with it. We have been doing that since 2001. There have been more resources put into our remote Indigenous education system than ever before. I know that the Leader of the Opposition hates admitting that there are more resources. He only has to go to the budget books …
Mr Mills: The issue is the results, minister, not the amount of money you spend, for goodness sake.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and have a look at what money has been given. Government’s responsibility is to ensure that that system is resourced, and appropriately resourced. We have been doing it since 2001 ...
Mr Mills: Look at the results, though.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is right. And that is the question. Come in, spinner! That is the question - you put in all this money but look at the results. That is right. That is why we have the urgency now …
Mr Mills: Put some more money in and sack a CEO.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Says you, says you, says you. Madam Speaker, we know …
Mr Mills: Says the results in your report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Of course. I have not denied that our results are appalling. I have never denied our results are appalling. Since becoming Education minister last year, I have said things have to change. The status quo has to change. We have to do things differently. There is an urgency in turning this around.
We had an intervention, remember, two years ago. There was an intervention into the Northern Territory. I can tell you, unless we treat and deal with education with real urgency and give it the focus that needs to be there, then …
Mr Mills: Not up to it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Not up to it?
Mr Mills: No.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Says you! You are not up to it.
Madam Speaker, every CEO - and these blokes know it; they sit there and they play politics. These blokes know that CEOs are the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of every single one of our agencies ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Stop being cute, you, and you stop being cute. They know …
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: The policy settings are right; the resources are right …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They know that the policy setting is there - and the Treasurer is right; the policy setting is right. There is more money going into that system.
Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech and my reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I felt that sense of urgency, and the implementation of that policy with those resources, was not being carried out. I highlighted my concern. It was put forward to the appropriate channels that that needed to happen. Okay, I admit that when I said retired versus resigned, that I should have …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes so the minister can conclude her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will not be long. It is a major issue …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am just doing a quick count on the ayes having it. I am pretty sure that …
Madam SPEAKER: It goes on the voices. If you feel there was a problem, you can call for a division. That is the process. Minister, please continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I cannot stress enough that urgency we need, and the work that is required to get that policy framework and those resources implemented in the bush so that we can start seeing some changes happening. It means that we have to also be vigilant in our urban and regional centres, because we cannot take our eye off the ball in ensuring those systems we have in our centres do not come at a cost of our regional centres. I said when I put in place the Transforming Indigenous Education policy that it needed that collective sense of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition needs to get a reality check, have a look, not just in our urban centres, but go out bush. Get out there, every single one of you. Get out and have a look at what we are confronting in the bush. If I am to be damned because of my urgency, and the support of my government of that urgency, that needs to happen out in the bush …
Mr Mills: Let us see results.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. It is convenient for this bloke here to play politics with this, because that is all we have seen out of these blokes - politics. If they cared, 10 years ago, they would not have the Learning Lessons inquiry. What Learning Lessons showed was that you gutted Indigenous education …
Mr Mills: Oh, right. That is going to help the kids, isn’t it – blame game? That is going to help the kids.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You gutted Indigenous education. No, it is not playing the blame game. There is a history, and that history is not going to change but, through Transforming Indigenous Education and putting the resources back in there - and if there is a failure to implement that, then the CEO is responsible for that. The CEO is responsible for making sure that those policies are implemented.
The Leader of the Opposition, that day of that meeting - and I keep saying - Ms Banks came in to meet with my advisors about Rosebery High School. It was not a meeting with me. All right? It was a meeting that was going to occur with my advisors about Rosebery High School. I stood there, before I went out, and talked to Margaret. I spoke to her and I spoke to the finance person, because I had concerns about how we were going forward in Rosebery. I highlighted that, and then she was going to meet with my advisors.
I left to go out to my electorate. I have an electorate as well. There are a number of people out in my electorate and I have an obligation to make sure that I go out and have meetings and contact with them as well. The CLP feels that they are the only ones who should get out to their electorates. I have a big bush electorate. I was on my way out to my electorate for an important meeting about housing, which is another major issue and challenge for this government which we are implementing.
For many years, we have seen the endemic overcrowding that is in our remote communities and, hopefully, with the housing projects that we are rolling out in our remote communities, we might be able to get these kids into a house where they are not with 20 people, so that they can be in a environment to enable them to learn better. They can get a decent night’s sleep and they can go to school at 8 am and learn.
There are a number of things that we are working on, as a government, to implement. It is my urgency to ensure that the education system we put in place in the bush is as robust and sound as we have in our urban centres. All of those kids in the remote communities deserve not just having a teacher in front of them - which is what we have, despite the Leader of the Opposition saying that there is not a teacher in every classroom - but ensuring that we have teachers in front of every single one of those kids and that we have the infrastructure on the ground in those communities so that those kids can go to a decent school and learn.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, with his conspiracy theories, thinks that there is something more. I have followed the procedures as outlined to me. I have relayed my concerns to the CEO. I have also gone to the appropriate person, the head of the Chief Minister’s department, who then spoke to Ms Banks and conveyed that I no longer had confidence in her as the head of the agency. That is the appropriate process.
When I went to the media, I said ‘retired’ instead of ‘resigned’. That was a genuine mistake. We have seen, where there has been a sacking of a CEO, ministers have, in the past under the CLP, said that they resigned. You protect the privacy. Margaret Banks did not need me, on the weekend or the Monday leading up to that, going out and saying that she had been sacked. I was respecting her privacy because, apart from that – let us put aside - this was not a personal vendetta ...
Mr Mills: Why did you say that she failed to keep appointments with you?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This was not a personal vendetta. I genuinely liked Margaret Banks. On a personal level, I liked Margaret Banks. All right? However, hard decisions sometimes have to be made. We have to make hard decisions and it was a hard decision ...
Mr Mills: Why did you not open your mouth and say something to her?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, I had a meeting with Ms Banks where I had highlighted those concerns ...
Mr Mills: What are these concerns?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She knew very well what those concerns were. On the radio, she said that I had given the new acting CEO a list of failings. I can tell you they were not a list of failings; that was a list of tasks that had been sitting in front of the CEO for some months to address, since I had become Education minister and we did Transforming Indigenous Education. There had been a number of tasks that needed to be done and had failed to be implemented.
All CEOs have performance management agreements. They are all tied to Closing the Gap, Transforming Indigenous Education - there are a number of things that CEOs have to answer to. I feel that I have followed the appropriate process.
It is not to the liking of the CLP but, guess what? I am not accountable to the CLP. I am accountable to this parliament. I am accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. I find it really offensive that they have said that I have deliberately misled or lied. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that he is the purist. He is such a purist.
Frankly, I have a job to move forward to fix this. As I said, I know it is not going to make people happy, and a number of people are going to get upset with the various reforms we are implementing. However, if we are going to change things on the ground in our remote communities, hard decisions have to be taken.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue. This motion is focusing on confidence, lying, integrity, communication and appalling results. I must say that I expected the answers today from the minister on many of the questions. It does not surprise me that she does not know what the answers are.
This side of the House has talked a lot about culture - culture of certain organisations. I tell you, the Labor government in the Northern Territory will be remembered as a culture of failure. In fact, they continually remind us of the past and, since coming into this House, I feel that I am in Dr Who’s Tardis, because we are reminded of the past so often. The member for Daly commented yesterday that perhaps I should look in the mirror. I believe he should listen to his own advice.
I have been involved with the Bakewell Primary School for nearly 10 years – all its 10 years - and nearly five of those as chairperson. I am on the Palmerston High School Council and chaired the Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group before this minister dissolved the group. In regard to the Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group, this group was made up of a group of volunteers - chairs, principals, and DEET and DIPE staff. Except for the department staff, we were all volunteers giving up our own time to help this government with planning and focusing on Palmerston’s future.
This government has failed to plan and, in my opinion, I have worn out at least three ministers or, perhaps, I was the reason they moved from their portfolios ...
Ms Lawrie: No, do not flatter yourself.
Mr CHANDLER: One previous minister even invited me here, shouted me a few beers and tried to woo me. I came away feeling like I had just been sold a car. Good management, good government means having the necessary infrastructure in place in time. Be prepared. Obviously, there are no Scouts amongst that side of the House.
The latest NAPLAN testing results are a direct result of your management, or lack thereof, where schools are overcrowded, morale is at an all time low due to the ongoing pay dispute and the general attitude that this government is losing control. The job is too big for them. In fact, some teachers – rusted-on Labor supporters - have effectively crossed the floor - Labor supporters I have spoken to, time and time again, who, at the last election voted CLP and, if they did not the last time, they most certainly will be changing colours next time around.
To focus on this government’s lack of planning, I will talk about Bakewell Primary School. It was a school designed for approximately 450 children. It reached 716 last year and, even after losing the Year 7 cohort, today the school has a cohort of well over 600 students. There needs to be special considerations for a school of that size which is due to the lack of planning of this government. I can remember the days where there was one school, one suburb where parents could let their children walk to school without the fear of walking over major roads. There are major infrastructure problems that you guys just have not planned for. These issues include car parking, additional vehicles on the road leading to road safety, pedestrian safety, and children crossing busy roads.
Regarding split lunch breaks, some children, when they are friends with a mate who may be one year out of their classroom, cannot even have recess with them, or share lunch with them because of split lunchtimes and split recesses. Why? Because the schools are too damn big; they have too many children in them. In fact, when you have to have a split assembly because your children cannot have a joint assembly with everyone in the school, it is a sad thing. It does not build the strength in a school you wish to have.
In fact, in the dog world, kennels have particular regulations. You cannot put too many dogs in a kennel. You cannot put these animals in conditions that are cruel. However, we seem be able to pack these students into an area no bigger than a basketball court - hundreds and hundreds of children. It was very few times that you saw any minister from that side of the House visit Bakewell when we had a full school assembly. If they were there, they were only there for a short time. They did not see the work that went into it; the plan to bring those children into that area and, then, afterwards to get them out of there safely. It was not an easy thing to do. This government has a very bad track record in Palmerston.
Let us talk about consultation for a minute. This really surprises me because I thought Labor governments would have a really good understanding of consultation. Surely, your solid associations with the union movement ensures you must appreciate the words ‘communication’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘compromise’? Not this government. Its interpretation of consultation is to persuade the masses like some type of TV evangelist.
I will give you one example: compulsory uniforms. Bakewell Primary School had a very good reputation for a high level of student participation in wearing uniforms. One of the ministers of the government decided they needed to bring it in as compulsory. I support uniforms, but not the word ‘compulsory’. That is where most of the consultation breaks down. The feedback we received at a council level and from everyone we spoke to was that they were happy to go with a policy where uniforms were important, but they did not want them to be compulsory.
This is where it got interesting. We then received a letter after formally responding to this government about the word ‘compulsory’. The letter stated that they had had negative responses about compulsory school uniforms. However, they then said it was abundantly clear they needed to make it compulsory and, therefore, that was that. That is the type of consultation that we deal with.
Regarding middle schooling consultation, the reality was the decision had been made and the consultant’s brief was to sell the concept - nothing less. That was obvious because, if any minister attended any of the briefs I attended, they will have noted the negative feedback. If this was not reported by the consultant, they did not do their job. I personally support middle school, but I do not support the way this government went about its introduction.
Palmerston High Senior extension is another debacle. What an absolute tragedy – interstate, unproven contractors with no local knowledge and links to local subcontractors. This administration and its inept management has meant that hundreds and hundreds of students were disrupted, displaced, and treated like second-class citizens, compared to the wonderful new school built in Darwin on time. One teacher in particular from Palmerston High came to speak to me about woodworking machines incorrectly wired, placed in positions to prevent anything from being used safely, machines not bolted to the floors, hazard eye wash stations with no floor drainage meaning if these safety measures are used, water goes over the floor creating more hazards for others around the area. I am sure many of these things would have been addressed. However, they should not have happened in the first place, and good management ensures that they do not happen.
The Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group is a good indication of where this government has let the people of Palmerston down. As I said before, this group was set up - a group of volunteers - to help this government; to help you plan for the future of Palmerston. This was after years and years of talking about what we needed in Palmerston. And boy, did we need something. There was nothing done for years and our schools were full. If you want to run the argument that there were a few schools that were a little under capacity, then it was your role to promote more people to go to those schools.
We came up with ideas to maybe have a specialist school, attract more children to those schools, and entice parents to come back to those schools that were perhaps under-utilised, because there was pressure on big schools like Bakewell, Woodroffe and Durack, which were far past their use-by date when it comes to numbers. In fact, one minister came out there one day and said - sorry, he did not come out there; he would not have been able to do that. They publicly stated that Bakewell still had capacity. I argue that once a school reaches one demountable - not eight, one demountable - they have already reached capacity. I would have loved to have seen that minister stand in front of a full assembly and say: ‘Children, ladies and gentlemen, this school can still take a few more students’. It is absolutely ridiculous.
At a meeting of the PEIAG, it became very obvious that the planning of the last three years, where the group recommended that the government build a new preschool, primary school and middle school in Palmerston, and a middle school with a capacity to take all the cohort from Palmerston High to turn it into a secondary facility, was accepted. At another meeting, we were told that due to budgetary considerations that was not likely to be the case, and that the best that Palmerston could hope for was one middle school with a capacity of around 650 people. That would not take all the cohort from Palmerston High. Still, we were going to be left with two middle schools when, in fact, the goal was to make Palmerston High into a specialist secondary facility.
I wrote to the Chief Minister on 2 April 2008:
- Dear Mr Henderson,
The Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group (PEIAG) held a meeting 27th March 2008 to discuss future education infrastructure proposals for the Palmerston area. At that meeting it became abundantly clear, based on current budget deliberations, any further education development would most certainly focus around the construction of a new middle school in Rosebery well before a new primary school is even considered.
While I appreciate the level of funding required to develop an education hub, including a primary school and a middle school, it needs to be said there would be a substantial economy of scale involved by constructing both facilities at the same time. Using current CPI figures alone demonstrates how the cost would escalate over the next few years should the project be delayed further or built using a staged approached. Palmerston’s growth demands both facilities to be fast-tracked to keep pace with our growing community. Additionally, the economy of scale delivered would demonstrate good fiscal management on your behalf, providing substantial savings for the taxpayer.
History demonstrates your government has continually overlooked education infrastructure in the Palmerston area. This fight for a fair and consistent level of resources started with Mr Syd Stirling, followed by yourself and now Ms Scrymgour. This legacy has cost the Palmerston community dearly. This community now lives with overcrowded schools, overburdened staff, inadequate infrastructure, crowded buses with students leaving Palmerston each and every day, not by choice but because parents are either being turned away from existing schools or searching for schools with fewer students and a wider curriculum. My concern is that the current unacceptable student levels in most schools will become the ‘norm’ in the future and this is not acceptable. Perhaps when you visit your new office in Palmerston you will notice the high number of students wearing uniforms from schools outside the Palmerston area. Is this healthy for the future of our city, where parents can’t have their children educated in the same city they choose to make their home? Public education in Palmerston is bleeding into the private sector. Unless this is, of course, your goal, as Chief Minister what are you prepared to do to stop this flow?
This is my 5th year involved with Bakewell Primary School and this year Bakewell celebrates its 10th anniversary. The school has battled with numbers around the 700 mark for years and, while there may be a slight reduction in numbers once the Year 7 cohort leaves the school later this year, it is still far too big for a community primary school. And without trying to state the obvious, Bakewell Primary was the last primary school constructed in Palmerston, with work commencing well over a decade ago! Surely your government can admit Palmerston has grown in the last 10 years?
Statistics now say Palmerston has surpassed Alice Springs in population. Alice Springs has two high schools, while Palmerston is left with only one, and Palmerston High is already showing the strains of managing with high numbers, and this is even before the Year 7 cohort arrives in Term 3 …
Of course, that is assuming that the new senior wing is completed on time …
And I am reading a letter from the past:
- Statistics suggest over 500 newborns are arriving each year and that Palmerston grew by about 1200 people last year. With the future growth of Palmerston assured, even more so after the release of new land in Bellamack …
- … and other new suburbs, I just don’t understand the rationale behind why this government won’t commit to a new primary school as well as a much-needed middle school. New infrastructure would release schools like Durack, Woodroffe, Bakewell, and Palmerston High. And while I appreciate there is one or two primary schools in Palmerston with available capacity, it is going to take good management, possible refurbishment and perhaps offering specialist subjects to attract people into those schools. The bottom line is, however, if adequate facilities and, more importantly, a wider curriculum is provided, not only will the current daily mass exodus be reduced, parents would have a real choice and our students provided with the very best educational opportunities and outcomes.
It would appear to date our local MLAs have been unable to influence your government to commit to this project. I don’t profess to know what message they are providing by way of feedback from the community on this issue and I am not even sure what it will take to make this happen. What I can say, however, is my role will be to report back to my school council as well as the PEIAG on this matter and I will be encouraging our school community to debate this matter further and to demonstrate community will, if required, to ensure this community receives this desperately needed education infrastructure. Further, I would appreciate through your office the opportunity for Mr Russell Ball, Chairperson Palmerston High School and myself to meet …
… to further discuss infrastructure needs.
Mr Henderson, it is time for some tough decisions to be made. The Palmerston community deserves a fair deal when it comes to education infrastructure and the widest possible curriculum available. Again, I stress my appreciation for the dollars involved here, but it needs to happen.
Three weeks after that letter was sent, this government announced a brand new Rosebery school hub, including preschool, primary school and a middle school, with the capacity to take the cohort from Palmerston High. Fantastic! Best news I have heard for a long time. Many people worked very hard indeed to put that kind of plan into action. Here we are, though, getting close to the end of 2008 and we are still waiting for any real evidence of this occurring.
The Palmerston Education Infrastructure Advisory Group was a voluntary group, although we did have support from a couple of departments and, of course, the wonderful principals we have in the Palmerston schools. I do not know whether the minister felt that the group was no longer needed, remembering the mandate was to talk about and plan for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years, not just for the next school in Palmerston, but the next school and the next school.
I received a letter from the current minister for Education. I will not read out the entire letter, but in essence:
- In light of the establishment of this new group, it is not possible for DEET staff to commit further time in an official capacity to the PEIAG.
Madam Speaker, this demonstrates to me that this government does not understand what delivery is all about - announcement after announcement after announcement; that is all we seem to get. It clearly demonstrates a culture of systematic failures, no communication and proof of misleading Territorians.
It is abundantly clear to me, and many people I have spoken to, that delivery of effective planning, good education outcomes, infrastructure and any thought of immediate improvement is outside the scope of this government and the minister responsible.
I noted a couple of things in the minister’s response: two meetings in all for something so important. I assure you, when meetings go pear-shaped it takes good negotiation to get to the next level. I also welcome the minister’s announcement about Rosebery High School; I have not heard this one before. I look forward to telling the people of Brennan that we are getting a high school in Rosebery. Fantastic! I have not seen the media release yet, but I welcome it and look forward to it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not always talk on these motions, but I would like to put something forward today. Perhaps it highlights that we do need a full and robust debate on the education system in the Northern Territory as we have not had one for a while. Probably, the last reasonable discussion would have been at the Estimates Committee. It is an area that needs constant attention, so I would like to put forward a few comments today.
I notice the minister said, when she was commenting on her approach to Mrs Margaret Banks, that she personally admired the CEO and this had nothing to do with personalities. I say to the minister: this is not about personalities, either. I admire the minister, but I have been asked to look at some issues relating to the performance of the government in education. I do not put this solely on the existing minister. I believe the role the government has played in some of the failures in education in the Northern Territory should be looked at in a broad sense, not necessarily aimed at one particular minister.
As a local member, I get feedback from my constituents, many of whom are teachers. The present dispute between teachers and the department of Education is certainly causing many teachers to become very disillusioned and disgruntled with what is happening in relation to their concerns about the future of education.
One of the main areas they believe the government is ignoring is not necessarily in relation to the pay increase, but to conditions in schools. I raised the question in the last sittings of parliament in relation to relief teachers. The government has a policy, which was put in a couple of years ago, which capped how much money could be used to cover relief teachers. The minister said schools would just have to budget better. That might sound good in theory, but the problem many schools have is either they do not have relief teachers because they have run out of money, or rely on funding from school councils. That is one of the big concerns they have ...
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This is exactly what I am relaying from teachers: I have been to school council meetings and this is what I have been told.
If these are the issues which are causing teachers to lose faith in the negotiations, which have dragged on for a very long time and one could feel the government is trying to simply …
Mr Knight: Second best paid in Australia.
Mr WOOD: If you want to have that debate on those figures, I am happy to come back to them. I know from people who know a lot more than I do that we are not always comparing apples with apples ...
Mr Knight: We are.
Mr WOOD: No, we are not.
Mr Knight: We are.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, without getting into that too much, what these teachers are saying to me is that while they would like a pay increase - and there is no doubt they are after a pay increase - they want better conditions. They have spoken about a decrease in the number of students in class. The reason they are asking for that is many teachers find it more and more difficult to control students. We have a society today where, for some reason, there are more students who are difficult to handle in classes. They are finding a lot of pressure on them trying to control these children. There are reasons why they are asking for smaller class numbers.
I am saying to the minister that there are many disenchanted teachers out there. I used to be one of those who reckoned teachers had it easy. I can tell you now I thought: ‘Gee, work a few hours, go for long holidays, a piece of cake’. Then I saw my wife work at Sacred Heart Primary in Palmerston as an Aboriginal assistant teacher whose job was, basically, to take all those children - Indigenous and non-Indigenous – who were a pest in the class. She would come home with a migraine nearly every night, simply because of the stress of looking after those kids.
I have gone further than that. I have been involved with school councils, and I have seen the dedication of many teachers. I have seen the effort they put into schools now; the effort that is beyond the call of duty. As someone said years ago, Mum and Dad taught you what was right and wrong, Mum and Dad taught you respect. Now, Mum and Dad do not do that anymore; they expect the school teacher to do it. So, literacy and numeracy gets shoved to the side and we talk about the environment. Fine. We have the environment and visiting musicians and, then, other people will turn up and the simple things in life about teaching start to shrink. Teachers have so many responsibilities that, to some extent, are outside what they are really there for.
I have some sympathy for the teachers in relation to what they do. Why there is more pressure on teachers today is more a reflection of society, which they do not have control over. I am just putting it back to the government that that is why they are losing faith in the government.
The minister also said that the figures for education for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are a disgrace. I agree, and I have said this many times. However, I find that hollow because it was this government that changed the reporting figures that made it difficult for people like me to find out exactly what the figures were. I have said this before in parliament and at the Estimates Committee.
For the years 2003 to 2005, the department of Education’s annual report broke up Indigenous education into Indigenous, Indigenous Urban, and Indigenous Remote. When you looked at some of those figures, especially for Indigenous Remote, you were absolutely horrified. They were just woeful! I will give you an example. In 2003-04, it was estimated that 21% of children …
Ms Scrymgour: The CLP never used to print them.
Mr WOOD: Look, you can go back as far as you like. You can go back before the CLP existed, and my wife had a better education than kids today. I congratulate the Commonwealth government and the missions; however, the reality is this government has now been in power for eight year. We have had the Collins report, we have Closing the Gap. I do not follow all the reports, but I imagine there are tons of reports, because education seems to have its own industry on reports. That is why you have a whopping big building down there full of people who dissect our lives, change curriculum, do all that and, yet, nothing comes out the end any better.
I will go back to what I was saying. In 2003-04, there was an estimate by the department that 21% of Indigenous Remote Year 3 children would reach the reading benchmark – 21%. In actual fact, only 9% reached it. It was estimated there would be 30% of Indigenous Remote Year 3 in 2004-05 reach that figure. It did go up. It went up to 20%. After that, you do not know because, from 2005-06 to the present time, the figures for Indigenous Remote were removed from the annual report. They were also removed from the budget.
If the government was fair dinkum about the issue, it would not have removed them. It is better to face up to the problems that we have by telling people publicly, ‘These are the figures’. I have no doubt it is not easy to solve. There is no doubt that when you have communities with overcrowding, alcohol and drug problems, petrol sniffing, or high unemployment, you have very little incentive for people to go on. It is hard to get people to go to school. If parents really have no desire for their children to go to school, why would they make the effort to push them off to school? It is difficult. I have no doubt about that, minister. Yet, this government decided to hide those figures. To me, that sends the message they did not want the people to know about it.
The one thing they can do to show their sincerity would be to put those figures back. I know some people say that …
Ms Scrymgour: They are on the website, Gerry. Go to DEET’s website.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: This is from the annual report. The annual report had it in, and then they took it out, that is the issue I am saying. It might be on DEET’s website. The annual report removed it, and I am saying put it back …
Ms Lawrie: Who do you think does the annual report?
Mr WOOD: I am saying that if people stand up here and say things are terrible, then it is a little hollow if you remove those very horrible statistics that we need to know. I believe departments should put those figures back.
In relation to the CEO, I do not know whether, minister, you were lying, or someone else was lying. It is always a value judgment, and that is why I get reluctant to - and I probably will not - vote on this. In general, I support the gist of it. However, because this motion has five categories to it, and it is not just a simple motion, I am uneasy to say: ‘Yes, I agree with all of them’. I will say publicly here now that I am unhappy with the way the department works. You might say I am patronising as I am not in your position, but if I was the minister - and it is most unlikely I will ever be - if it was my CEO, who I would have thought was my right-hand person, I would have a very close relationship with the CEO, because that is the reason I have a CEO.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Okay. That is the reason you have a CEO. If the CEO is not doing what I am asking, I would be happy to meet with the CEO. Then, if the CEO was not fulfilling what I was requesting, I would at least - and I presume that this can be done - say to that CEO: ‘I no longer have faith in what you are doing and I would like you to leave’. That, I would have thought, was a reasonable thing for a relationship between a minister and a CEO - not the next people down. I understand that side, but I would have thought it was done that way. That is my feelings about it. You can take it or leave it, but that is the way I have looked at it. I have listened to the debate, from the radio and on the television.
The member for Brennan spoke about planning. I believe there is a real issue. We have schools now that are overcrowded. Taminmin High is a classic example. We have not prepared the rural area for another school, and it has reached its limit. The member for Brennan was saying it is a pity that, if you live in a city, you cannot send your children to the school in that city. I must admit that many Palmerston kids go to Taminmin because it is a good school. The reality is that Taminmin also has courses which are different from Palmerston, especially rural courses. I recommend all kids do rural courses, because I think it is good for them.
The school is now full and what planning has been done for a new high school? I said, Weddell, and someone said: ‘Oh, you cannot build one at Weddell; it is just a dry paddock’. But, that is exactly what you do. You know that there is going to be town built there one day. The school could come before the rest of the city. Do not forget that there is a lot of growth south of Taminmin in places like Darwin River, Berry Springs, Adelaide River, and Batchelor. Putting a school somewhere down there would be worthwhile.
We have a school that is full right now. Next year, when more than - I think the school can only take 300 at a time - 350 kids apply to go to Taminmin and they all come from the rural area, where do the other 50 go? They have to catch a bus to Palmerston. If that school is full, they have to go somewhere else.
There has not been a private secondary school built in the time of this government. I remember asking what happened to the Catholic high school that was supposed to be built in Palmerston on Lambrick Avenue. It is only just now being talked about. I remember taking this debate up with the minister at the time, Syd Stirling. It seemed to me that a private school was out of favour with this government for quite a while. I am pleased to hear that there is a private school being considered. It is not an anti-public school statement. I believe we have the best education system when we have choice. That is good for our community. However, we have not planned. That school has been hanging around for ages. We have a new private middle school being built at Howard Springs, thankfully, with some assistance from the government, and that is very much appreciated. That is the Good Shepherd Lutheran School, and it is jammed full, because people want to go there. People are looking for that choice. We are behind in our planning when it comes to schools.
Much has been said about the number of Aboriginal students who have now reached Year 12. I have some concerns about that. I am not attempting to be detrimental to those people who have gone through, but I gather some of those students are not exactly hitting the science degrees section of Year 12. They are doing things like cooking and tourism-type Year 12. We really need to be putting through school people who will end up being fully-qualified teachers, lawyers, and doctors. I am interested to know from the member for Barkly: you have a high school in Tennant Creek, and there must be a lot of Aboriginal kids in that area, but all we seem to be concentrating on is Aboriginal kids getting through Year 12. How many Aboriginal kids are going through Barkly? How many got through to Year 12? How many are going through the high school at Nhulunbuy? Surely, there are isolated children going to school there.
If they are not getting to Year 12 in established high schools, why not? Why are we putting these three people who went to school at Kalkarindji up like that is it? Surely, we must be putting Aboriginal people through the schools such as St John’s; O’Loughlin; Kormilda, and all of the other schools in Darwin. How many Aboriginal people coming in from remote areas are getting through to Year 12 at Kormilda? I just think the figures are sitting out there without looking at the bigger picture. If they are not getting Aboriginal children through Year 12 at Kormilda, O’Loughlin, Barkly, or Nhulunbuy, I would be asking questions as to why not.
One of the great things in this place is that we have Aboriginal people here. I reckon it is terrific. Whether you agree with me on my policies, I do not mind, but I asked the question: what education do you people have? You have a good secondary education, you went boarding - no different to some of the people on the cattle stations who had to go boarding; they had to leave home. That is very hard. I know the Tiwis used to go boarding in the late 1960s, and they found it very hard. I worry about the debate about a few kids at Kalkarindji and that you have put it up there and, in the CLP’s time, nothing happened. I am not here to say the CLP’s time was fantastic either. However, I believe sometimes there is a little spin thrown in and we need to look at the whole picture of secondary education, as it really is a total picture for Aboriginal people.
I raised other issues that are probably not necessarily related to this motion, but I still believe it highlights the fact that this is an important area. I do not question the minister’s great belief that we need to do something better and that she is determined to do something better. That does not mean that what she has been doing lately is necessarily right. I am talking about whether the minister has done a good job. I am talking about whether the government has done a good job.
As I said before, I do not necessarily put all the blame on the existing minister. The government, by its record - and it is worth looking at these figures - should be condemned. I will quickly give you an example of why. In 2002-03, the benchmark achievement for Indigenous numeracy for Year 3 - not Indigenous Remote, just Indigenous - was a good figure overall at 73.9%. But, in 2007-08, the figure had dropped to 69%. Over that entire period, the benchmark dropped for all Indigenous children. The government has had eight years. It should have been going up; it is going down. As much as we can put spin on it, that is a very sad fact of life - very sad ...
Ms Scrymgour: Urgency is not spin, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Those are the figures as they are there. We need to go forward. We need to get to the basics. I will say one thing, minister: I congratulate you on your statement. You said the children will learn four hours of reading and writing every morning. That is fantastic but, overall, I believe the government has lost the faith of many Territorians ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the opposition’s censure motion, looking at each of the points Nos 1 to 5. In No 1, we have heard during debate the Education minister very clearly explaining - very honestly and sincerely explaining - what occurred regarding the dismissal of Margaret Banks. That is she mistakenly used the word ‘retiring’ when she genuinely meant to say ‘resigning’; that she attributed the departure of Margaret Banks as resigning because that is the respect that you afford a CEO when they are leaving their office. That is the normal respect that is afforded for privacy reasons. So, if indeed they do not do what Margaret then chose to do, which is go out publicly and say ‘I was dismissed’, they can continue with their career with everyone genuinely believing it was a resignation, which is in the better interest …
Mr Tollner: If she felt it was done the right way, why did she go on ABC radio?
Ms LAWRIE: … which is in the better interest of their career. Whether the opposition want to believe this or not, that is actually what occurs at the senior level of government. That is actually what occurs. Okay?
Genuinely, the minister stood here and very clearly explained that it was out of respect for privacy for Margaret Banks that she chose to take the public line that it was a resignation. That is what a minister is always advised to do, to respect the privacy of the individual in the dismissal. That is the reality of what occurred. Okay? So, that is not lying to Territorians about the sacking. Genuinely, the minister stood here in the House and explained exactly what has occurred. Why? Because, as she said, she has no personal issue with Margaret Banks.
The reason for the dismissal was the minister, as she had to subsequently tell the public, after having wanted to protect her privacy around this, that she had lost confidence in her CEO. Why? Because, as she has said in the Chamber here today and as I have heard her say publicly, there needed to be an urgent and dramatic change in the delivery of education in the Territory. She had lost confidence in her CEO to implement that change. The reality is that operational matters and the implementation of government policy is undertaken by CEOs.
With all the good intent in the world, ministers can drive policy agendas, they can drive policy change - and we are all very aware that this minister for Education has been driving dramatic policy change in reforming Indigenous education. Some of the members in this Chamber may not have been around for that statement, but it was a sea change in policy in the delivery of Indigenous education in the Territory. It took this minister for Education to do that sea change, to be bold enough to come in here and say: ‘We have delivered failure in the past; we will not continue to deliver failure. We will give every Territory kid the chance to come out of the school system knowing how to read and write’. There is nothing more important than that opportunity for our children. It is this minister who was bold enough to say there has been failure and how the policy settings will be changed.
What have we had in the intervening time? I know the minister for Education has been tracking how the implementation - not just of the reforming of Indigenous education, but the opportunity we have of working with our Commonwealth colleagues, with the resources that the Territory is applying and the additional resources the Commonwealth is applying – has been going. This minister was about driving the change, and came to the very strong belief that it would require change at the very top of the departmental ladder for true and urgent change to occur - nothing at all personal. It is a professional and difficult hard decision that was taken.
No 2 regarding the direct removal from the position, the direct sacking which the Leader of the Opposition seemed so focused on in his contribution to the censure, dramatically explaining the foyer and the building. I can say again it is recognised practice for the CEO of the Department of Chief Minister to actually negotiate the dismissal of a CEO of an agency. Again, that is well-worn practice here in the Northern Territory Public Service. It was the minister for Education, having clearly come to the view that she needed a change at the top of the department, to really drive significant sea change in Indigenous education who, obviously, would have had discussions with her colleagues, with the CEO of the DCM and sought advice. She followed the advice every step of the way in and around the appropriate behaviour for the dismissal. No 2 is wrong as well.
No 3 - failing to maintain effective communication links between Cabinet and the Education department. Well, sorry, none of them sit in Cabinet. So, it begs the question: how would they know? I sit in Cabinet and I know just how many times our minister for Education raises education issues at Cabinet, pursues very vigoursly all of the submissions coming before Cabinet for the benefit of education in the Territory.
I quietly listened to the member for Brennan. I was waiting for him to get to something that had occurred that he had an issue with that was in the time frame of this minister for Education being the minister for Education. This is a very personal censure; it is not broadly on the government or broadly on the education system. I was looking for something there …
Mr Mills: No, it is actually a want of confidence in the capacity of the minister for Education.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: I kept waiting and listening to the crowded dog kennels, the compulsory school uniforms, the middle school consultation, the Palmerston High senior extension, and the Bakewell overcrowding, and all of those issues. I am not denigrating them at all. I can say this: guess who was the Education minister who got a 600-pupil primary school and an 850-pupil middle school for Rosebery? Delivered exactly …
Mr Mills: It is not there.
Ms LAWRIE: … what PEIAG were wanting ...
Mr Mills: You have been talking about it since 2002.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: You say it is not there, well, let me tell you …
Mr Mills: All talk, no action.
Ms Scrymgour: You are too dumb to understand. You are too stupid.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They say it is not there. Well, guess what? The funding was delivered in this May budget ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Guess what? The funding was delivered in this May budget. I do not know anyone anywhere in the world who put up two schools overnight ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: They are not there. In 2002, you started announcing this.
Ms LAWRIE: It was this Education minister, the one that the Leader of the Opposition has a want of confidence in, who delivered …
Mr Mills: It will move to you in a minute, if you keep this up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … who delivered …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: What we notice about the Leader of the Opposition is that he does not like to hear the truth. You can explain something to them, they shout at you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You stand here and explain something to them, they shout at you, they interject, and then they threaten: ‘We will censure you next if you keep this up’. Well, guess what? I am going to stand here and say exactly what needs to be pointed out regarding the points of your censure, whether you like to hear it or not, because that is democracy, this is a debate.
I pointed out No 1 was wrong. I pointed out No 2 was wrong. No 3, failing to maintain the effective communication links between Cabinet and the Education department - completely wrong. I have participated in a series of very senior high-level meetings involving the minister and departmental officers. I have seen Cabinet submissions. I know the way the minister prosecutes the need for improved education at Cabinet ...
Mr Tollner: Why are you so wrong? How come …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: As far as I am concerned, through my own actual experience because I am a member of Cabinet, they are very wrong regarding the communication links – very wrong.
No 4, throwing the Education department into chaos. I will not underestimate the impact that an e-mail going around to staff from a CEO saying that they are leaving, has on a department. I will not underestimate that, but this is not a department which, as a consequence, is in chaos. They have a very capable and competent senior management team, being led by a very capable and competent senior manager who is the acting CEO. They are not a department in chaos.
Are they a department that, like many …
Mr Elferink: The teachers are out on strike, the CEO has been fired, your results are through the floor, and everything is squeaky clean.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting. Minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Are they a department, like many of the departments in the Territory, which has to work in extremely challenging and complex conditions? Yes, they are. Whether it is in the departmental offices, or out in the schools, they all work in complex and challenging conditions, because that is what we have in the Territory, and we do not resile from that fact. As a government, we acknowledge that we have a significant reform process and resource requirement ahead of us - whether it is urban, regional, or remote.
We know in our urban, we have rapid growth, and the demands and challenges that that requires. We know in our regions, we have to ensure that we continue to improve the ageing infrastructure and recruit good teachers into the schools. I am not saying that good teachers do not exist there - they do. The challenge is always ensuring that you are able to continue to recruit into those schools, because the nature is that people do move around a system, and it is extremely difficulty to recruit to the remotes. Not only that, we had to build much of the infrastructure to provide for the education opportunities in the remotes. So, no, there is no chaos. Are there complex challenges? Yes, absolutely.
There is no argument from our minister for Education that the Territory has appalling results in our remote schools. She stood in the Chamber today and explained that our results in our urbans stack up with the rest of Australia. That is something everyone in our Education department, who work so hard, can be very proud of. We are shoulder to the wheel with everyone working in our regions and our remotes in the desire to improve the outcomes in education, the resources that they have, the opportunities those children have, and the attendance at those schools, and to deliver eduction in the places where it had not previously been delivered.
I know that is the history lesson that people do not like to hear, but it takes an enormous change to turn that around. That is why the minister wanted, very clearly, new leadership at the top for the sea change. It was not personal. It was to drive the urgency of the change. We all know that has to come from the top - from the CEO of the department. It cannot just be a push from the minister. You have to be driving it. Margaret Banks is, indeed, a fine educator. She did a tremendous job with implementing middle school change for the Northern Territory government. Introducing and implementing a middle years approach to schooling was the largest education reform in the history of Territory education. It was aimed at improving Years 7 to 9 by tailoring education to the specific needs. That was an enormous body of work.
Look back through successive Education ministers. Under Syd Stirling’s time, he established a teacher’s registration board to deal with professional and quality issues, because it did not exist before. He provided every classroom teacher with laptops. Understanding that families do it tough financially in getting their kids to school, he put the Back to School payment in place - for the first time, $50, and we are going to increase it to $75. There was early age of entry, giving kids who may be ready the opportunity to come in a bit early into preschool, and providing for that single intake into Transition. We developed the school improvement and accountability framework to drive the achievement and to improve results.
There have been 155 additional teachers put into our education system since 2001. There are 23 school counsellors above formula and, now, through Closing the Gap, we are putting those counsellors out into our large remote schools. There are 18 wellbeing behaviour officers supporting the schools. We introduced and staffed a wellbeing project that assists teachers with discipline issues in their classrooms; developed an NT Safe Schools Code of Conduct; 28 new teaching positions for students with special needs; increased funding for the ISAS support – and I know that that was one of the key areas the minister for Education wanted to drive significant change; supporting our students with special needs.
We put in place an autism spectrum disorder learning centre at Malak Primary School, in my electorate. We have established a positive learning centre at Sanderson Middle School to cater for students with those high behavioural needs, and an alternative education program to work with our disengaged students. There is accelerated literacy - that is new.
The remote schools have been provided assistant principal positions through remote group schools. The Barkly teacher support person has been provided. The list goes on. We are fundamentally providing secondary education to the bush - Labor being the first government to do this. We now have full secondary provision to Kalkarindji, Maningrida, Galiwinku, Minyerri, Yirrkala, and Wadeye. We have collaborative trial sites at Ramingining, Yuendumu, Papunya, and Borroloola.
Successive Education ministers, the opposition would have us believe, did nothing, oversaw nothing, changed nothing, resourced to no greater extent. All I can say is we have doubled the Education budget under Labor, under successive ministers. We have a minister for Education, as Deputy Chief Minister, who not only has the confidence and support of her colleagues at the Territory level but, importantly - and I am speaking for a moment as the Treasurer – also has the confidence and support of her federal colleagues. It is that which brings us the opportunity to receive further, increased resources from the Commonwealth, because we cannot do it on our own. The unmet need in the bush is of such an extent - which we inherited and which we are trying to fix - it will take both governments, the Commonwealth and the Territory government working together, to deliver the sea change the minister for Education has established with the policy settings she has pursued in the delivery of resources into the sector.
There are significant reforms occurring. There has been an enormous capital works program, as well the delivery of the education …
Mr Mills: But with poor results.
Ms LAWRIE: There has been some $20m in middle school in Darwin. Palmerston High School, Casuarina Senior College, Centralian Senior Secondary College, Nhulunbuy Secondary School, Katherine High School, and Taminmin High School all received significant infrastructure funding out of middle schools. There was $48m for the primary and middle schools at Rosebery. As I pointed out earlier, it was this minister for Education who got through all the barriers in the budget to delivering that, which gets it delivered and built on the ground.
There are significant upgrades right across bush schools – Minyerri, $1m; Kalkaringi, $1m; Maningrida, $2.2m; Shepherdson College, $2.5m; Wadeye, $4.5m; Papunya, $1m; Borroloola, $6m - all receiving significant upgrades – Utopia, Mulga Bore, Alcoota, Milyakburra, Gunbalanya …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for allowing me an extension of time and I promise not to take too much longer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: However, it is important when we are debating whether we should have confidence in this minister, when we look at the resources this minister is delivering into the education sector because, fundamentally, you will not have a chance in cooee of getting the results if you have not put in the resources. If you do not have a classroom to sit in, or if your classroom is so substandard it is extremely hard to learn in that environment, and it is even harder to teach in that environment, then you are not going to get the results.
There has been much said about the morale of the teachers. This government acknowledges that we have been in a protracted dispute with the teachers under the EBA. As the former Minister for Public Employment, I can say that EBAs are negotiated by the Minister for Public Employment, not by the Education minister.
The issue of relief teachers, which the member for Nelson raised, is very much a part of the government’s offer on the EBA. The issue of class numbers, which the member for Nelson raised, is very much part of the government’s offer on the EBA. These are agreed elements of the offer. They were elements of the offer the union were recommending acceptance on. The minister for Education genuinely said: ‘At any stage, if I can assist let me know’. I said to her: ‘We have an issue here because we have some matters that are clearly EBA matters being raised by the union and then we have a whole other catchment of matters that are resourcing matters’. They are issues of resources for the education system. They are genuine issues teachers have about conditions in the classroom.
So, we kept trying to find an agreed set of words between the government and the union on the two processes: one which was the EBA and the other, the second process - which is obviously the far more complex and lengthier process - is an agreement negotiating on resources. The minister for Education, at no stage, prevented that from occurring. In fact, quite the opposite; she pursued that. She genuinely pursued the negotiations and discussions on resources because we recognise …
Mr Chandler: Two times. She pursued it twice.
Ms LAWRIE: … the teachers are doing it tough. I pick up on the inane interjection of the member for Brennan that she pursued it twice. Guess what? If an Education minister wants to negotiate resources, they ought to have a lot of meetings with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister - and that is where she has been doing a hell of a lot of work on those resources issues, as she should ...
A member: So, it is your fault.
Ms LAWRIE: By all means, blame the Treasurer, because everyone, ultimately, does.
Madam Speaker, I have stepped through Nos 1 to 5. The only area of agreement was on the appalling results in the bush in education - not across other areas. They have all been dealt with. I have specifically gone through each of those points and spoken to each of them. I know the Leader of the Opposition is passionate about education and there are many members in this Chamber who share that passion. I have never had the privilege of being an Education minister, and I often said it is the most difficult – that and Health. I tip my hat to the Health ministers. It is so complex. There are so many different areas, and such enormous unmet need. How do you deal with all of that?
What I have seen our Education minister do is be very clear and very focused on how to drive the reforms forward, and articulate that with her Cabinet, publicly with reforms, with statements in the Chamber, in meetings with officers I have witnessed through different levels of the department, out on the ground in the schools - I have seen her at the schools – and, as I said before, importantly with the Commonwealth because we cannot do it without them. We cannot meet that unmet need without them.
Madam Speaker, to move forward, the decision our minister for Education made regarding the change in leadership at the top of the department was a tough decision but, for the amount of significant and rapid change our minister is seeking, was the right decision – a difficult, tough decision but the right decision. It is easy to make assumptions when you are not on the inside. We are not going to go after or denigrate the fine woman that Margaret Banks is. That is the sort of debate that you want us, politically, to do, and we will not do that. We will not do that.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Giles
Ms Lawrie Mr Mills
Mr McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms Scrymgour Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 5)
(Serial 5)
Continued from 18 September 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this bill is titled Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. As I looked through the proposed amendments, I saw that they, indeed, arise as a consequence of the implementation of the new act this year, but not, it seems, only as a consequence of administrative errors, minor oversights or simply to provide minor fixes to other acts. If the job had been done right the first time, many of these acts could or should have been amended, with those amendments to take effect on the same date as the new Local Government Act. I believe this should, or would, normally have been the case with consequential amendments.
More to the point, these amendments, at least in part, seem to arise as a consequence of some of the things I alluded to in the matter of public importance I raised in this parliament just a few weeks ago. One of those things was a lack of consultation with stakeholders prior to the act coming into force or, more to the point, the little heed the government took of whatever consultation there was with the community. When I spoke to the MPI on local government a few weeks ago, the minister virtually dismissed the MPI as unimportant. Is it not ironic that the MPI raised some of the issues that we now find manifesting in these proposed amendments?
For an act of this parliament, touted as being an all-encompassing fix to the old act, this is a prime example of the way government and the minister treated the consultation and implementation process; that is, the process was shallow and failed to address many of the issues raised prior to the implementation of the act. In addition to that, the process was rushed. There were calls during the so-called consultation process that things were being rushed. I refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Local Government Advisory Board in February 2007, which I mentioned in my MPI last month. It was the very first of those meetings: ‘There were concerns that consultation is occurring too late in the process’. Since the commencement of the act, the calls are still going out that there was insufficient consultation. Not only that, but there are also calls that the whole process was less than fully transparent.
Moving now into the actual amendments being proposed, section 270 is to provide for the preservation of local government functions of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited. The reality of this situation remains to be seen, but it would appear this would have to amount to nothing short of backflip on these reforms. These reforms were designed to amalgamate community government councils and progress associations into larger shires, not allow for councils or other entities exercising local government functions, to set up independently of the shire in which they are contained. Nhulunbuy should geographically be included in the East Arnhem Shire, yet, it is now doing just the opposite of what the act intended. I see that during the lead-up to the implementation of the new act, Litchfield, Coomalie, Batchelor, Dundee, Cox Peninsula, and Marrakai have all managed to avoid being caught in the minister’s local government reform - and good on them for doing so. This amounts to nothing short of a backflip based on pressure applied to government by the residents of those areas.
I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the previous Minister for Local Government, Mr Elliot McAdam. I have not had direct experience with Mr McAdam, but there is sufficient anecdote to suggest that he had the reform process at heart and was trying to provide a solid workable framework for the implementation of these reforms. I find it rather curious, however, that the former minister resigned; that is, a minister of the Crown, a minister of this government, resigned right around the time the process of this reform was falling apart. He must have had some serious concerns about what was going on.
What of the rating process under the new reforms as they relate to pastoral and mining leases? There is an enormous amount of misinformation in the public arena. The people I speak to do not know what is going on. Is there a moratorium on rates for pastoralists and miners, or is there simply a cap? Most Territorians do not know. That is indicative of the way this reform has been handled. Not only has the consultation process lacked any great substance, but there is now a tendency by this government to withhold information for reasons I do not know. I can only imagine it might be because they have something to hide.
At this juncture, I would like to state for the record that I am of the opinion that prior to implementing the new act the local government system needed to be reformed. I am not against the local government reform process. Unfortunately, the minister seems to have the impression that I, and my opposition colleagues, were against any reform. This is simply not the case. The people on this side of the House are progressive and not happy to sit by idly and watch such an important issue as local government fall into disrepair. Nor are we happy to run with the old adage, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. I recognise that acts of parliament in the Northern Territory should be organic in nature, and grow and change to suit the prevailing needs of Territorians.
Back to the amendments. In section 217, which is a new section to be inserted, it would seem the Nhulunbuy Corporation has managed to perform the old magician’s girl in the box disappearing trick, out of East Arnhem Shire. I am looking forward to the minister’s explanation of this amazing turnaround during the committee stage of this debate. I ask that this debate be taken into committee at the appropriate time after the second reading debate. The question that needs to be asked here is: why now? The minister has given his unequivocal support to the so-called ‘consultation process’ prior to this act being given assent. Yet, some months into the operation of the act, there seems to be a need for Nhulunbuy to secede from the East Arnhem Shire. If this change is not a case of Nhulunbuy’s departure from the shire, then I ask: what is it? Looking through the list of subsumed councils, I do not see a reference anywhere to Nhulunbuy. Is it the case that the minister has forgotten about Nhulunbuy? I have to ask the question.
My other concern is this: if there is no reasonable rationale for this course of action, what are the other organisations which have been absorbed within the shires? What would stop Jabiru or Tennant Creek, for example, from doing the same thing or at least trying? Is this setting a dangerous precedent? The precedent has already been set. There are local government areas that are not part of the new shire system. These are unincorporated areas in the Northern Territory, in the Top End, where the rest of the Territory remains incorporated.
Is this the beginning of the end for the effectiveness of this act, given that it would allow for the amalgamation of smaller councils, even though it has just been enforced for a few months? I will be listening carefully to the minister’s explanation in the committee stage and I defer any further comments until that stage.
I realise that these amendments probably have to go through to grease the wheels of an act that really is not very well put together and is really not working on the ground. Since the MPI regarding local government I raised some weeks ago, there is still a lot of information coming to me about the inadequacies of the act; about the inadequacies of the wash-up and how it is pulling together on the ground. It is of enormous concern to Territorians that these consequential amendments, for the most part, really need to go through the process, be voted on and be eventually given assent, as I have said, to grease the wheels.
Continuing with the amendments, section 271 details a new section relating to allowing the Chair of the council to exercise a casting vote. This allows, I guess, for the passage of motions in council under certain circumstances. Section 272, also a new section to be inserted, allows for the continued operation of the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations. When this debate moves to committee, I will be asking the minister to point out the location of the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations.
The amendments then move on to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. The proposed amendments seem consequential in that they seek to add definitions and insert correct references to ‘municipal’, in keeping with the terminology of the parent act. The amendments to the Kava Management Act serve to do the same, as do the amendments to the Land Title Act and the Water Act.
The remainder of the amendments deal, basically, with probably 20 or so acts contained in Schedule 1. From my reading of it, they are quite consequential and need to be put through to make the other acts of the Northern Territory consistent with the wording of the parent act and the new Local Government Act. I am not opposing these amendments per se. However, I would like some further explanations on matters raised previously when we get to committee stage.
The principle behind the local government reforms was a good one. There are certainly perceived advantages to having shires formed in the way that they are. However, I reiterate that it is just not working on the ground. I urge the minister to take as much advice as he is able to receive from locals; from people who are finding this new local government reform oppressive, anti-competitive and difficult to work with. I still get complaints from people about the new shires forcing their will upon them. These are people in smaller communities. I acknowledge some of the communities are more dysfunctional than others, yet, even the well-run communities are having difficulties dealing with the new shire arrangement.
The government, in a rewrite of the legislation, has the opportunity to get it right. It is a crying shame, in my opinion, that because of the poor way in which this whole matter has been dealt with by government, the people in the Northern Territory have to suffer as a result. We are supposed to be working in this parliament to better the lot of Northern Territorians. This act certainly has not cut the mustard in that regard.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the consequential amendments to the bill. This bill, essentially, involves amendments of other legislation affected by the new Local Government Act. I take this opportunity to say that change - any change - is always difficult, and any change does require a great deal of adjustment in people’s lives.
I know for a fact, that our current Minister for Local Government, his predecessor, Elliot McAdam, and his predecessor, John Ah Kit, did not want to see change for the sake of change. They wanted to see change in regard to real reform in the governance of our communities and our regions in the Northern Territory. They, along with our current minister, the member for Daly, had, and have, the courage to pursue this reform. This reform did not just happen overnight. This reform did not happen at the whim of just any one person or a government that did not believe in the future of the people of the Northern Territory.
This reform was about improving the lives of those people who live in our regions who, for so long and for too long, felt absolutely neglected regarding their voice in local government, and the employment situation of those areas in local government. They wanted a future - a future that did not see a continuous flow-on of CEOs coming and going in our communities. In any one community, you would have at least five or six, if not more, CEOs leave the councils, and those council members in those councils, feeling absolute despair, like there was no way out of this situation they had found themselves in continuously over successive decades.
Let me reassure the member for Katherine, as I know he is a new member to the House, that this, by no means, is a reform that has happened overnight. It is a reform that has been well thought through, by successive ministers dedicated to wanting to see change in our regions, and change for the better.
But, yes, you are right in the sense that change brings about a need for better information. Change does require people to understand how they can be able to influence that change, how they can contribute to that change. Yes, you are right in that regard, and we are always conscious of that, even more so because we know we are dealing in regions where there is more than just one language. We know that we are dealing with over 100 Aboriginal languages in most of these regions. Of course we are conscious of the need to get the information out, and even vitally so to our pastoralists and to businesses in these regions, so that they can understand and contribute in a manner that is about directing a future for the betterment of all Territorians. How can we do that? We have to do that by having the guts and the courage to see reform in these places. Yes, reform will be painful to begin with, but it will be better.
One reason for the consequential amendments is that we are consulting with key stakeholders about this legislation, right after tabling and the debate. One of the key issues as part of the local government reform was balancing the needs of the new shires and those of the established municipal councils. It certainly was a challenge. There were many views expressed on the legislation during our consultations, canvassing a range of views. The government had to work through all those views and, frequently, of course, stakeholders had conflicting views. We would be fooling ourselves to think that there is never a conflict of views. Of course, there is a differing of views. People have certain fears, and others have certain enjoyment and excitement at the thought that things are going to be very different for their lives and the way the communities are going to be governed.
It is incumbent on each and every one of us in this House to ensure that, when people do not know, we guide and direct them in the right and responsible way. This reform is the largest reform to ever occur in the Northern Territory in the history since self-government. Of course, it is difficult and change is going to cause alarm, but let us not add to that alarm and concern by whipping it up into something that it is not. Let us keep a very reasoned and cautious mind to this.
I can tell you, from my constituents in Arnhem and, in particular, the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority, which has evolved very strongly into the Roper Gulf Shire, that this is a most welcome reform. Yes, there are certain issues that need to be worked out and ironed out. I am sure, member for Katherine, you may know or have heard of Michael Berto who is the CEO for that region – an amazing man, a good leader; someone who can see the benefits of what he is doing in that region. Yes, it is difficult, and he would be the first one to say it is not easy. But, he will also be the first one to say this is the way we have to keep going. I heard those other points that you have raised. I say work closely with Michael Berto, member for Katherine. I think you will find a very different perspective on some of those issues that you raised. I encourage you to do that.
Regarding the amendments, I acknowledge the member for Nelson for his ongoing scrutineer process, which reflects his interest and passion for local government and commend him. In fact, the member for Nelson effectively assumed the role of the opposition on the matter of local government reform in the previous term. I believe that the result is good legislation. We have produced a significant review of this 21-year-old legislation. What we have before us is a final round-up of amendments to other legislation flowing from the revised Local Government Act.
Regarding your concerns with Nhulunbuy, I have Groote Eylandt which is part of the East Arnhem Shire. Umbakumba, Angurugu, and Bickerton are part of the East Arnhem Shire. Alyangula is a mining town and it is not a part of the East Arnhem Shire, as is Nhulunbuy which is also a mining town. So, as part of this process, it is not a part of the shire. The residents on Groote Eylandt - which is moving ahead in leaps and bounds in so many different ways, with the alcohol permit system and with the leasing of land – and perhaps the Anindilyakwa Land Council may seriously consider wanting to look at their future in terms of a shire. We talked about this as part of the whole consultation process with the committees in the lead-up to the shires. Groote Eylandt people thought about having their own shire, and that is not an impossibility. Right now, it is part of the East Arnhem Shire. Whatever those people on Groote Eylandt want in their long-term vision of the future, if they want to come together and say to the Northern Territory government or to the minister of the day, ‘It is our time now to be our own shire’, they will have that opportunity to do that - should they decide to. Again, it is about change.
Finally, I reflect on the way in which the local government changes have begun to bed down on the ground in places such as in my own electorate with the Roper Gulf Shire and the East Arnhem Shire. I am particularly pleased, in the lead-up to this week’s voting for councillors in the East Arnhem Shire - and I acknowledge the candidates:
Anindilyakwa Ward candidates - Keith Mamarika, Phillip Mamarika, Wendy Lalara, Helen Numamurdirdi, Lionel Jaragbra, and Keith Hansen;
Gamurr Gatjirrk Ward candidates – Jack Munyarirr Gurralpa, David Daymirringu Warraya, Djandjay Baker, and Ronnie Barramala;
the Roper Gulf Shire, the Never-Never Ward - Peter Lansen, Michael Herzog, Clair O’Brien, Sheila Joshua, Rohan McDonald Sullivan, Sweeney Swanson,
and Robert Smiler - Clair O’Brien is an amazing woman with the cattle industry and it is wonderful that people are putting their names forward;
the Numbulwar Numburindi Ward: Kathy-Anne Numamurdirdi and Isaac Idai;
the Nyirranggulung Ward: Andrea Andrews, David Lane, Lazarus Murray, Mavis Jumbiri and Phil Harnas.
It is good to see women in these remote areas have nominated to represent their communities as councillors in the new shires. That takes extraordinary courage for Aboriginal women in these regions. It has been wonderful to see these women taking the step to stand. We need diversity and broad experience on these shires and women in our remote areas can bring new voices to the table. The government’s local government reform is all about delivering better services and driving economic opportunities in our regions. What better way of doing that but to have these women on those councils and shires. I am encouraging that.
We are still going to have problems everywhere, but that is life. That is going to be a part of life. Change is what this is about - the courage to implement the change required in the communities. It is going to be a difficult and a bumpy road for some time. I am absolutely confident that my predecessor in the seat of Arnhem, John Ah Kit, and Elliot McAdam did not drive this vision for the sake of just doing something; they drove it because they believed in something. Our government continues to follow that belief; that this is about improving the lives of Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this legislative change is indicative of one of the things we saw prior to the last election in the Northern Territory. One thing has driven these legislative instruments and that was a desire to pursue a certain deadline. The one thing that has never been explained by the Northern Territory government, even when Elliot McAdam was the emotional and driving force behind these legislative changes, was why 1 July 2008 was such an important date. When legislation was pushed through this House on urgency, it was pushed through because we had to meet that deadline.
We had the astonishing situation where a minister actually sat on a bill, which was the draft local government act, and did not introduce it at a particular sittings in spite of the fact he was in possession of it. He sat on it, waited until the next parliamentary sittings and, then, passed it through on urgency. The justification for the urgency was that we had to meet this deadline. This deadline was always an entirely arbitrary and non-justifiable deadline. If there was some sort of urgency such as there was a bomb ticking, a timer ticking, or something like that, then it would have made sense. What was never explained by any of the former ministers who have dealt with this issue is why this date of 1 July 2008 was so important.
The government adhered to this approach of demanding we go down the path of pursuing this deadline. They forced legislation through on urgency. Their consultation was nothing more than a series of meetings where they advised people what was happening. This is not, in spite of the spin that the government wants to put on it, a system of consultation. As a consequence of that, we have had legislation to push this reform through on urgency. We have had legislation which has had mistakes in it. We have had local government areas dropping in and dropping out and moving sideways and changing colours on the map. All of this to satisfy some sort of deadline which never made sense.
Several members had proposed different deadlines. If you come to a major reform like this, it is inevitable there will be consequential amendments to other legislation. If you are not pursuing an artificial deadline or you are pursuing a reasonable deadline even, you can consult on the legislative changes you are trying to make - and I am not for one second denying that local government in the Northern Territory needed attention – and can consult on the process properly, which means you actually take on board what people have to say. Then, you go to the Parliamentary Counsel and say: ‘Can you draft me an act based on my consultations?’ When you have finished drafting that act, you then go through all the other legislation which refers to the old act, and draft all of the amendments and then come into the parliament and either present them as a single package - not a system I am particularly fond of but it makes more sense - or you can present them as separate bills all in the same parliament.
It can be done. How do I know this? Because if I look at this bill, all of the acts which are being amended through this legislation are actually being done in one bill. There is a whole bunch of acts being amended by this bill. It can be done in one bill. For the sake of not having to do each act separately, it has been rolled into one package and called a consequential amendments bill. It is called getting organised.
The process of trying to drive this through led to enormous disruption in the community. At one stage, the government was not looking entirely unlike General Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn in 1876, I think it was, with the Indians under Sitting Bull - the member for Nelson - surrounding Parliament House with caravans and laying siege to Parliament House. I heard the horns. In fact, I participated in one of those sieges of the parliament ...
Ms Purick: Did you hear the air horns?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the voice of the air horns of the people of Litchfield was heard. This, then, exposed how united this government was on this process because, finally, the cracks started to appear and, in frustration - you can say a lot about Elliot McAdam, but one thing you can say is that, although he was a quiet man, he was certainly a determined man, and he was willing to tough it out. I remember speaking to him one day in a corridor in this House and asked: ‘Mate, are you going to crack? Are you going to blink, mate?’ He looked at me and said: ‘Not a chance. I am going to drive this through and I have the support of my Chief Minister’.
Mr Knight: And he did.
Mr ELFERINK: He did not. You shot him! You dragged him out and you hung him out to dry because somebody on the fifth floor said: ‘Oh my goodness, we are in trouble’. The member who is now the Minister for Local Government - was he shaking in his boots because of the Litchfield Shire Council? My word he was. So, you had this situation where, all of a sudden, the member for Barkly at the time, Elliot McAdam, said: ‘Mate, if you are not going to do this with any sincerity you can jam it up your nose, Chief Minister’. That is what occurred. He said: ‘I resign’. The Chief Minister was embarrassed by this particular situation.
However, something else happened which was very intriguing. After the election, Elliot McAdam, the former member for Barkly, rounded in a most extraordinary and astonishing attack on the Treasurer of the Northern Territory - reported in the Northern Territory News. What did he say about the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the member for Karama? She should not have the job. The reputation of the member for Barkly was that he was a man of extraordinary temperance. He was a quiet man, a determined man. Therefore, for a man of such sober disposition to launch into such a virulent attack against one of his own was not only surprising, it was astonishing. What happened to make a temperate and sober man launch such an aggressive attack against the Treasurer of the Northern Territory? Was the Treasurer entirely honest with the member for Barkly and the rest of the Caucus at all times? There is a question to ask because, I can tell you, I suspect that the member for Karama may not have been entirely honest with the member for Barkly and Caucus at different times, or at a particular time. Anyway, that is speculation for another day.
The other problem with pushing something through with such obscene haste is that you make mistakes, and we are starting to see it in this bill. The new minister who handled this bill did not, when he was given the bill - and I will give him a little leeway, he was pushed to bring the bill into the House, because the arbitrary deadline still applied. However, the bill, even establishing something as difficult as local government, which is a few hundred sections long, is not impossible to read in a short time. Give it a day to mull it over. Yet, to my astonishment, and to the astonishment of many Territorians, the new minister actually admitted to this House and to the people of the Northern Territory he had not read it ...
Mr Knight: I have read it, I read it. I read the bill, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Hell, that bill could have said let us invade Queensland, and he would not have known; he had not read it ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: What irresponsibility.
Mr Knight: I read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What profound irresponsibility from the minister, to waltz into a House …
Mr Knight: I read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr Knight: I read the bill, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, after you brought it into the House. It just shows you how ill-prepared the minister was to take over the position. We were assured, ‘This is it, do not worry about it, guys, this is going to be the great new, you-beaut fix-up for local government in the Northern Territory’. However, there were oversights in it, and that includes the issue of we are now dropping Nhulunbuy out of the shire that it is in - the East Arnhem Shire. Why would that be occurring, Madam Speaker? It is interesting because, surely, there was an expectation on the part of government that they were going to rate all of those premises in Nhulunbuy, because that would have been a nice juicy cow to take to the slaughter rooms.
Perhaps the government was in the mood for a little pay back after losing $50m in the courts to ALCAN because the government saw fit to overtax them to the tune of $50m. Here it was, a bit of a pay back. Well, the thing is that, by the time Nhulunbuy and the corporation that sits out there was negotiating with the minister, they already knew that they were dealing with a government that blinked under pressure. They already knew they were dealing with a government that, if you put a little pressure on them, they go brrrrrr in the water. Did we see it? Yes, in Litchfield. We certainly saw it in Litchfield. The fact is that you either do this properly or you do not do it at all. That was the point that the former Minister for Local Government, Elliot McAdam, was trying to make. That was the point he was trying to make; that you do this properly.
I do not particularly agree with the model that was chosen by the government, and the system that they chose to introduce when they tried to jam it down Territorians’ throats. I am not the only one; there were many thousands of Territorians who are angry as a result of this, and people were being shoved from pillar to post in this arrangement, all because we were choosing to pursue a particular deadline, the justification for which has never been established. So, what we find ourselves doing, parliament after parliament, is passing amendments and consequential amendments to legislation that has caused enormous disruption in the community, because it was being driven in an irresponsible and over-the-top fashion.
We are not going to resist this bill on this side of the House because we understand that it needs to pass to make other legislation work and to provide consistency in legislation. However, townships have dropped in and out of this, and it has been done without any clear philosophy behind it. Yulara is out. Why is Yulara out? Why is Jabiru in and Yulara out?
A member: Remember Yulara? Remember the one the CLP sacked?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I remember it very well. I am saying if Yulara is out …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the government that promised that Yulara residents would get their local government authority back. This is the government that said that. Are you going to keep your promise or are you going to, as you said yesterday, mislead Territorians with the facts?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: You are a wally, mate! Where is the local government authority for Yulara? Not only is Yulara out, it was never in, in the first place. The promise was never going to be kept. Labor Party members were quite happy to travel to Yulara and say: ‘We are going to make sure that when we are in government you get a local authority’. The MacDonnell Shire surrounds Yulara on all four sides, but, does Yulara pay rates? No. Do Yulara residents get to vote in local council elections? No.
Mr Henderson: They did not under the CLP, either. You sacked them.
Mr ELFERINK: They got the vote under a lot more elections in the local government under us than they did from you, sunshine.
Mr Henderson: That is how highly you thought of them, you sacked them.
Mr ELFERINK: This is absolutely incredible. They switch it on and they switch it off as it suits them. The fact is they have started white-anting their own reforms ...
Mr Knight: What? We have not!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you have. What? Mate, your predecessor resigned because of the white-anting that was happening on the fifth floor of Parliament House ...
Mr Knight: Show me the legislation. Show me the legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister!
Mr ELFERINK: Why do you think he left? Why do you think he said: ‘Stick it up your nose, Chief Minister, I am not in the least bit interested in playing around with a system’ …
Mr Knight: Show me the legislation. What do you know? What do you know?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting. You have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This government can object and rail against the truth as much as they like, but the fact is that what was started as a noble enterprise has quickly started to decay into a farce. The reason for that it is the philosophical consistency used to drive it has been eroded for a whole bunch of reasons. Although I did not agree with the models that we used, at least there was a philosophical consistency behind what was trying to be achieved. That has been abandoned, and abandoned in the most fundamental way.
Debate suspended.
___________________
The sitting suspended.
___________________
___________________
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 5)
(Serial 5)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is about some consequential amendments which I support. However, there have been a few things said in this debate that need some comment.
There is nothing wrong with change, but you hope when you have change it is done in the correct manner. My biggest difficulty with the change that has occurred in local government was that, right at the very beginning, it was not involving the community; it was involving a very small group of people who had a predetermined objective. They were going to ensure that that objective eventually came to fruition. Although they might say there was discussion amongst people on the way, the initial goal they set right back at the beginning was exactly what they wanted to achieve, and they did that.
I do believe - and that was borne out in the meetings that we had in Litchfield - that people had not heard all sides of the story. There has been a lot of gloss in relation to the benefits of the changes - and I am not saying that some of those changes were not needed; I have never said that. However, I believe the gloss that has been put on it is exaggerated. There will be benefits; there will also be disadvantages in what has occurred. Be that as it may, the new local government is in existence and only time will tell how it will go. There will be some areas where it goes better than others. We will just have to wait and see.
People mentioned the elections. Sadly, I have heard nothing from the government to say: ‘We made a mistake’. We have had so-called local government - that is, so-called local democracy - operating since 1 July without elected representatives. No matter what you think of these changes, I would have thought that the basis of good government is the ability to be governed by an elected body. Until this Saturday is completed, these eight super shires will have been run by bureaucrats and government appointees who are not responsible to anyone but the government. That is something the government should have never allowed to happen. The Chief Minister said it is, basically, nitpicking, but I do not believe that that is the case. The fundamentals of democracy are to have an elected body to represent the people of that governance - in this case, local government.
As much as I am happy that we at last have some elections - and it is good to see people standing. There are not as many people standing in the Litchfield Shire as I would have liked. Be that as it may, we do have a number of people standing. It is going to be interesting now. The Purich family will have another representative in government, because Plaxy Purich was the only person standing in the North Ward, so tradition is running in the Purich family of involvement in public office.
Overall, people know my viewpoints on the changes. I reiterate that we had a sticker out which said, ‘Stop, start again, get it right’. It was never the intention of saying the reform should not occur; the basis of our objections was that they where being imposed rather than people were getting a reasonable say in what was happening.
I still feel there is some responsibility on those councils that were not amalgamated to make an effort to go out to those areas within the Top End that are not part of local government, and talk to those people so that, eventually, they are a part of local government. I wrote to three councils not long after the government decided to leave the Top End Shire out of the process, saying that they should now start having meetings with people in those areas to look at the possibilities of moving the reform process on in a way that many of the people who protested were simply asking for.
I received one letter from one council, the Cox Peninsula Council, now called the Wagait shire council. They responded and said that they were not interested at that stage because they wanted to talk to Darwin. Unfortunately, I have not had an official response from either Litchfield or Coomalie councils. It is no good protesting about the reforms, and just believing that that is it. I believe the whole issue was that, yes, we support reform but we would like to do it in a way which brought the community along with it. Hopefully, these new councils that are elected on Saturday will put that on their agenda; to look at moving the reform process along and including those areas in the Top End Shire that presently do not belong to local government. How that will work, I am not going to make any suggestions at the moment, but it might be something totally different from what we thought. It might be a gradual process, but that is something for the future.
A couple of things were mentioned about those areas in the Northern Territory not included in these local government changes. Without discussing Douglas Daly, Marrakai, and Dundee, the areas that the government specifically precluded, are the ones that I get concerned about. Yulara, which the member for Macdonnell knows very well, I reckon should still be part of local government. Even when it was part of local government under the CLP, it did not have many local government functions.
Local government is about community – that is important. One of the big arguments I have about local government super shires is they are too big, because it is about community. When Yulara had local government it looked after the library, the swimming pool, and organised community events. It did not do much else besides that, because the town was run by the body that leased that piece of land. You can still have local government, but it may not have the same functions and the same powers as some of the other councils, but it can still play an important role in bringing an isolated community, such as the people who live in Yulara, together.
I will never forget the meeting we had at that time. The member for Macdonnell, now the member for Port Darwin, would remember the meeting. It would have to be one of the biggest meetings we ever had, plus if you looked at the list of proxies, because Yulara was a township where there were many people on shiftwork, you would have probably counted maybe 300 to 400 people should have attended.
Mr Elferink: If it was Sydney, it would have been 1.5 million people who turned up.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was a huge meeting. They all said that they wanted their local government. It was the saddest thing I ever saw, when so many people wanted local government, and the government at that time said: ‘No’. We should not leave Yulara out of it. They might not have to deal with rates, but there might be a neutral body - and that is what people saw them as in Yulara, because when you work for a company, the only people you have to talk to with your complaints is the company. When you have a local government in that area, at least you have someone else you can share your woes and discuss matters locally who are not part of the company.
There is absolutely no reason why East Arm port should not be part of one of the councils. It probably makes more sense to be in the Darwin City Council. I know the government says: ‘This is a very important part of the Territory’s development’. Well, you have the waterfront in Darwin. You developed that within Darwin city, it will eventually go back to Darwin City Council anyway. That is more a matter for a previous administration of Darwin City Council as to why it is not a part of Darwin city. I do not think Darwin City Council would have any problem running East Arm port, regardless of its importance. Believe it or not, Litchfield Shire will have INPEX, which is about three times bigger than all of East Arm. It also has ConocoPhillips, and ConocoPhillips does not stop operating because it is in Litchfield Shire. The argument that East Arm port should not be in local government is a bit weak. It is more a case of: ‘We do not trust anyone else but ourselves, so we will look after it. Trust us: we have a department, a couple of committees run by CEOs, and a few important people’. It is not too many ratepayers, I can tell you. It will be just the government running it.
You ought to know where the government line starts and the government line ends when you travel on the Stuart Highway, because all the billboards pop up. In the Palmerston and Litchfield areas, you cannot have billboards, and it is the same in Darwin. For some reason, the government, which writes the planning acts, does not apply it to its own land in the East Arm port area. If you travel on the highway, look where all the billboards are. They are not in one municipality; it has its own rules, run by – somebody. I believe East Arm port should definitely be in there.
It has been a while since I looked at Nhulunbuy, but it is one of those strange areas of land that was always out of local government, that sometimes wanted to be in local government. I remember going to local government meetings, in various places, and Nhulunbuy would come along like an invited guest. They did not want to be part of the Local Government Association but, for some reason, which had more to do with the way the lease was written in the first place and the town administered it, it could not belong to local government. The minister might be able to explain a bit of that later because that was also raised tonight.
Minister, I do not have a problem with local government consequential amendment bills. I congratulate all those people throughout the Territory who have put their name down to be elected. I hope that when they get the job they do it without fear or favour because, now, we should have councils with democratically elected members. They should not be beholden to anyone. They are the bosses of the council, not the CEO or government. If there are issues out there, I will be keeping my ear out for them.
To be fair, hopefully, it does work. I still say the councils are too big. They should be called regional councils just because of their size, but we will wait and see. I conclude by saying, once again, I support the Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Bill.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for speaking and I will just reflect broadly. The last speaker, the member for Nelson, is a very knowledgeable, capable and passionate person about local government. However, the opposition, the current crop, are ignorant and are purposely ignorant about local government. They deliberately do not bother to educate themselves about local government and this reform. This is very much-needed reform. This reform goes back a long way. For two years, we have been going with this current reform that this Labor government actually delivered.
I congratulate the former minister, Elliot McAdam. He was somebody who drove this reform from the start. He took over the reins from Jack Ah Kit, the minister before him. The genesis of this Labor government delivering on Labor government reform started from, basically, 2002 with Building Stronger Regions through to Elliot McAdam who picked up the mantle and drove this reform to where we are today.
People say two years is not enough. But, if you go back many years before that, before Labor came to office, we had the former member for Greatorex who was the minister driving local government reform for the CLP. Before him, Tim Baldwin, the former member for Victoria River, was driving local government reform. Before him, Loraine Braham, the CLP minister, member for Braitling, was driving local government reform. I think before her, you had Steve Hatton ...
A member: You had Richard Lim in there somewhere.
Mr KNIGHT: No, he was at the end; I mentioned him. You had the CLP driving local government reform for at least 10 years. I remember, in 1998 when Baldwin had the portfolio, him trotting out to the VRD trying to sell local government reform but their heart was not really in it. They really did not want to do it.
It was quite curious - the member for Port Darwin said: ‘You blinked under pressure’. Well, this government delivered local government reform, member for Port Darwin. It was successive ministers under the CLP for more than 10 years who did not; who blinked under pressure. They knew the problem was out there. We have all talked about that. They all said: ‘We have to have reform, have to have reform’ but they were the ones who blinked under pressure. As soon as a bit of heat started to rise: ‘Oh, no, we will back off. We will not do anything.’
It was a do-nothing government that was kicked out of office because they did not do the tough things. It was this government which delivered on much-needed local reform which, one day, if the CLP will get back into office, do you think they will change it? No way. They support the current model we have here ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: They will not say it. It just shows the ignorance on the other side. The shadow for Local Government and the member for Port Darwin talked about Nhulunbuy, about backflipping. Nhulunbuy was never local government. How can you have a backflip when they were not even in?
Mr Elferink: Oh, that is so puerile.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Port Darwin should well know - he was in and around this parliament in February last year when Elliot McAdam - and I will quote from the Parliamentary Record because, obviously, the member for Port Darwin was not bothering to listen. Again, the CLP were not interested. I quote:
- The mining communities of Alyangula, Nhulunbuy, Yulara - which stands on Commonwealth land, the East Arnhem strategic zone and the East Arnhem port will continue to have local government-type services provided by non-local government organisations. These arrangements are working well and there are compelling strategic and contractual reasons for continuing with these existing arrangements.
If you bothered, if you cared, if you thought to have a good look, you would actually know that. But, no, you have not bothered. The member for Katherine had a very short briefing when he first came into office, which is good, that is great. Has he been back? No. Has he had a briefing on the consequential amendments? No. Has the member for Port Darwin? No, he has not even bothered. He is asking questions about it now, but has not even bothered to have a briefing to get the exact facts. They do not care. They do not regard local government as being important.
There has been extensive consultation, not only over these last two years, but the years before that. Local government reform has been around and discussed regarding a range of models and the reason for larger councils - there has always been larger councils - for 10 years. It is a bit ironic that that actually happened.
The member for Katherine talked about some organic process for this reform starting. Member for Katherine, there are chronic problems out there. You asked why now. Well, we have been talking about this. There have been countless discussions in here about problems in the communities, structural failures, financial failures, and it really did need to happen. The member for Katherine …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I think you will find my ‘why now’ was in relation to Yulara. Should that have not been included in the original act?
Mr KNIGHT: Again, if you had bothered to back through the Parliamentary Record or got a briefing, you would have known about that. It is interesting that the member for Nelson raised Yulara in the former seat of the current member for Port Darwin. Did he stand up? I did not hear much from him at the time about standing up for local government, standing up for those people at Yulara. He was a bit quiet, did not say much about it whatsoever, because he really did not care about local government and those people there.
These reforms were extensive. There are 270-odd clauses - virtually a brand new act. It was the biggest, I guess, social change in the Territory for a very long time. The changes of other acts, obviously, came about as a consequence of that. This is where they come from. I thank the department and everybody who has worked on this process of formulating that act, for actually delivering on it. It was a very long debate. It was only taken up by the member for Nelson. Again, the CLP, asleep at the wheel, did not care about the Local Government Act whatsoever - the biggest social legislation that went through in the last session of parliament. They really did not care whatsoever.
The member for Port Darwin, again misguided and not really knowing much about the legislation and about the process of local government, talked about the legislation going through on urgency. He talked quite a lot about this going through on urgency, and how we rammed this bill through. Well, member for Port Darwin, the Local Government Act did not go through on urgency ...
Mr Elferink: I did not say the Local Government Act, I said local government legislation.
Mr KNIGHT: The Local Government Act did not go through on urgency.
Mr Elferink: I did not say the Local Government Act, I said local government legislation. You are being a little cute here, sunshine. I never said Local Government Act.
Mr KNIGHT: The Local Government Act did not go through on urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am about to launch into a censure motion because this man is misleading the House. I never said Local Government Act, I said local government legislation. I am happy to go back through Hansard and have a look at it, sunshine. If you are misleading this House, I am in here at 100 km/h to censure you …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, if you feel that you have been misrepresented, I ask you to approach me later about making a personal explanation.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Port Darwin talked about the Local Government Act and about how it was brought on urgency. Well, he is talking about the Local Government Transition Bill, which he did not mention; he talked about the Local Government Act. That was delayed because key stakeholders wanted more time, but it needed to happen, so that was brought through on urgency. But, the Local Government Act did get introduced, it did get extensive consultation, and it did go through. It needed to go through before 1 July, because I do not know whether the member for Port Darwin has much business experience, but the shires really need to operate at 1 July, at the start of the financial year.
We had two years. We had it all programmed. There was, obviously, leeway within the programming of consultation and development of the legislation, whereby we would get everything done in that time – and we did, and we delivered ...
Mr Elferink: What was the reason for that time?
Mr KNIGHT: I just told you. You need to listen. You are not paying attention; you do not really care ...
Mr Elferink: You told me what the deadline was but what was the reason for the deadline?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the comments made by the member for Nelson who, obviously, does care about this. He talked about the unincorporated areas, which do occupy my mind. I have spoken to those councils directly at various meetings. The important thing is to bed these shires in. But, it has been the commitment of this government, and I have made statements about it, that we need to have full incorporation in the Territory. Those areas that are not incorporated will, in the future, need to come in. I, too, encourage those current councils of Coomalie, Wagait, and Belyuen to look at what options are available to them.
One of the other aspects the member for Nelson also highlighted was the period between 1 July and the elections later this month. It was something that I did pay a great deal of attention to. The shire councils are, effectively, the regional directors of local government within the regions. They have been working with stakeholders and community members about this period, and about issues that do arise, with full knowledge that, very shortly, there will be elected councils there and they cannot make any sort of radical decisions. So, there has been community consultation through this process.
Having attended a departmental staffing meeting recently, and haven spoken to that meeting, I know that the staff and the department are very focused on supporting those local boards. They really will be the drivers of development within those local communities, driving those shires. That will be the engine room for service delivery, for consultation, policy development, which will feed up to representatives and on into the shire plans. I am very focused on the fact that the communities need to have local ownership of both the opportunities, but also the issues. Notwithstanding that the elected members of those shires, those representatives from the wards, will have the ultimate power, because that is really what we are trying to get at - those higher level decisions, so they can look right across the regions.
The member for Nelson also talked about the Litchfield Shire, and the fact that INPEX and ConocoPhillips are in the Litchfield area. He has another couple of advocates for this flat rate. INPEX is a $14bn company paying $700 in rates. I am sure they will be very excited about that. Anyway, I will not go too far into the old flat rate discussion again.
I thank all members and acknowledge that local government still is a very big part of the Territory, and about driving the Territory. We have had a total of 211 candidates nominate for the shires. Litchfield is municipal, so we have eight shires and one municipal council where we have 211 nominations. It is really great to see that support for local government in the Territory. We will work with those shires and those councils because we believe in them. We will help develop them; we will work alongside them. They are a key partner in regional development and we look forward to those challenges.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, just by way of indulgence, the member for Katherine will be occupying my chair.
Madam SPEAKER: You are seeking my indulgence to allow the member of Katherine to do that?
Mr ELFERINK: For that to occur. I will be sitting in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair during the committee stage.
Madam SPEAKER: That is fine.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, the first issue I have with the amendments relates to the insertion of the new section 270, Preservation of local government functions of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited.
I am aware that Nhulunbuy was not a part of local government per se under the previous act. The timing of this is seems a bit odd to me. Why was this particular provision not detailed in the original act? It seems to me that there is some underlying reason for this to have been omitted originally, and now put in as a so-called consequential amendment. It just does not seem consequential to me. It seems there is something underlying which gives it a reason for being here today rather than in the original legislation.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, all we are reinserting is the Nhulunbuy animal control by-law. That is all we are reinserting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Under the previous act was animal control the only local government function the Nhulunbuy Corporation had?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: So, it is basically returning to the same position as it was before? There is nothing additional in the functions the Nhulunbuy Corporation is expected to have?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not have any particular issues with section 271. The new section 272, the continuation of Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations, I mentioned in my debate that I would like a copy of that. I cannot seem to find it anywhere, so I am not able to make any comments on that until I have a look at it.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want a copy, are you saying?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, I am having trouble finding it.
Mr KNIGHT: Because it was not taken through as part of the Local Government Act. It was actually taken off the register and, now, it is going back on. Here is a copy if you would like a copy.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I was just wondering if you could assist me: the Local Government (Darwin Parking Local Rates) Regulations were not on the register. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr KNIGHT: It was not on the Internet website, in the register of legislation. It did not go through with the Local Government Act, so it ceased to become law, so it was taken off the register. With the passage of this consequential amendments bill, it will then go back on to the register. It came off the website; that is why you could not find it.
Mr ELFERINK: How long has this been held in abeyance, or how long has this been non-operational?
Mr KNIGHT: Since the Local Government Act came into force, which was 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: So, between 1 July and today, this legislation has not been operational?
Mr KNIGHT: This regulation has not been operational.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, regulation. Thank you, I take your guidance. Are you aware if Territorians have been paying for parking their vehicles during this period?
Mr KNIGHT: Perhaps I need to explain this regulation. This regulation is in respect to developers not putting money in for parking cars on the street. It is about developers who are developing blocks getting parking sites. What happened is that this local parking rate was taken through by the Darwin City Council as a special rate. The way they charged it was within the local government. They did not do it through their regulations. They enclosed that charge as a special rate, which they can do under the Local Government Act. So, as far as those costs, they have been charged correctly for that service they get. But this regulation has not been enforced, no.
Mr ELFERINK: Probably because it was not on the Internet. I appreciate the member for Katherine had trouble finding it. This regulation has been in force since 1 June 2004. As I understand it, this is the vehicle by which councils and developers sell and purchase car parking spaces for the purpose of development. If a 30-storey building is being built in town, for argument’s sake, and the developer does not want to have two car parks per unit, then they are able to pay a compensatory amount to the council and, then, the council uses that to build other car parks. Is this the legislation that makes that happen?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, I will just read my notes. The regulation provides a method and process in relation to the special rate that the Darwin City Council charges to defray the expenses in relation to on-street and off-street parking within the central business district. So, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Are there any agreements that you are aware between the developers and the Darwin City Council that have been struck whilst this regulation was in hiatus?
Mr KNIGHT: I have been very conscience of that. As I said, they impose these charges as a special rate, which they can do under the current Local Government Act. They have been able to impose those charges quite legally and legitimately. I am not aware of any developer who would not have been covered by this, anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: I am just trying to understand this. If an agreement was struck between the date - by the way, how did this accidentally fall off the system? There was a legislative instrument or a regulation and it has gone into some sort of hiatus and, suddenly, reappeared. It is reappearing as a result of this legislation you are passing today. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr KNIGHT: It was just an oversight and it has, basically, been remedied by this. There are no consequences to this. There has been no developer making applications. The current people covered by this have been charged under a special rate which they can do under the Local Government Act. So, the Darwin City Council is not out of pocket by this, and people have been charged quite legitimately.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. The removal of this regulation from the regulations as in force in the Northern Territory has had no legal consequences flow from it. Was this a deliberate act, or was this an accident that this legislation fell into this period of hiatus?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that this is an unusual regulation and that it was just an oversight. In any case, we have been speaking to Darwin City Council about it. They have not incurred any losses because they have administered those charges by way of a special rate.
Mr ELFERINK: You say that no developer has signed an agreement, or that you are unaware. Has not signed or unaware?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding that there has been no developers.
Mr ELFERINK: So, no developers. Okay, I will not pursue that any further. You would agree, however, with one of the issues that I raised in the second reading debate; that this legislative instrument or the whole process has been rushed up until now, and mistakes have been made? You are now telling us that this was a mistake, yes?
Mr KNIGHT: Two hundred and seventy nine clauses, major legislation affecting many acts and within local government. Obviously, there are many by-laws throughout those councils and many regulations. This is just one of those. As I said, it has been an oversight which has been corrected. There is no loss to anybody concerned, and we have kept in touch with the council.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you for that. This then brings me back to the other issue I raised during the debate, and I do not feel you adequately answered during your response. Why was 1 July 2008 the deadline that was set? Why was that particular date chosen? Why wasn’t 1 July 2009 chosen, or 1 July 2010? What was particular about that date which made it more important than the next financial year?
Mr KNIGHT: As I mentioned in my closing remarks, basically, local government reform had been dragging on for 10 years. The government had to set a firm timetable, giving plenty of time - two years, in fact - to work through matters which had been discussed for 10 years that I am aware of. I am sure it goes back before that. So, 1 July was a date which fitted in with starting a new financial year, so all the books could be closed off and started up at the start of a financial year.
This process started two years before with just this reform. As I said, it has been going on for 10 years. I guess, in the past reforms under the CLP, they did not set dates, and that just caused the process to die down and not move for 10 years. For those reasons, 1 July was chosen.
Mr ELFERINK: 1 July 2008. Okay, you said: ‘The government has chosen. We are going to do this in two years, and 1 July 2008 is the date that we are going to do it, because we set the deadline’. You would agree that that is an arbitrary date, when it could be 1 July 2009? You would agree, yes?
Mr KNIGHT: No, I do not agree whatsoever. Two years is a long time for this reform, and 1 July is a very appropriate date - again, for those reasons of closing grant funding on 30 June, and opening your books on 1 July. It is a very appropriate date, and the time period allowed was very appropriate. They were the reasons, and they are very legitimate reasons for doing so.
Mr ELFERINK: Clearly, though, it is not. You have made mistakes. You accidentally omit and drop bits of regulation out of the process. There are amendments, there are consequential amendments which are being brought in today, and there are fix-ups on the Nhulunbuy arrangements. Clearly, two years was not enough, minister, because two years was a deadline that was set by government and it religiously, slavishly, adhered to it. The fact is that, by your own admission here today, mistakes were made. This is the point that so many people have tried to make over the last two years; that two years was not enough time. Two years was rushed and, as a consequence, we now find ourselves well after 1 July 2008 resurrecting regulations that were accidentally dropped off the legislative instruments of the Northern Territory.
Minister, you said that you entered into communication with Darwin City Council. Was that by some form of correspondence in relation to this issue, and, can you table that correspondence, please?
Mr KNIGHT: The CLP, in their time in government, had dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation which had consequential amendments about them. I do not think they allowed two-plus years to develop that legislation. This process of developing this legislation took two years - an appropriate period of time, not too little, but not too much. It was very appropriate. There is one regulation and one by-law that has been omitted, and we are fixing that, so there has been no harm done. Again, 279 clauses, a huge bit of legislation that brought together dozens and dozens of councils, which had been sitting in obscure bits of legislation for nearly 30 years. It certainly was a clean out, it was a huge task, and everyone involved should be commended for bringing this ancient legislation to contemporary times.
I do not know what this has to do exactly with my correspondence or not, or discussions or not, with the Darwin City Council in respect to these regulations. We have been in contact with Darwin City Council in regard to this matter. We are working with them. I do not know what you are trying to insinuate but, again, this Local Government Act is a huge bit of legislation, and the consequential amendments is a natural course for when you are doing a large bit of legislation, which affects many other acts. There is nothing unusual. It happened under the CLP’s many years in government, and it will keep on happening, because that is the way it works. I do not know what you are trying to fish around here with this Local Government Act that you do not really care about.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I presume that, whilst this regulation was in hiatus - and you expressed earlier your concern about the possible consequences of the regulatory instrument being removed from the books - you would have sought some legal advice in relation to the matter. Have you sought legal advice in relation to the matter, and will you table that advice?
Mr KNIGHT: I have not sought legal advice on this matter. We have sought advice on the implications of it not being there from 1 July but, as I have clearly stated, the Darwin City Council imposed these charges under a special rate, which we included in the Local Government Act, so they have lost nothing. Developers have not been charged any more or less than they would have normally been charged under the regulation. I am very satisfied that this regulation not being there for these few months has not had any negative effect whatsoever.
Mr ELFERINK: If I understand you correctly, you have not sought legal advice in relation to the effect of this regulation being in hiatus - gone actually, removed from the statute books? Based on not receiving that legal advice, you got some advice and you say that you are pretty comfortable with the fact that no one is being charged extra. Do you have any advice that is written that you can table for this House which can give me some comfort that this matter is being properly investigated?
Mr KNIGHT: The oversight where this regulation did not get carried forward from 1 July has had no effect; the charges are still being incurred by the appropriate people and revenue has been gained by the Darwin City Council. So, there is no legal advice that is required. Obviously, you are trying to fish around, but there is no legal advice that you would need because it was clearly a situation where the regulation was left off. Obviously, you would be looking at implications of that, and that is exactly where I sought advice ...
Mr Elferink: From whom? What was that advice?
Mr KNIGHT: The implications of not including this regulation was that the Darwin City Council would be unable to either charge that regulation or had made that charge under the regulation. However, they did not. They had charged it under a special rate. There was no need to get any legal advice, because they had charged those charges under a special rate, which they can legitimately do, pursuant to section 156 of the Local Government Act. This regulation is reinserted and is available to Darwin City Council from the passage of this consequential amendments bill to use again. But, they have not chosen to use it since 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: Is it possible under these regulations for some sort of agreement to be negotiated where there is an ongoing payment or a charge upon which that agreement is reliant on these regulations?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is there have been no agreements made from 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not my question. The question is: is there an agreement that you are aware of? Is it possible under these regulations for an agreement that pre-dates 1 July 2008, to base its payments on an ongoing charge made over time, including the period at which this regulation was not a regulation?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that, yes, they can make longer arrangements but, if they were made prior to 1 July - because there have been no agreements after 1 July, any of those agreements would have been made prior to July - they are still valid.
Mr ELFERINK: Did you get legal advice on that particular issue? There are agreements that exist as a result of this regulation existing. This regulation ceased to exist at some point, but those agreements would have continued over that period, over which money would have changed hands for some sort of value. Has any advice been given to the people who are signatories to those agreements, namely the developers, advising them that this has occurred and that there may be some implication in a situation where there are ongoing payments?
Mr KNIGHT: You would be aware, upon reading the legislation, that it is retrospective to 1 July, so, if there was any sort of disagreement or arrangements entered into prior to 30 June, they would still be valid. No long-term agreements have been …
Mr Elferink: No, no, that is not how it works.
Mr KNIGHT: This regulation has not been used for new agreements since 1 July, and the charges have been issued under section 156 as a special rate, so, there is no …
Mr ELFERINK: As I understand it, minister, this bill that we are debating before the House, retrospectively reinstates the operation of this regulation. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct. I assume …
Mr Elferink: Minister, are you aware of …
Mr KNIGHT: I am still speaking. I assume you have actually read the consequential amendments bill, but you do not seem to realise that it is actually retrospective. I get the feeling that you have not read the bill.
Mr Elferink: That is up to you if you feel that.
Mr KNIGHT: You have wandered in here and decided you are going to have a bit of play with it. It is retrospective and it validates anything that is done between 1 July …
Mr ELFERINK: Well, this is actually very important. Are you aware of the provisions in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that, if you acquire property rights, you have to settle that on just terms? I will give you a parallel, minister. If the Northern Territory, for argument’s sake, sought to retrospectively acquire the title rights on these tidal zones, they would have to pay compensation for the property rights that they are attempting to acquire, even though they were trying to retrospectively create to capture. If there is money owed, or if people have paid money based on a legislative instrument, and that legislative instrument no longer exists, surely, you have a right to inform those people who are paying money and also tell them that you are going to be retrospectively reinstating those agreements, in spite of the fact they may not have been obliged to pay that money in the first place?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that if there had been any long-standing agreements, they would be still valid. These consequential amendments were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, who will be well aware of this. I have also been in consultation with the Darwin City Council. As I said, I have been very conscious of the fact that no one has been inappropriately charged or has not received revenue which they normally would have done. I am quite satisfied we have been very open about it and we have gone to the right competent people with regard to this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: My concern with this, minister, is that if an agreement was made between the Darwin City Council and a developer prior to 1 July, and that agreement was made on the auspices of these regulations, would that agreement not cease in operation once these regulations became ineffective and not applicable to the Northern Territory because of the changes to that?
Mr Elferink: You should have sought legal advice on this, mate.
Mr KNIGHT: Lucky we have you, John. My advice is that if they were quite legitimately charged prior to the 30 June, if there were those particular developers, this retrospectivity would cover any of those periods.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, who gave you that advice? I ask that advice be tabled.
Mr KNIGHT: This legislation was, obviously, drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. We have been in consultation with the Darwin City Council about the implications of this. They have not raised anything. Parliamentary Counsel has not raised anything about particular developers, if they exist, for this three-month period. They are charged all those annual payments as a special rate. All of those are covered quite legally. If there were any long-standing agreements, they were charged quite legally at the time.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but that is the point. Of course, the council is not going to whinge about this because, under these arrangements, the developers pay the council. If there is some sort of result as a result of this regulatory instrument affecting those payments and the legitimacy of those payments, the council is not going to stand up and say: ‘Oh, wow! We are going to give the money back’.
I am trying to draw to your attention that there may well have been people making payments as a result of the operation of this regulatory instrument and the agreements that they struck with the council under this regulatory instrument. Surely, as people who have been making payments consequent to the operation of a regulatory agreement instrument that does not exist, they have the right to be informed? I am asking whether the people who have been making payments, and who have potentially been making payments consequent to the operation of a regulatory instrument that does not exist, have been advised of that potentiality as a matter of fairness to them?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that if they enter into agreement to pay this charge for a period of time, it is still legal. As I said, this regulation has been made retrospective and all charges that have been incurred from 1 July have been made under a special rate. This is legal under the Local Government Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Is there any person who is potentially affected by this? No, I will go back. You keep referring to the advice you have received. You have not received legal advice in relation to this. I instinctively think that, as a matter of procedural fairness, if nothing else, people who may have been making payments as a result of some sort of agreement fostered under a non-existent or repealed regulatory instrument, may have been making payments where they may not have been obliged to be making those payments. Retrospectivity does not do anything other than move the rights of those people from the person they have the agreement with to the government which, then, retrospectively creates the legislation. If you retrospectively acquire a property right, then you are obliged to pay a compensatory amount on just terms. It is a requirement of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and, I might add, the Australian Constitution.
Mr KNIGHT: As I have stated, if they entered into a long-term agreement prior to 30 June, that agreement is still legal. If they entered into an agreement after this, under these regulations, it would either be retrospective or, in the case which has actually happened, the council has charged all these developers under a special rate, quite legally, under section 156 of the Local Government Act. Everyone is covered and this, obviously, just tidies up the matter.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you understand that I harbour concerns because people may have been making payments they may not have been obliged to make as a result of the legislative instrument or a regulatory instrument that does not exist? Will you at least give me this much comfort, minister? Will you put an ad in the paper describing this particular issue so that developers have an opportunity to stumble across the ad in the paper so that they might be informed of the fact that they may have been making payments that they did not need to make?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Port Darwin has been asking questions around this issue for quite some time …
Mr Elferink: Because it is an important issue.
Dr BURNS: To you it is an important issue; you are exploring it. As the member for Daly said, you have come in here, seized onto an issue, and are asking questions about a particular issue. You are asking him about legal advice. There happens to be quite a number of DOJ lawyers waiting out there for the next bit of business to come on. If you knew anything about Cabinet processes, member for Port Darwin, you would know that this amendment to the Local Government Act would come up to Cabinet, it would be circulated through DOJ, and DOJ lawyers would look at it and comment on it. I am advised …
Mr Tollner: And your point is?
Dr BURNS: Let me finish. DOJ saw no problem whatsoever in relation to this particular issue. In fact, the lawyers who are listening to this are having a lot of trouble following where you are coming from.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, further, I can advise, as the Minister for Planning and Lands that the development proposals go before the Development Consent Authority. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure was also involved in the circulation of this consequential amendment. Advice was also sought. No new agreements have been struck in the time from 1 July to today. That is the concern that the member for Port Darwin, quite appropriately, is articulating: whether anyone has been asked to do something there was no regulatory requirement for them to do. No, is the answer. You have been told on a number of occasions now by the minister that no new agreements have occurred in the intervening period - that is covered.
Second, there was a service fee able to be struck by the council through another local government section.
You are chasing rabbits down burrows, John.
Mr Elferink: No, I am not. I am just trying to discover whether some of these are actually losing money that you might owe them.
Ms LAWRIE: No one is losing money.
Mr Elferink: Yes, so you say, based on …
Madam CHAIR: Could we just pause for one moment, please?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thank the member for Port Darwin, who is quite used to standing in the House and debating these issues in committee. He is able to put things eloquently, so I thank him for that. My concern, if I could pose the scenario to you, minister, is that, on 1 July, the regulations had no effect. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: The regulations were not in force on 1 July.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Right, thank you. So, any agreements that the council had with developers prior to 1 July, that were made under auspices of that regulation, would have also ceased to take effect on that date? Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is that because those agreements were both made under the regulations prior to 30 June, and this legislation is retrospective, all those affected people are covered.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am not talking retrospectivity here. I am talking about the actual time line. If, let us say today was yesterday and, on 1 July …
A member: You are really losing it now.
A member: Let us get in that time machine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, you are pretty good at it from the other side of the House. Say we were not having this discussion but, as of yesterday, before this legislation came to the House for debate, were those agreements made before 1 July still in place? If they were not in place, did the council contact the developers to advise them that they were now being charged, rather than under that regulation, under the new regulation of the Local Government Act - which I think was 100 and something, your advisor mentioned to you before? Basically, on 1 July, a change of contract, was there not?
Mr KNIGHT: No.
Ms LAWRIE: Just for point of clarification, agreements struck prior to 1 July continue through the life of this intervening period when the regulation has not been in effect, because they were agreements struck when the regulation was in effect - they carry through. They do not collapse as agreements. They do not become null and void because the regulation was no longer in effect. The implications of the regulation no longer being in effect are that new agreements under this regulation could not be struck, and they have not been struck.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I have heard from the Attorney-General, the Minister for Planning and Lands, and I have heard from the minister, and all three said the departments have looked at this and it was not a problem. The Treasurer, the Leader of Government Business, said they got advice; the lawyers have looked at it. So they have all got advice on this and, yet, there is no advice being tabled. Why are we not tabling this advice that we keep hearing about?
A member: They are Cabinet documents.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah, they are Cabinet documents. I pick up on that interjection. Just because a document goes before Cabinet it automatically becomes something that you are not prepared to table. If they are all Cabinet documents and they are beyond the realm of the public sphere, it is not beyond the capacity of Cabinet, if it wants to, to release some advice that it may have received.
All I am asking for is that the advice the government has received be tabled. If there is nothing to worry about, if there is no issue that flows from this - all I am doing is making an inquiry. I have not made any allegation, other than that if people are making payments that they were not obliged to pay, then there is a legitimate cause for concern that the people who are making those payments may want to know about it. It is just a question of open, honest and accountable government, I would have thought. I am just making a few inquiries. I do not know the answer to these questions. I know enough to be concerned is what I am saying.
The government is trying to reassure me that they have lots of advice on this and it is all hunky-dory and everything is mickey mouse and sweet. They say they get advice, but it is advice that I, and no other member of the public or this House, can look at. That is my concern. If there is no problem with this, put the advice on the table.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT (ANTI-PROLIFERATION) BILL
(Serial 8)
(Serial 8)
Continued from 17 September 2008.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing in relation to this bill. I request that this bill be taken into the Committee of the Whole after responding to the minister. The Country Liberals support the capping of the number of gaming machines in the Northern Territory; however, we cannot support this bill for a number of reasons.
First, I thank the minister for arranging, at short notice, a briefing on Thursday, 9 October, from the department on the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, the brief was rather short and lacking in detail. Of greatest concern was the inability of the department’s representatives to provide any information on any proposed Territory trading scheme for gaming machines. When asked for further information, it was revealed that a trading scheme for the Territory was going to be based on the Queensland model.
When asked for details of that scheme, the department representatives were unable to give any information and their only answer was that they would have to get back to me. They were able to provide the details of the proposed taxation scheme, as this information had already been determined down to two decimal places, but not so for the trading scheme. The departmental representatives committed to providing information on the trading scheme. However, to date, that information has not been received.
I wrote to the minister requesting that he delay the bringing on of this bill until information was available in relation to the structure of the future proposed trading scheme for gaming machines. I will read most of the contents of this letter which just says to the minister that:
- I am writing to advise you of concerns that the Country Liberals have in respect to the proposed legislation to establish a gaming machine trading scheme. I received a briefing from your office in respect to the proposed trading scheme for the new arrangements with caps on gaming machine numbers. The advice that was provided was incomplete and your advisers were unable to clearly set out how the trading scheme would operate. Notwithstanding making reference to modelling the scheme on the Queensland system, no details on how this would operate, duty collection amounts, and so forth, were provided. While the Country Liberals are supportive of a gaming machine cap, we are not supportive of the establishment of a trading scheme that cannot be fully explained ahead of putting it into effect.
Therefore, I request you delay the bringing on of the bill until such time as the details of how the trading scheme will operate can be provided in full. At the time when these details can be provided in full, the opposition will then be able to effectively assess the proposal and provide you with advice as to whether or not we are able to support a trading scheme and in what form. I look forward to your response and seek your serious consideration of this matter, and I note that the Country Liberals are more than happy to work with the government in the establishment of a machine number cap.
It was signed by me.
I received a letter from the minister yesterday, which partly covers the issues raised in the briefing on 9 October this year. However, there is no information contained in the letter in relation to a future trading scheme for gaming machines. I do not know if the minister’s letter is in response to my request to delay the bringing on of the bill or if it is in response to the questions put to the departmental staff on the this year’s 9 October briefing.
The minister, in part one of his second reading speech, stated that this bill sets a cap for the total number of gaming machines in the Territory, but does not give any time frame on whether any model of a trading scheme might be considered or introduced. If the department is unable to give any information or indication as to the time frame for a model to be available for assessment, then I fear there could be a substantial time frame where applicants can neither apply for gaming machines or apply for an increase in their numbers of machines consistent with their maximum entitlement of either 10 gaming machines in hotel or taverns or 45 in clubs.
In the very next sentence in paragraph one in the minister’s speech, he went on to explain that the bill also revises the taxation arrangements that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
This bill has some serious implications for the government and, in particular, Treasury. There are no indications in relation to a number of important issues: the moving of machines from one part of the Northern Territory to another; whether the proposed trading scheme has a regional component to allow regional and rural clubs and hotels and taverns access to gaming machines at a reasonable cost; concentrations of gaming machines in high turnover areas; the keeping of the ratio of 4.5:1 as it relates to clubs and pubs; the relationship to the bidding wars that are apparently the case in south-east Queensland; and there is no information in the cross-trading of gaming machines from clubs to pubs and vice versa.
There are a number of issues raised also in the speech, in paragraph four, line six, it said:
- All other jurisdictions in Australia have sought to manage gaming machines through setting caps on the number of machines and introducing trading system schemes whereby interested licensees can trade machines in a regulated environment.
Following that it says:
- This has proved successful in managing gaming.
I look forward to the minister’s comments on that statement that ‘it has proved successful in managing gaming’. That is about the only thing that relates to the actual trading scheme that is not mentioned anywhere in here.
He also said in his second reading speech:
- At this stage, there are no current applications formally lodged with the Director of Licensing.
Perhaps I will discuss that matter with the minister in the committee stage.
The other aspect is on the second page of the minister’s speech is in the fourth paragraph. It reads:
- In addition to the amendments already discussed, this bill provides that regulations can be made to cap the total number of gaming machines in particular parts of the Territory,
and to impose any restriction, or combination of restrictions, on gaming machine numbers.
It is interesting because, from what I read, section 194(3)(a) already covers that.
There also appears to be quite a number of issues in relation to the letter that the minister has written back to me that I received yesterday. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies with what the amendments are in relation to this bill, and what already exists in current legislation. It is not that clear from this letter which says, in the third paragraph:
- Section 22B(2)(a) of the bill replaces section 194(3) of the act and is materially different in three aspects.
Those matters are probably best held for committee because they seem to say exactly the same thing. There are other matters in relation to taxation, as to who gets the biggest slice of what appears to be some substantial tax cuts in the community – the clubs or pubs. That is another matter that needs to be dealt with.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to discuss the Gaming Machine Amendment (Anti-Proliferation) Bill. I am coming from a slightly different angle, and I am interested to hear the debate during the committee stage.
The government has said in its opening statements that there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole. Then said, basically: ‘We will cap it at 1190 machines’. It uses that figure as the figure that it would like to cap it so that there is no chance that we could get an extra 1000 machines if you allowed every licensed premises in the Territory to obtain its optimum number of poker machines. That is probably a Clayton’s excuse because many of those premises with a licence probably have no intention of ever having poker machines. They could be just small restaurants or premises with licences where you would never expect to see poker machines in place.
If we were really concerned about the effect of gaming machines in the Northern Territory, we should be looking at ways of reducing it - not saying: ‘We are sort of reducing it because we are not going to let it go towards what it could possibly go’.
We have plenty of gaming machines in the Northern Territory. My understanding from the briefing - and I did not get those figures, but I was told that we have the highest number of gaming machines per head of population. That is very concerning, considering we know that one of the major problems in many of our Indigenous communities is, in fact, gambling. It is mentioned in the Little Children are Sacred report. If we are really going to put a dint in what we see as a problem, then we should not only be tackling poker machines, but we should be looking at places where we think there are too many gaming machines and looking at reducing them or restricting the hours that they operate.
The other thing that is missing in this whole debate is that the casino has poker machines. We have 1190 machines in hotels and clubs, but there is no mention - and for obvious reasons this bill is not covering that – that we have a major number of poker machines at our casino. I was not able to find out exactly how many poker machines casinos have, but I was able to do a little research. If you were to look at the figures from the Licensing Commission website, you would find that the total revenue from gaming machines ending 30 June 2007, total gross profit for hotels was $19.8m, and for that same period for clubs, it was $43.8m. You are looking at approximately $62m to $63m. So you think that is a fair bit of money, and that covers approximately the 1190 gaming machines, give or take 10 - the 10 being the ones that were, I think, at the Adelaide River Inn, which now are not there.
Then go to the website for the Department of Justice, and look up ‘NT Casino Performance’ at their gross profit. This, I must admit, is for tables and gaming machines but, if you have been to the casino, you will see there are more poker machines compared to tables. The period, 2006-07, gross profits are $104.1m. That is close to getting to 75% more than all the poker machines in all our clubs and hotels are producing. If you took the casino’s online gross profit, and I am not sure whether that would include poker machines, it is another $14.1m in 2004-05. I imagine that figure is still the same.
Whilst the government can make the statement that ‘there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and our society as a whole’, the majority of poker machines are in the casino. If we do not take that into account in this debate, then we are fooling ourselves. A casino, certainly just by volume of money they make, must be attracting an enormous number of people. Sure, many of them will be tourists but, if anyone has been to Lasseters in a cold winter, they will see there are many locals using those machines. It is the same in the Darwin casino.
Whilst you might say this is possibly the start of an attempt by the government, the status quo still exists. We can say there is a problem out there at the moment; this bill does not change anything. It is working on the assumption that there could be more poker machines which would, in theory, cause more social problems in our society, and we will not allow that to happen. But there is a problem right now, and you do not have to go any further than Amity House to find that out. If you are like me, who occasionally throws a couple of bucks in a poker machine, you get to know who is in those places regularly, and you have to wonder how much money those people put into those machines.
I am not Nick Xenophon. I am not necessarily opposed to poker machines which, for many people, can be a bit of light entertainment - a bit like racing, like any form of gambling where you do it for fun, you do not do it seriously; it is not meant to be a form of income, not a problem. However, we would be fools to ignore the fact that there are quite a few people who put in lots and lots of money. I have sat next to people who were betting $10 a pop, and they do not take long to just keep pushing the buttons and, before long, have gone through a lot of money. They turn around and put a few more dollars into the machine.
There is no doubt that there is a concern about the effects on communities. I was in Tennant Creek once when the poker machines were introduced. Many people would spend money - for instance when the pay cheques came in or whenever the royalties came in - within Tennant Creek. They would buy bikes for the kids, toys, food, whatever. That money stayed within the Tennant Creek community and was spread through there. There was a concern that, with the pokies, it disappeared. There was not anything you bought; many times you did not get anything - you just got an empty pocket, because all the money had gone into the poker machines.
There are social effects on small communities if that money is disappearing down the gambling hole. It is different from people who play cards because when people played cards they would sit around in a circle all night. It might not have been what you agreed with particularly, but even though someone won a lot of money, generally speaking, some of that money went back to the people in that area, especially those who did not have any money. Money did not necessarily leave the community. However, with poker machines, it disappears into someone’s profit and loss account and that is it.
I note the member for Sanderson’s concerns about the trading system. When I was at the briefing, my concern about the trading was coming from a purely commercial point of view. I did not think the trading was part of this legislation. That is why I did not take a great concern about it. The government has said that it is looking at a trading system. It does bring up the question that if you introduce this legislation and you do not have a trading system, what happens in that vacuum? Do you just say that until the trading system comes into operation, no one can have a poker machine, unless someone voluntarily hands it back to the government; then, the government can give those over to a club that might want them, subject to the normal licensing requirements?
The point regarding what happens in the meantime until we have a trading scheme is a fair one. I do not necessarily see a real problem with the trading scheme at this time because I could not find it in the legislation. It has been mentioned in the second reading that it is coming, and I thought I could debate it then. I am willing to listen to the debate anyway. I have not made up my mind on that particular matter.
The commercial concern I had was for some little club out bush which wants to buy a poker machine and they can only get them using the trading scheme. You might find now that little club may have to pay some extraordinary amount of money to buy these poker machines. Some people might say, that is good, that means they cannot get their poker machine. However, if I was looking purely from a commercial aspect, that may be a little unfair. I am not sure how people who got them previously under the old system; whether they paid a certain amount for every poker machine. Under the trading scheme, of course, that fee for buying a poker machine might be quite high and, from a small business point of view, might be a disadvantage for that small business to buy five or 10 poker machines. That was my concern there.
I looked at the section on the gaming machine tax. For a moment, I thought this was something new but, in the old act, it is actually under the section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. It also uses a similar breakdown of the tax to be paid. I notice under the old range of gross monthly profit, you pay 12.91% for the first $5000, now you pay it for the first $10 000. In fact, if you are talking about making it harder, if my mathematics is right, it actually reduced tax. You have a lower percentage for a higher amount of money. What was 22.9% was for $5000 to $50 000; we have now done that for $10 000 to $100000. Funnily enough, we seem to have reduced the tax on poker machines.
I notice the Treasurer nodded her head. I respond by quoting: ‘… there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals in society as a whole …’ - and we have reduced the tax? We already have a problem with the 1190; I would have thought we were doing things that had more money going back into dealing with those people who have a problem.
The tax goes on $100 000, $200 000 and moves right up. In the old regime it was $50 000 to $150 000 at 32.91%. Now, we have $100 000 to $200 000 at 32.91%. Another little saving for the gambling industry. $200 000 and above is 42.91%; before it was $150 000, so, the threshold has picked up by $50 000. Some of those people who did not make a gross monthly amount of more than $200 000 would be quite happy.
I know that will not affect quite a few of those bigger clubs. It is worth, sometimes, looking at the figures for the clubs. If you have a look at the number of clubs in the Darwin region, it will give you some idea how that tax will not make much difference. The Casuarina All Sports Club - this one tops the lot - 45 poker machines, gross profit $6.142m. I was surprised to see a club here - the Arnhem Club; I presume that is the one out in Nhulunbuy - has 45 pokies. Its population is not huge. I reckon Casuarina would probably be bigger than Nhulunbuy. Its gross profit was $5.195m. I am interested to see the number of poker machines per head of population. I agree that capping per region should be looked at. That is a big amount of money when you compare it to the Alice Springs Memorial Club, with 45 poker machines, $1.776m. The Arnhem Club stands out like a beacon in relation to how much money it makes for a small population ...
Ms Purick: It is all those mine workers.
Mr WOOD: Could be.
Dr Burns: They also put a lot back in.
Mr WOOD: That is true, but I am just saying there are some big profits made in certain parts of the Territory, and they are mainly the clubs because the hotels do not make that sort of money. I will give you an example: the Fox and Fiddle British Inn made $57 000 with its 10 poker machines. Obviously, they like to do other things, like sing and dance.
There is big money being made out of poker machines and, of course, that is coming out of people’s pockets. It does not come out of anything else. It is not like we are producing fruit and vegetables. It is simply machines that people put in a lot of money in. Of course, that gross profit is, I presume, after they have had payouts. You can imagine how much money is actually put into these machines.
I am interested, in the committee stage, listening to the minister’s reasons for some of the changes. I thank the minister for the briefing. I find it difficult, considering the casinos - and maybe I am wrong here. If I was to compare their profit of $104m - and maybe 20% of that money that went to tables and the rest went to poker machines - I would guess they have more than 1000 poker machines. Maybe I am wrong.
The minister might be able to tell me if they have because I do not know where you would find that information. It may be commercial-in-confidence. I gather a different act covers the arrangements with the casinos. You cannot discuss this issue about anti-proliferation if you do not take into account the other big equation when it comes to gaming machines; that is, casinos. I will refrain from saying whether I support this bill at the moment. I am not saying even supporting it, it is the end of the world ...
Ms Scrymgour: You like it both ways.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon? I am interested in the issue that the member for Sanderson raised about what effect this trading process would have, and whether it would make any difference to this bill being passed today. I will leave it to the committee stage, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will start by addressing one of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. I also harboured some confusion for a while as to whether this act was simply about the taxation regime that was going to be applied, or the up and coming trading scheme which is envisaged by government.
It took some drilling into. The arrangements around gaming in the Northern Territory are a little confusing in their administrative arrangements. So, the starting point for an investigation as to what is actually driving this has to be the Administrative Arrangements of the Northern Territory. The most recent Administrative Arrangements of the Northern Territory split gaming into two bits. One bit sits with the Attorney-General; the other bit sits with the Treasurer. The bit that sits with the Attorney-General is the policy stuff. Every other bit that sits under these Administrative Arrangements sits with the Treasurer because they are the taxation arrangements.
If this was a bill about taxation and raising taxation levies, the Treasurer would be the one with carriage of the bill. However, it is not the Treasurer who has carriage of the bill, it is the Attorney-General. So, from that basis, this must be about a trading scheme which was alluded to in the second reading speech but does not get much of a mention in the bill itself. So, assuming that government has this right, this is about the trading scheme based on the fact that the person who has carriage of it is the one who has the policy component of gaming within his portfolio area.
Some numbers - and it is always useful to do this. This is from the last time that the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission reported annually through the Treasury when it was still one unit - it was not split, it was all held with Treasury. This, by the way, I hold up now as one of the finest annual reports ever produced by government. Never have I read an annual report that is so succinct, so clear and so informative. Jennifer Prince and her team did an extraordinary job putting this together, and I congratulate Jennifer Prince, the Under Treasurer, for it.
Some numbers: page 20 from the annual report 2005-06. $2.376bn is the amount of money in the year 2002 that was wagered in the Northern Territory, not including illegal wagering - that is all those blankets that we see people playing gambling games on. By the year 2006, that amount wagered had grown to $4.5386bn. That is an extraordinary increase; that nearly doubles. During the recent briefing that we received from the Attorney-General’s Office, we asked if the blanks could be filled out for the year 2007 - I suspect that that is a calendar year, I am guessing; no, it is not, it is a financial year - and for the year 2008, because I am interested to know what those two missing columns look like.
For the year 2002, losses incurred by gamblers in the Northern Territory were $215.1m. By the year 2006, losses by Territory gamblers had increased to $319m. Once again, the years 2007 and 2008 are missing. From that - this is the tax take from government. This is gaming tax - I refer to page 23 from the same report. The year 2002 is not reported - I am not sure why. Actually, no, it is explained. The year 2003 is reported. In the year 2003, Northern Territory government received $37.737m from taxation and, by the year 2006, Northern Territory income had increased to $57.999m. I would like to know what the years 2007 and 2008 hold.
This is an extremely informative report. Not only that, at the back of the report there is a very detailed breakdown as to where the taxation is collected, from whom it was collected, and the amount. For argument’s sake, on page 66 of this most excellent report, Cazalys Palmerston made a gross profit on their machines of $4 572 995, and paid in taxation to the Northern Territory government $1 716 272. As I said, a very informative report; 68 pages long if you include the schedules at the back of the report.
This particular report is on the website for the Department of Justice, and for some reason, the schedules which break down the taxation arrangements have been removed from the back of the report. I presume it is because of the way that the new arrangements exist, and DOJ does not report on Territory income, which should be somewhere on the Treasury website, but I cannot lay my hands on it. That might be navigation skills, but I cannot lay my hands on it. The only record I can get is the hard copy of the report.
I was curious to see, in the last annual report of the Department of Justice, that they reported on gaming. In the last annual report of Justice the report on gaming was, I think, one or two pages - hardly the enormously valuable document that we have here. I actually convinced myself that that was the replacement document for this one. I was highly critical, for a whole bunch of reasons, that that two-page document was all that we got as an annual report. I let the matter rest, but I was very disappointed that that was the case, because we lost this excellent standard of reporting for a two-page document.
I was mistaken because, last sittings in this House, this document was tabled. This document is the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Annual Report 2006-07, tabled on 18 September 2008, Tabled Paper No 52, as I understand it. This is actually the report which is required by section 21 of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Act.
The reason I thought the comments in the annual report was this report was that there is a legislative requirement to bring this report in a certain time. This report has to be completed within three months of the end of the financial year 2006-07, passed to the minister, who then has to table it, I think within six days of receiving it, which means, in practical terms, that he should have been tabling this in October 2007. This was tabled in September 2008, in breach of the legislative requirements that demand this reporting.
Madam Speaker, do I find in this report the copious amounts of information that I found in this report? Sadly, no. This report could not hold a candle to this lighthouse - it simply could not. This report is a very disappointing second.
Anyway, I then also waited with bated breath and started looking for something else. I should say I did not wait with bated breath, because I started noticing that something was missing. In the back of this report, there is a list of the Community Benefits Scheme. The former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, was very anxious to ensure that the Community Benefits Scheme ran well. My goodness, what a great report, because not only do you get to see how much was given for the Community Benefit Scheme – and for the edification of members who do not understand this, when the pubs pay their tax on the gaming machines inside the pubs - this is not the clubs or the sporting clubs - a little of that money gets shaved off and gets dumped into an account, and that account then becomes a source by which the government of the day, through the Community Benefits Fund, passes that money back into the community. At the back of this report is a list of all of the community organisations which receive money as a result of that little additional gaming tax and the amounts that they receive, as well as the purpose of the grant - a very detailed report. If I wanted to know what happened to the $1.7m that came from the Community Benefits Fund that year, I could find out that the Darwin Cycling Club Incorporated, to produce promotional brochures, was granted $970. Good stuff, good reporting; very detailed.
There is also a legislative requirement, that I would direct the minister’s attention to - I mean the Treasurer’s attention to, this is a Treasurer’s reporting arrangement. Section 68B(4) of the Gaming Control Act demands that the Community Benefits Committee report with full listings on the Community Benefits Fund every year. It has been achieved in this report particularly well. The point is a visit to the Tabled Papers Office revealed something interesting. For the year 2006-07, the report required by section 68B(4) of the Gaming Control Act has not been tabled at all. What is more is that the demands of that act are - from memory, I do not have that in front of me - that within three months of the end of the financial year, the Community Benefits Fund has to make that annual report and, upon receipt of that, within three months of the end of the financial year, the minister is obliged by law to bring that report into this House and table it. In practical terms, that means around October of the next financial year.
That report has not appeared at all at this stage, and is now 12 months overdue. It is a breach of the law. It is a requirement of the legislation that these reports be made. I ask the minister - and these are questions on notice; I would be surprised if the minister was unaware of this because she has these questions on the Written Question Paper on both of these issues - why the government is choosing to break the law in relation to reporting on gaming in the Northern Territory?
I was also present at the briefing to which the member for Sanderson referred in his remarks. I raised this issue in the briefing and, consequently, pointed to this most excellent report which is the 2005-06 report and said: ‘Gee whiz, can you get me the information out of that report which I found so enlightening and so useful?’ They said: ‘Yes, we will get it to you by Monday’. Was it the Monday? The next day, I think was the promise. That information is still not forthcoming.
That information may have been lost in the briefing because the people who were briefing me were scribbling notes. Our issue raised by the member for Sanderson is that the question that we asked in the first instance was: why are you introducing a bill which has the effect of reproducing a power that currently exists under the legislation? The reference I and the member for Sanderson was making, was Section 194, Regulations, of the Gaming Machine Act that:
- The Administrator may make regulations, not inconsistent with the Act prescribing matters …
Section 194(3) says:
The regulations may:
- (a) prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines for a locality or for the Territory or a method of calculating a maximum number of gaming machines for a locality or for the Territory.
The regulations may prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines. Section 194(b):
(b) provide for the Commission to declare under paragraph (a) and to declare the period during which that number has effect; or
(c) make provision in the event that a number prescribed under paragraph (a) is less than the number of gaming machines in a locality or in the Territory.
I took that to mean that the minister has the power to advise, as the processes of the Executive Council work, the Administrator to make a regulation to cap the number of machines. I was confused, though. So, in answer to the first question we asked, the answer was, basically: ‘Oh, good question, we will let you know’, and they did, and I am grateful to the minister. However, I only received this letter, as I understand the member for Sanderson only received this letter, on Monday, at about 5 pm when I got to my office. I think they just stuck it inside the door. There are a couple of paragraphs, and it gets to the issue we raised in the briefing. Section 22B(2)(a) - and this is a reference to the amendment - of the bill replaces section 194(3) of the act and is materially different in three respects. It says in paragraph 1 of the letter:
- It removes the power of the commission to declare a maximum number of gaming machines for a defined period only and places it in the hands of the Administrator to make regulations on the advice of the Executive Council, restricting the aggregate number of machines, authorised for the use in the Territory.
I am somewhat confused because that does not answer the issue that was raised: the Administrator may, according to the act, as it currently exists, make regulations, not inconsistent with the act, prescribing matters; the regulations may prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines for a locality or the Northern Territory.
So, this is how it works: the minister goes to Cabinet. Cabinet makes a decision - that is the working part of Executive Council, than it rolls down sleeves - puts its tie on and walks across to the Administrator, as Executive Council and says: ‘Administrator, as her Majesty’s representative, we suggest that you make this law’. The Administrator says: ‘Oh, what a good idea. Thank you very much, Executive Council. Off you trot’. If you follow that logic, then the Administrator - ie read minister:
- may make regulations not inconsistent with this act, prescribing matters.
- The regulations may –
(a) prescribe the maximum number of gaming machines for a locality or for the Northern Territory or a method of calculating the maximum number of gaming machines
for a locality or for the Territory;
(b) provide for the Commission to declare a number of prescribed under paragraph (a) and to declare the period during which that number has effect; or
(c) make provision in the event that a number prescribed …
Da da da da da.
All this act has the effect of doing is removing the Commission’s capacity to declare prescribed areas and caps, but it does not, as the letter suggests, place it in the hands of the minister, because the minister already has that power. There is no new power that flows from the amendment for the capacity to the minister to make regulations to cap the number of gaming machines that does not already exist in law. I know the minister will argue otherwise, but the fact is that the minister has that power today.
So, what is this all about? Why are we saying we need this new policy when the power already exists? Because we actually have to lay the groundwork for something else. This is why I come back to what the member of Nelson had to say. We are laying the groundwork, not only for a taxation regime which already has been well thought out but, as the member for Sanderson so eruditely pointed out, the taxation regime is already being calculated to two decimal places. That is a pretty accurate taxation regime.
I also noted in the second reading speech that the minister actually said: ‘We expect to lose some money on this deal at first and then we are going to make some money back’. That raises the question: how are you going to make the money back that you are losing on the deal with your tax rates? I asked the department that – well, what I asked the departmental officials was: ‘How are you going to make this money? Is there going to be some sort of stamp duty on sale or transfer of these machines?’ ‘Oh no, it is not a stamp duty, it is a levy’. ‘What is that going to be worth?’ ‘Oh, we do not know that yet’.
So, we are paving the way through this legislative instrument to introduce this trading scheme which will impose upon every transfer of a gaming machine from every vendor to every purchaser, some sort of levy, tax, or stamp duty. I do not really care what you call it, it is money that goes from that transaction into the government’s pocket. One of the great criticisms I have of this Administrative Arrangement is that I now do not know who I should be talking to, because this is more about collecting revenue than it is about capping the number of machines in the community.
There is some nervousness about this in the community. Mr Hay, President of Clubs NT, wrote to the Chief Minister, and he said: ‘Gee whiz, I am worried about this’. He also wrote to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the things they are concerned about is that you have clubs which will now have tradeable machines under this new scheme - whatever that looks like. It is going to be the Queensland model, we were advised in the briefing. What does that look like? ‘We will get back to you’. We have not seen it since. What we have in the letter from the minister is not the Queensland model for a trading scheme; it is the taxation rates in Queensland. That is what we have. We have no idea what this trading scheme of machines is going to look like.
Mr Hay wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister and said: ‘We are a bit worried about this. One of the things we are concerned about is that the pubs might start buying up the machines of the clubs’. You see, what happens with the profits from these club machines is that they go into these clubs and it pays for the Under 15 Rugby League team, I suppose, or the girls’ softball team - all those sorts of things. The problem is that these clubs often struggle. Pubs do not; they can sell liquor and all sorts of things as well. Clubs can too, but these clubs often struggle.
Waratahs Sports Club was in the news the other day. I am guessing, because I have never been in there myself, it has poker machines in it. If it does, how tempting for the board to be suddenly presented with an opportunity to offload several gaming machines to trade their way out of the trouble they are in at the moment.
I am fully aware that there are caps on both clubs and pubs in that the pub cannot have more than 10 machines in them. The clubs and pubs often work in different environments. The pubs may be more aggressive than the clubs in the open marketplace that this will create in trading between these machines. I have some concerns, and I understand the concerns of Mr Hay quite well. I am mindful of his concerns because it would be such a tragedy, as a result of this government’s desire to rake taxation off the trades and transfer of these machines, that the Under 15 softball team might not be able to play this year or get new uniforms this year because the club they rely on for income has sold off their machines to trade their way out of trouble. I seek from the minister some comfort in relation to that.
The other concern that this issue raises for me is the quality and the level of briefings that the minister relies on to bring legislation to this House. If he is genuinely unknowing about the breach of the law surrounding the reporting requirements of the Licensing Commission, if the Treasurer is ignorant of the law in relation to the reporting requirements of the Community Benefits Fund, and we are relying on the introduction of legislation which will, ultimately, support trading schemes that we know nothing about, then the minister, who I know is a man of substantial intellect and good education, is being careless about the advice he is receiving and, I suspect, not sufficiently critical of the information he is receiving from the department.
This breakdown between the two Administrative Arrangements, Treasury and DOJ, is delivering some very poor outcomes in how this whole system is being administered and the reporting requirements, which are demanded by law, of the NT. To add grist to this mill of poor Administrative Arrangements, it was the Chief Minister who wrote back to Mr Hay. This is a letter from the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, on 6 August 2008, to Mr Hay, President of Clubs NT Incorporated in which he says:
- I cannot comment on the figures you have provided because I am not permitted to know the individual taxation arrangements of individual taxpayers without their express consent or approval.
Balderdash!
I draw the Chief Minister’s attention to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Annual Report 2005-06 where those taxation arrangements, and individual taxpayers and individual taxation amounts are clearly reported, as per the requirements of the law which has been broken by this government. Also, Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister cannot seek, in his position, to obnubilate this issue when the industry involved is very concerned about the outcomes of what is being done in this parliament tonight, and what will be done into the near future by this government. For him to - what can I say? Can I say mislead Mr Hay? - misinform Mr Hay in such an obvious and deliberate fashion is indicative of a government which is either so out of touch with the legislative requirements that surround it, that it makes public utterances which are completely wrong, or there is a deliberate attempt to deceive Mr Hay ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I do not know. I am asking the question. Which is it? Is it incompetence or dishonesty?
Ms Lawrie: Not true. No, you are just obnoxious as usual, aren’t you?
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking the question, Madam Speaker. Is this incompetence or dishonesty? It has to be one or the other because, clearly, the assertion by the Chief Minister that he cannot comment on figures because he is not permitted to know the individual taxation arrangements in relation to the individual taxpayers …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, that is true.
Mr ELFERINK: … when, under the legislation - well, why do you report on the back of the annual report, Treasurer?
Ms Lawrie: Because Community Benefit Fund payments are different to individual taxation arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK: So you reckon there are no taxation arrangements in this?
Ms Lawrie: These are not individual. There is a whole range of taxation arrangements ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, isn’t there? We have done it again! Remember, I said, Madam Speaker, that …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker. ... I talked about the Treasurer’s plans? Well, she has just committed a ripper, because - here we go: Alice Springs Golf Club Incorporated, gross profit on their gaming machines …
Ms Lawrie: Difference between organisations’ gaming machines taxes and individual taxation arrangements - big difference.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, he is talking about individuals, not clubs. But Mr Hay was writing on behalf of clubs, so it was deception. It was not incompetence, it was deliberate deception, Madam Speaker ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you have dropped yourself into this …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: He is accusing the Chief Minister of deception, and is clearly wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw the comments ‘deliberate deception’.
Mr ELFERINK: Accidental deception, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have just asked you to withdraw your comments.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I am not quite sure. He has misled - no, I cannot say that. Madam Speaker, I am struggling through ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I asked you to withdraw the comments please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw the comment, but I am really struggling, Madam Speaker, for a word which can express what has actually occurred here, which means that what happened in the mind of Mr Hay when he received this letter was different to what was actually the case.
Individual taxpayers like the Casuarina All Sports Club received $5.69m of gross profit and paid $2.199m of tax. It is listed individually in this annual report, Treasurer. It is about time you and the Attorney-General started obeying the law of the Northern Territory and reporting within the requirements of the legislation that I have quoted here tonight. Your disregard for this place is arrogance in the highest order.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, it is always illuminating when the member for Port Darwin starts pontificating. He started his contribution by saying he really was not sure what this is about and he did some research. I refer him to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing’s second reading speech:
- The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gaming Machine Act and the Gaming Machine Regulations. It is the first in a series of staged amendments for the reform of the community gaming machine sector. This bill sets a cap on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It also ...
Mr Elferink: He can do it anyhow; he already has the power.
Ms LAWRIE: You cannot help yourself.
Mr Elferink: No, I cannot.
Ms LAWRIE: I will continue the quote:
- It also revises the taxation arrangements which apply to clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
Further reforms of the community gaming machine sector will see the introduction of a regulated trading scheme for licences within the capped pool of machines. These reforms will ensure fairness to licensees and restore the balance back to the community.
It goes further than the member for Port Darwin, in his imagination, would have us believe. The bill significantly provides an important start in a reform process - the reform of the community gaming machine sector. These reforms are in response to growing concerns in the community about the effects that gambling has on people - whether it is the individuals, the families, or society as a whole. Community service organisations like Amity deal with the impact every day of Territory families seeking help to deal with the effects of problem gambling. These are families where a gambling addiction is leaving children hungry, family assets are lost to feed the addiction, and the stresses are leading to, at times, domestic violence and abuse and, also at times, drug and alcohol abuse. These are significant social problems and these reforms aim to bring some balance back to the community by halting the growth that we have seen in gaming machines.
The cap is necessary to address what has been significant growth. The number of machines more than doubled since their introduction in 1996 and the number in hotels has almost tripled. This government believes it is time to address the gaming machine numbers by introducing a cap. Without change, under current laws, all clubs could apply for a maximum licence, which would see a huge influx of poker machines. To ensure fairness in the system, the bill sets a cap of 1190 on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory, and revises the taxation arrangements that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to the community gaming machines. The current cap on pokies in pubs at 10 and 45 in clubs is not changed. Future reform will include the introduction of a regulated trading scheme for licences within the capped pool of machines. The bill gives effect to the government’s announcement on 18 July 2008 that it would cap the number of gaming machines at 1190. As such, the cap is backdated to the date of the announcement.
We are reducing the government’s income from poker machines. This is part of our plan to reduce the government’s reliance on gaming revenue - a move we see happening across Australia. The revised tax rates will also bring uniformity to the tax system for gaming machines. However, we will maintain the current requirement for pubs to pay a 10% of gross monthly profits to the Community Benefit Fund. The rates have been revised so that clubs and hotels will be subject to a tiered gaming machine tax rate, depending on each revenue’s gross monthly profit. The new rates are: 12.91% for gross monthly profits of up to $10 000; 22.91% for profits from $10 001 up to $100 000; 32.91% for profits between $100 001 and $200 000; and 42.91% for profits over $200 000. Pubs receive the most benefit from the new rates as they have moved from a flat rate of 42.91% of gross monthly profit to the tiered rate schedule.
The new rate scale provides minor increases to the tiered threshold applied to the clubs. The old rates are: 12.91% for gross monthly profits of up to $6000; 22.91% of profits from $6000 to $60 000; 32.91% of profits between $60 000 and $160 000; and 42.91% for profits over $160 000. The tax savings split between the pubs and clubs is estimated to be in the order of $5.1m per year for pubs and $1.4m per year for clubs. This represents approximately an 18% to 20% decrease.
While these tax changes will have an initial impact on revenue, there will be some offset – some - when the new trading scheme commences within the capped environment. The new tax rates commence on a date set by the Administrator to allow sufficient lead time for any system changes. Although no commencement date has been set, 1 January 2009 is a date that allows the industry and the government sufficient time to accommodate the change.
The future trading scheme will introduce a licence scheme whereby a licence for each machine will need to be purchased that can then be traded within the existing pool. The regulated trading scheme will have benefits to the smaller clubs which cannot spread the overhead cost of gaming machines as effectively as larger venues, so the nett profit per machine is lower as you would have seen from some of the figures quoted.
The trading scheme will allow smaller clubs to benefit by - if they want to, they do not have to - selling machine rights to larger more profitable venues. The details for the regulated trading scheme have not yet been finalised and will be the subject of consultation with the industry. That does include, obviously, the clubs. The scheme will include appropriate taxation levies on trading entities which trade their gaming machines.
In regard to the Administrative Arrangements, I can advise the member for Port Darwin that the Community Benefit Fund reporting requirements falls under Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I am sure questions in regard to that will be picked up by the relevant minister.
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her offering and I will address the issues that have been raised by members. I thank each member for their contribution.
The member for Sanderson put the policy position of the Country Liberal Party in that, whilst they support capping of gaming machines, they do not support this legislation mainly for the reason as he outlined; that there was no detail on the trading scheme. In his briefing last week with the member for Port Darwin, it was foreshadowed that government would be modelling our trading scheme on the Queensland trading scheme which is quite well established. Although there were details for the taxation scheme, as he said to the last decimal point, there was no detail on the trading scheme.
As I said in my second reading speech - and the member for Sanderson alluded to that - I was very clear in the second paragraph when I said:
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gaming Machine Act and the Gaming Machine Regulations. It is the first in a series of staged amendments for the reform of the community
gaming machine sector. This bill sets a cap on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It also revises the taxation arrangements that apply to
clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
At the end of my second reading speech, I said:
- The details for the trading of machines have not yet been finalised, but will be following consultation with the industry …
I also say, thereby with the public:
- … and will include appropriate taxation and levies on trading entities to trade their gaming machines. This will ensure that the profits from the gaming machine sector will continue to be put to good use in the Territory.
In short, government, through its policy, has foreshadowed that these amendments, as part of this bill today, are all about taxation arrangements and setting a cap, but they also provide the capacity underneath the overall cap for regional caps - that was mentioned in my second reading speech – and, moreover, for the implementation of a trading scheme.
To reiterate, the focus is on the taxation arrangements but, more importantly, the cap. The trading scheme will follow on after consultation. That could occur under regulation. It could require some legislative amendment also. I am giving the parliament the undertaking that there will be extensive consultation; there will be transparency around this particular issue. I emphasise why I felt it was important to bring the cap in at this stage. I became very concerned. I suppose there is a background of concern all around Australia, as the member for Nelson said, about the impact of gaming machines on people’s lives, particularly the aspect of problem gambling, the amounts of money that go through gaming machines, and the harm which they can cause.
However, with that background, I was particularly concerned to get a letter from the Licensing Commission. I am more than happy to table this letter. I actually received it a bit over a year ago now. It is signed by the Chairman, Mr Richard O’Sullivan, and the first paragraph said:
- Recent applications considered by Commissioners have given rise to a concern over the proliferation of gaming machine numbers and venues in the Northern Territory. This has been enabled
in the past by ‘bracket creep’ with a number of restaurant and On Licences upgrading to tavern licences, thereby enabling applications for gaming machines to be made. The Gaming Machine
Act enables a hotel ie a tavern or holder of a prescribed liquor licence, to apply for gaming machines.
It was the concern of the commissioner that there are a whole range of venues that would say: ‘Oh yes, well we can move along this little path here and became a tavern and get ourselves a few poker machines and get a nice little earner’. He perceived it as a problem. It was then that I engaged on what was really a mammoth task - to let this House know - to look at the form in this particular area …
Mr Elferink: You already have this power; it already exists. You can put a cap on it right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … to look at the policy settings - not just imposing a cap per se, but look at the policy settings and directions for government of gaming machines in the Territory. It is not just a one-stop shop around the cap, it is looking to the future.
I received quite extensive advice on the act and also on the casino agreement the member for Nelson alluded to, and the possibility or probability of placing a cap on numbers of machines in the casino. That was quite an involved and complex task, and included quite a number of iterations of advice from the Solicitor-General. It is a complex issue, and there are many aspects of law. Basically, the answer came back that government could apply to cap the casinos, but there would be considerable amounts of compensation likely to be paid under the casino agreement.
I hope that answers the member for Nelson’s question. To a large degree, the numbers in the casino are self-regulating. There has been some growth but, compared to the growth within the community gaming sector and the number of community gaming machines - which I had the number and I might have even said it in my second reading speech – where there has been a doubling over a specific period, and quite a significant increase.
In answer to the member for Nelson’s question regarding why we set it at, I think it is at 1190 or thereabouts. I better check that, Madam Speaker ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Dr BURNS: Why was it at 1190? Why is that the current rate? The member for Nelson asserted that actually the Northern Territory had a denser concentration of gambling machines than elsewhere in Australia. The figures I have here relate to gaming machines across Australia - I am prepared to table that also – and show that the Northern Territory is actually below the Australian average in the concentration of machines.
Mr Wood: I got that information from the briefing.
Dr BURNS: Well, the information I have, Table 3 - the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults, including casinos, by state and territory in 2001-02 to 2004-05 – the Northern Territory is - sorry, I am incorrect there, member for Nelson. We are about the Australian average, not under it. We are at the Australian average, and we certainly do not want to be increasing further than the Australian average for gambling machines. That is the reason why we have set it there. We believe also that everyone has had an opportunity to get the gaming machines that they require in their business.
As I said in my second reading speech, if everyone who is eligible for a licence applied for a licence there is a capacity for an extra 1000 machines in gaming machine numbers, and we certainly did not want that.
As I mentioned, the member for Nelson talked about his concern of the impact of gaming machines. As a government, we have certainly invested a lot more in community grants, gambling amelioration, and gambling research between 2000-01 and 2007-08. The figures I have been given, member for Nelson, is that at 2000-01 it was $531 000 approximately; in 2007-08, that has climbed to $2.4m in toto across all those particular areas that I mentioned. It is significant extra investment, and it has been growing with time since 2000-01. We have been trying to invest in gambling amelioration and trying to reduce the problems and the impact of gambling.
You asked the question - well, here is a case where a tax is being reduced. Government took the view that, if we were going to put a cap on the number of gambling machines and capped the growth there, somehow there had to be a concession in that to industry - whether it be the clubs or the pubs - because, although we were not specifically taking away a right or acquiring property, we felt, basically, that we were putting a cap on their revenue. That is partly the reason for the reduced tax.
Regarding the tax regime, it has been argued by the clubs that the pubs have a better deal. By bringing parity between the operations of clubs and pubs in the percentages for taxation, we are getting parity between the two, to set the platform if you like, in the regime, for a trading scheme. The trading scheme will be between clubs and pubs, clubs and clubs, and pubs and pubs, up to the limit that is set by government as a policy level. That is the reason for the taxation regime.
Amongst other issues, the member for Port Darwin raised the very legitimate issue around reporting. I believe the member for Port Darwin has a very good point, and has pointed out the tardy delivery of the report that I am responsible for to this parliament. I undertake to this parliament that the report will be tabled within these sittings, and I do apologise to parliament for the tardiness of that report.
I am advised by the department that there were two contributing factors to this. The first difficulty was the transition in arrangements between Treasury and DOJ, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out. In fairness to the department and DOJ and, particularly Racing, Gaming and Licensing, it has been a very difficult period for them. With the intervention, there has been a lot of policy work. They have been really stretched over the last 12 months. I know that people like Elizabeth Morris and others have been working day and night, literally, and over weekends, to try to turn out the policy issues and the responses to the federal government - both the previous and current federal government. It has been very difficult in the policy areas that need to be involved in the compilation of the report that you are talking about, to really clear their desk to do it. Message received, member for Port Darwin, you are entirely correct. I stand chastised but I say to the parliament that we will be endeavouring to get that report during these sittings.
The members for Port Darwin and Sanderson raised some legitimate issues in relation to the ability of the minister to set a cap currently. You pointed to the current legislation, section 194(3) of the act. You said the minister already has the capacity to set a cap through regulation through EXCO, etcetera. The reason why we are replacing section 194(3) with section 22B of the act is that section 22B actually expands the powers, if you like, and sets a policy framework for further policy development and implementation by government in relation to a whole range of issues that were not really covered in the old section 194(3). I would like to expand on that with the advice that I have, member for Port Darwin ...
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Okay, sorry, there is no malice in that, member for Sanderson. For the benefit of Hansard, the member for Sanderson.
There are provisions in the act that allow a cap to be set. However, the amendments differ from those in the act in three significant ways. First, the amendments remove the power from the commission to declare a maximum number of gaming machines and places it in the hands of the Administrator to make the regulations on the advice of EXCO, restricting the aggregate number of machines authorised for use in the Territory. This will allow the government to set the cap as a matter of policy.
Currently, as I understand it, the commission has the ability to set a cap for defined periods and the legal basis for the commission doing it could be challenged if either the region or the defined period were to be questioned in a court. The member for Port Darwin is quite right; currently the minister does have the ability - or Cabinet through the minister through EXCO - to direct the Administrator to set a cap, either for a part of the Territory or for the whole Territory. The point is that we have a wider policy intent here, and that is why we are replacing section 194(3) with section 22B.
Second, in the advice that I have, the power in the bill sets in place an ongoing cap as a matter of policy, rather than as just under the current provision to be repealed, which provides that the commission sets the maximum number of machines for a defined period only. I am talking about the commission specifically here. The power under the current provisions provide the commission with the power to set a cap for a particular purpose. This would be used by the commission as a tool in response to a particular set of circumstances. The amending bill provides a broader range for regulations to be made that put in place a particular regime reflecting an ongoing policy decision on the part of government, rather than a specific response for a specific purpose.
The third difference is that the amending bill provides for a variety of other restrictions which may be imposed by regulation on gaming machine numbers. The powers are quite specific and the outcomes they achieve are not possible, I am advised, under the current provision. These powers have been drafted in anticipation of the trading model to come, which places them in a different policy context.
I do not think it is necessary for me to be reading out section 22B. There are provisions in there that:
- (a) restrict the aggregate number of gaming machines authorised for use under gaming machine licences in the Territory to a maximum number fixed in, or determined in accordance
with, the regulations; or
(b) restrict the aggregate number of gaming machines authorised for use under gaming machine licences in a particular part of the Territory to a maximum number fixed in, or determined
in accordance with, the regulation; or
(c) impose a restriction of any other kind on gaming machine numbers; or
(d) impose any combination of restrictions on gaming machine numbers.
I believe these are important amendments. As I said before, the Treasurer talked about taxation regimes and Treasury matters but, basically, government has already signalled its intentions; first, in a policy sense to put a cap and stop the unnecessary further proliferation of community gaming machines within the Northern Territory. We have set it at a level that is around the Australian average. There was a potential for it to escalate if various other venues were to apply for their full complement or, as the Liquor Commissioner pointed out, with this bracket creep with venues starting off as restaurants or whatever suddenly getting into the gaming machine market. We thought that that was undesirable.
We also wanted to look at a trading model, one similar to one that operates in Queensland. The important thing about a trading regime is that a gaming machine, although the value is determined by the market - and I would not preempt what the market would determine as the value, but some knowledgeable people are saying within the industry put it at around $100 000 per machine - puts an asset on the bottom line of clubs. We know, as government - and I am sure the opposition know - that there are a number of clubs which struggle to make ends meet and struggle to get money from banks because they have very little in the way of assets. The very nature of their land tenure is also sometimes problematic for them to get borrowings from the bank. Here, though, is a way, through the trading regime, that a value can be ascribed to the gaming machines. I see this as very important.
The clubs, as alluded to before, feel that possibly they should have been given more out of the arrangement. I remind the House that clubs are not subject to the community benefit taxation arrangements which represent about 10% of the profit. They are exempt from that, so they have a lot of discretion how they spend or invest that particular money. We do not prescribe to clubs that you will spend 10% of that profit on community purposes. We allow the clubs to do that. Some of the clubs have infrastructure which requires investment and upkeep. Some of those clubs, on paper anyway, appear to be contributing less back into the community per se. They might not be investing money so much in the Under 15 soccer club, but they may be maintaining a golf course, or a football oval. They do have that discretion.
There are other clubs - and someone mentioned the Arnhem Club before and the amount of money that goes through the Arnhem Club. The Arnhem Club is a stand-out example of putting a lot of money back into the community. I do not know how they do it, but they actually put over 100% back into those community purposes. The Arnhem Club is to be commended. However, as government, we also realise that there are other clubs in other situations which have to maintain infrastructure.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned the issue of bullying, I suppose you would put it, in trading. It has been the experience, earlier on in the Queensland model, where it was felt that some of the bigger players were muscling in some on the smaller players and twisting their arm - that is right, member for Port Darwin - bullying, I suppose would be the word, and getting them to do their bidding. That is something that we will be taking into account with the implementation of a trading scheme.
I felt you were scaremongering a little, member for Port Darwin, when you talked about the poor old Under 15s not getting any money. We will certainly be watching things very carefully - both DOJ and Treasury - to ensure that the maximum amount of funding is put back into the community. We already are. I alluded to this in my second reading speech, at the end. I talked about the trading scheme, but I am talking more generally here. I talked about ensuring that the profits from the gaming machines sector will continue to be put to a good use across the Territory.
The member for Port Darwin seemed to be alluding that there could be a government tax grab going on here and that through the trading scheme the government is going to be engaged in a claw-back exercise to get money back from the sector. I can assure this House and the member for Port Darwin that there have not been any discussions within government about that. Government has given a concession in the taxation regime. Government wants to see a proper trading scheme that is administered properly. We want to see the value of those machines, particularly the asset value of those machines, put on the balance sheet of clubs. What we are trying to do is for the benefit of the community generally, both in putting a cap and moving towards a trading scheme.
I am sure we are going to go to it in committee stage, but I can assure this House that there will be public consultations. There will be industry consultations regarding the trading scheme, and we will be moving towards that. That will also be a good thing for the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I thank members for their offerings. I have heard the concerns, both of the opposition and the Independent. I certainly have taken those concerns on board. I commend this bill to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, by way of your indulgence, you will notice that we have changed the seating arrangements slightly, so that the committee stages …
Madam SPEAKER: I give you my leave for the member of Sanderson to sit in your chair and you to sit in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I would like to put a couple of things to the minister, and ask him to reiterate a number of things. They are questions that I have in relation to the regulations
In the letter the minister wrote to me pointing out the material differences in three ways that new section 22B(2)(a) goes on to change dramatically what section 194(3) says and you alluded to that now in the House. However, my understanding is that this is very similar, and you said that we are actually trying to set something up for the future. I do not quite understand what it is that you are actually setting up, but we are changing things significantly for some policy shift. I do not understand why this cannot wait until we get a trading scheme that we can look at, because there are no substantial differences. Can you enlighten me as to where the need is to bring these things in at this moment, please?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I will take advice on this. I am advised that the major differences are that first, the commission has been taken out of the equation, and second, that the major differences relate to new sections 22B and 22C which open up, as I said, the legislative framework for the implementation of government policy, particularly around the issue of a trading scheme.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, minister. In fact, in paragraph three of the letter that you sent to both the member for Sanderson and me, you said: ‘The powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’, and place the powers in a different context, presumably for the purposes of creating a trading model. How much will the levy be on the transfer of a machine from vendor to purchaser?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as I have said a number of times this evening, we foreshadowed, as a policy intent of government, that we will be looking at the Queensland scheme as a model for an implementation of a trading scheme within the Northern Territory. Nonetheless, we are prepared to be flexible in that regard. That is the first thing that I have said. The second thing I have said is that we are prepared to consult with industry and the public on this particular issue. Our first intent was to establish the cap, and our second intent was to make changes to the taxation regimes. Then, following on from that, as I said in my second reading speech, we will be moving to a trading scheme, the details of which have not been settled.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you would appreciate, then, our obvious concern. As legislators, it is our job to make sure we get this stuff right. The problem I have is that you are asking us to change the law to accommodate a trading scheme. You have now acknowledged that you already have the power - and always have had under the legislation - to impose a cap if you so chose. So, what is really driving this? In your letter, you say: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’. It is very difficult for me, as a legislator, to comfortably pass a legislative instrument, to anticipate a model that even you do not know what it looks like. It is difficult for me, as a legislator, to understand how we can change a legislative instrument with any comfort when we are, basically, throwing ourselves into this hopeful abyss that the legislation that is being changed can accommodate the model, which we do not yet know what it looks like.
You can well understand our caution in relation to supporting this bill. So far, I have heard nothing which gives me comfort that we should support this bill.
I draw your attention to the media release on 17 September 2008, when you said that you have introduced this legislative instrument which we are debating now in the House. The assertion the whole way through is that it is all about a cap and lowering the tax rates. However, in the letter that you provided to me on Monday, you actually said it is drafted in anticipation of a trading model. You can well understand that we would, naturally, be cautious. If you were dealing with, let us say, a car dealer and he said: ‘Just sign the contract; I will fill in the details later’. Would you? I suspect not. I do not feel comfortable signing the contract when I do not know what is in the details.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, in response to the member for Port Darwin, I hear what he is saying. However, I have been in this House long enough now to know that legislation is passed within this House with regulations that sit underneath it, that are determined in consultation and, often, through a policy process. I provide as an example regulations around builder’s licensing - very important in the building industry – and what is required for a builder to get a licence regarding the number of certificates of occupancy that they have, and recognition of prior learning. Very important issues are often sitting below legislation in regulations that are determined, often with public consultation, and this will be no different, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: It is. When you create legislation as you have just described, it is to create a regulatory environment which will capture those things. The regulatory environment that captures these things already exists. You have it. The power is there, it is right there. You do not have to pass the bill. With the exception of the taxation changes - fair enough, I accept that – the real thrust of this media release and the message that we get from this media release is all about protecting the community from the proliferation of these machines. Yet, it is not what it is about at all because current legislation already enables that to occur. You could have issued that media release quite comfortably without coming to this House. That is not what this bill is about. What makes me nervous is that the rationale that was given, both in the second reading speech and in that media release, do not actually reflect the truth which is captured in a letter I received only a few days ago which says: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’.
For that reason, minister - and you can comment on this if you like - we will not be supporting this bill. This side of the House will not be supporting this bill. If you choose to comment on that, well and good. But, frankly, the sales job that has been done on this legislative change and what was actually sought to be achieved has been disingenuous.
I will finish with these observations. I am disappointed that the laws of this House have not been followed in relation to the reporting demands of your portfolio area. Whilst I understand and accept the demands on the public service, the integrity of this House and the laws that it passes is something that we, as legislators, have to jealously protect - and I jealously protect the laws of this House. Whilst I appreciate there are other demands on the public service, we pass laws for very good reasons.
The abyss into which these reporting demands have fallen is troubling to me because sadly - and I do not believe it is intentional, but over time, particularly in the last parliamentary term where four members of the opposition often struggled to deal with all of the issues they had to deal with simply because of the workload - there were occasions when things slipped through to the keeper. It became easier for government which, believe it or not, minister, is subordinate to this House. Government only exists because the numbers in this House give the government the power to exist. Government had become too comfortable in its position.
That no longer is the case. I remind ministers it is their job to ensure the laws to which they and their departments should adhere are followed, and the supremacy of this House is respected by government, those in the public service, as well as by Cabinet ministers. We are the supreme governing body by virtue of one important fact: the people of the Northern Territory put us in this place.
By virtue of the fact that the people of the Northern Territory put a majority of people who support the government into this place by a whisker means that you have the right to form a government. Nevertheless, this is the supreme body of the Northern Territory not the institutions of the executive.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I pick up on the explanations the minister has consistently given regarding this legislation. It is broader than simply the powers that previously existed for the commissioner. There is a fundamental change here. As he said, the government is removing the Licensing Commissioner from the picture and is to provide certainty around the cap on gaming machines - a whole new policy setting a cap; a cap to stay under this government’s policy direction.
Second, very clearly, I mentioned in my contribution there are taxation changes occurring with these initiatives. We recognise we want to be less reliant on taxation arrangements. I understand the opposition members’ concern around the regulatory ability to bring in the trading scheme that sits under this legislation. However, it is not government’s intent to be overly penalising through those levies. As we said, we are about moving with other Australian jurisdictions away from that broad reliance on gaming revenue because of a policy setting where we want to see the reduction of harm in our community from gaming. That is our true policy intent here.
We will not be, by sleight of hand, coming in and ratchetting some strong levies through a gaming machine trading scheme. That is not our policy intent at all. The minister is very genuine in saying there will be consultation with industry and with the community more broadly on the trading scheme. He has said in both the second reading debate as well as committee stage debate, that we have framed a trading scheme model based on the Queensland model; the details have not been settled yet; and we will be going through that process of consulting with the industry and the community.
The lecture from the member for Port Darwin regarding the way the government needs to report and not be arrogant is a consistent theme. The minister very clearly acknowledged that there was a genuine oversight in Racing, Gaming and Licensing - not deliberate, not thumbing their nose at this parliament, a genuine oversight - in their failure to report. He explained there were two influences on that: (1) was the change of the Administrative Arrangements; and (2) was the significant body of policy work that RGL has been undertaking as a result of the federal government intervention. It was not deliberate and the minister has clearly explained those two contributing factors.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to section 22B and ask the minister a couple of questions.
There is a table on page 14 of the NT Licensing Commission Annual Report 2006-07 on their website in relation to new gaming machine licence approvals. It says that there were 10 licence approvals in 2007 for hotels and one for clubs. If you are introducing a cap, have all those hotels and clubs been able to take up the machines that they have been given approval for before this capping was arrived at, or does this cap cover any outstanding approvals?
Dr BURNS: A good question, member for Nelson. I am advised that it does cover those that were in the process, that had submitted. I believe all outstanding applications that were in the system have gone through. Yes, all approved applications were included in the cap. As I understand it, there are no outstanding applications.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I am not as with it in regard to some of the machinations of the way taxation, fees and all that occurs within the gaming machine industry. When I read this act, I read it as exactly what it said: Gaming Machine Amendment (Anti-Proliferation) Bill. I did not read it as a gaming machine amendment (anti-proliferation and trading) bill. In other words, I looked at it purely as a mechanism that the government was putting forward to introduce some controls over the number of gaming machines we have in the industry.
However, listening to the debate, I see that you cannot just say there is this number of machines unless you have a mechanism to deal with the machines that, for instance, nobody wants any more. The two concerns I have are that, to some extent, by supporting this legislation, I am doing so without really knowing what the mechanism is now for the trading of these gaming machines. I understand that could be a regulation, but I feel a bit empty standing here and saying: ‘Oh well, that is fine, trust the government. It is all in the regulations’. This is a major change to a system we have. Whilst I support the idea of capping, if it comes with some sort of mechanism of trading that I do not really understand, or have no idea what impact that will have, it is very difficult for me to say, yes, fine.
Why does this have to go through now? Maybe it is the same question the member for Sanderson asked. It would have been far more logical if you came up with a package now. I know you are capping them and, once they are capped, there will be a mechanism for trading, because the two go together. Why could we not have the regulations ready, because regulations can be debated here as well? Why could we not have had this whole package set up to be debated as one, and not, as I see it, going through the period of a vacuum to some extent now?
Dr BURNS: As I alluded to in my wrap-up in the debate, one of the reasons I have been very keen to bring a cap in, in this way, is the proliferation of machines and the bracket creep that was alluded to by the Liquor Commissioner. I felt it was important to bring some certainty around the cap, but also give a way forward, and a broad framework for, as you say, the trading and the rationalisation of machines. It may very well be that, with the expansion of the Northern Territory, say, in the Palmerston area, there may be a new club that wants to open. If there is no way for trading of machines and opening up new venues, that then puts an impediment there. I believe there has to be some flexibility. There also has to be account - and I foreshadow this as part of what I want to see in the trading scheme, and a reasonable cap.
First, we are not going to have the bleeding of clubs on a regional basis and a massive shift of assets from those clubs. Also, I do not want to see, and I do not think the community wants to see, a further concentration of gambling machines in depressed socioeconomic areas, because we know that often the people who play and have a problem with the machines are the people who can least afford them. Those are two areas that we need to look at as a community. We also have to look at, with the industry, how a trading scheme might work; how we can avoid undesirable effects of further concentration of machines in particular areas. There is a whole range of other issues we need to look at. I am not putting definite lines in there, or whatever. I am saying to you that we need to move forward. I have given an undertaking that we will have a process of consultation with the community and the industry, but using the Queensland model as a basis.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to put it now into context from a practical point of view. Some of the issues you raised make me more worried. You are talking about policy issues - where we should have poker machines and where not, and have a proliferation here because of socioeconomic issues. Much of that is really part of what should have come forward in this package as they are really important issues to debate as part of an anti-proliferation bill.
Be that as it may, what you are saying is, once this bill has passed, no one can get any more poker machines at the present time because there will not be a trading system in place. So, if a new club starts at Coolalinga under the proposed new shopping centre there - I am sure the minister will be pleased to look at that when it comes up for an application …
Ms Lawrie: He will be pleased to support it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I will be supporting it. Say there is a licensed premise within that facility. Until a trading system is in place, they will definitely not get any more poker machines. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: Yes, that is correct, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: If a small club - and I will give you an example. A hotel, the Adelaide River Inn, actually decided it did not want - I think it was 10 machines, I will just check. It only says nought here. However, they must have ceased to want to operate poker machines, so they handed those back. What would actually happen now? Where would those machines go? I am talking at this present time when there is no trading scheme in operation. If the facility at Coolalinga wanted some poker machines, and there was someone else at another club who wanted some poker machines, and you have these 10 poker machines that someone has handed in, what would happen now? Could a club apply for those machines that have been handed in?
Dr BURNS: That is the detail of the trading scheme that needs to be established, member for Nelson. In broad terms, there will be capacity for those with existing machines to trade them - not physically trade the machine that is there, and someone comes and picks it up and puts it somewhere else, but a capacity to trade the asset elsewhere. As I understand it, the Queensland system does have a market value. As I said previously, I do not want to put a value on machines, the market will determine that. People who have been in this industry and have a lot of experience have said to me, in their opinion, that these machines could be worth $100 000 per machine.
Mr WOOD: Minister, what I was trying to highlight, and it may not happen is you are going to put a cap now without a trading scheme. A trading scheme at the present time does not exist; we will pass this cap. During that period, which is what I call a vacuum, something could happen, such as a club or a hotel could decide, ‘We do not want our 10 poker machines’. What physically happens to those machines? Do they hand them back to the government? If so, then who can apply for them and what process would there be for people who wish to apply for those spare poker machines?
Ms LAWRIE: I will help with the clarification. The practical reality is, once this legislation passes, people who have a gaming machine understand they are sitting on a soon-to-be-tradable asset, so your hypothetical will not, in my humble opinion, occur. Even if they do not have in the plan of their club, at Adelaide River or wherever, to continue with that gaming machine corner - they have a few gaming machines there and they say: ‘We are going to remodel and we do not want those there and we want to get rid of them’ - no club is going to get rid of what will soon be a tradeable commodity. They are just not going to do it, because if they hang on to it for a while and the trading scheme comes in place, they will be able to trade those and invest that back into their club.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Some general questions on trading. You have section 22B which has a lot of controls over it. Will these controls be used to regulate the trading scheme? You are saying that you might not want more poker machines over here so, when someone wants to buy five poker machines from the club that is going out of business will they be restricted by the existing number of machines they are allowed, such as 45 for a club and 10 for a pub? Say they want to have an extra five and they only have five. You mention that you might want to regulate that we do not have any more poker machines.
I mentioned the other day at the briefing that there are five or six machines at the Three Ways Roadhouse near the corner of the Barkly Highway and the Stuart Highway. If they did not have the number of poker machines that were permitted and they wanted some more, are you able to step in and say: ‘No, you cannot have them’ - even though they could buy them if they wanted - simply because you are now going to say that you think it could be bad socioeconomics or there could be some social issues in relation to taking on those extra poker machines at that particular venue?
Dr BURNS: You are asking very specific questions about a trading regime. I have already outlined, in general terms as I understand it, the Queensland trading scheme has the capacity first, to look at a regional cap, and second, to look at the concentration. They do have formulae and other ways of determining whether there is a potential concentration of gaming machines within a particular area, particularly a lower socioeconomic area that may already have more than enough gaming machines. What we have to do is look at the model. We need, as a community and as industry, to look at that and come up with a model that is suitable for the Northern Territory, but still preserves the flexibility of being able to trade. As you have asked, and I have responded, people will be able to trade within the current venue-type cap - which is 10 for hotels and 45 for clubs.
Mr WOOD: Under this new section 22B, you will be the person who decides on the numbers in the region, not the commissioner? Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: There may very well be a regulatory framework that refers to the commission, with advice to the minister. These are things we need to look at.
Mr WOOD: I am not trying to labour the issue, but I thought that maybe I misread. You said the difference between the existing regulation 194 where, basically, the commissioner could control the numbers under the present situation; the change was that you were taking it away from the commissioner and putting it in the hands of the minister. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: In answer to your question, currently the commissioner has a capacity to put in a cap or a reasonable cap for a defined period. Neither the commissioner nor the minister, as I understand it, have the capacity under the current legislation to implement a trading regime. It may very well be the regulations that are introduced involve the commission in their investigations and recommendations to a minister about reasonable caps. There may be guidelines in the formulae and factors that are taken into account in determining whether there is an over-concentration of machines in a particular locality.
I am further advised, member for Nelson, that the commissioner is the arbiter of individual licence applications. That is not the purview of the minister.
Mr WOOD: Let me get the mechanism right. First of all, someone who lives at Woop Woop - this is under the new scheme after being capped and the trading scheme comes into place - would apply for permission for a gaming licence - say it was a hotel out on the Victoria Highway - which would allow them, in theory, to have 10 gaming machines. Then, it would be up to the minister, if they know a place they can buy 10 machines from, to have some role in that. Under section 22B, would you not be the one who can say how many they can have, not the commissioner?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, I am advised that whilst government would, possibly through the minister, set regional caps - and I suppose the extent and nature of a region would have to be determined - individual applications, as I said previously, from particular venues within that would be made through the commission.
Mr WOOD: If that is to occur, would you not, at this stage, be setting up a plan which would show what those restrictions would be? You set a cap; you are looking at a trading scheme. It is obvious that the government has a policy in mind that says: ‘We would like to restrict certain regions’. Has that been done before a trading scheme comes into place?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, there has been some preliminary work done with the Department of Justice and also Treasury, examining the Queensland model, but much more work has to be done. The first step has to be the passage of this legislation. I have given the undertaking of implementing a trading scheme in the first half of calendar year 2009.
Mr WOOD: Would that trading scheme include, for the guidance of people who are in this industry, a policy in relation to capping within regions or towns within the Territory before the trading scheme comes into place?
Dr BURNS: Absolutely, we will want to give certainty to industry and the public, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: This gets back to my concern that it is okay to cap it, which I support, but I would have liked to have seen the full picture being presented to parliament so that we can see exactly how the whole thing works. Then, we would have the chance to say: ‘Yes, that is a good system. We have reasonable capping in certain areas’. You would present that to parliament and the reasons why you have restrictions in some areas, and follow that up with the system of trading. That is something that is worth debating here. I am sure the industry would want feedback on that. I am also interested in feedback from the people who are concerned about the proliferation, because this was, or still is, an anti-proliferation bill. We are getting a bit of it, but not the total picture. I would rather have seen the total picture. I know it is about regulations, but that does not mean we cannot debate those regulations in parliament.
This is a very important bill. It is a change in the government’s policy. It has ramifications to the industry. I am reluctant to support this bill. I did not see some of the ramifications of what is happening. As I said before, I am not an expert on some of these things but, looking at it now, it would make more sense if the whole thing came together at once.
I do not know whether that would have meant there would have been a rush on gaming machine licence approvals. I would have thought that the commissioner would have said: ‘We are assessing things at the moment; there is a moratorium on any more approvals because the government is going to come forward with a package’, and this would have been part of the package. That is my concern at the moment, minister.
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, you have raised a very good issue here. In my discussions with the commissioner, when I foreshadowed to him that government was examining a cap, he was very concerned that there had been a number of applications before the commission which were unsuitable applications. He was concerned about the lack of power of the commission, if you like, to impose a cap. The advice that I was given was that this path is the best path forward, both legislatively and in a policy sense. As you pointed out, if we were to go out with consultation - and it is important to go out with consultation about regional caps; about a framework for a trading scheme - we would have been hit with a whole range of applications once people got wind that each machine was going to be worth a potential $100 000. We would have been hit with a whole lot of applications and the whole idea of stopping the proliferation of machines would have been down the drain.
I hope that explains it. I probably let some of my thinking out here, but it explains part of the reason why government has moved down in the step-wise progression that it has. In other words: to impose the cap and to get together a legislative framework to move on with a trading scheme. I cannot really say much more than that. If we had gone out another way with consultation around the trading scheme, which is vitally important I believe in a public policy sense, the whole thing would have fallen down.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. I was quickly looking through the consideration of an application for a gaming machine licence at the moment under section 25. I would have thought somewhere in that the commissioner would have had the power to say there is a moratorium based on the fact that the government is reviewing the legislation and considering a cap, and just said there will simply be no more licence approval until the change has been approved.
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, I am advised that the commissioner does not have power to put in a moratorium, as you say. I can only go back to what I have said previously in relation to this matter. I cannot really enlarge too much more on that.
Mr WOOD: The member for Sanderson wants to say something. My next question is just related to a further section, if someone has some questions before that.
Mr STYLES: Minister, both you and the Treasurer have said that you are looking at the process. Can you enlighten us as to where you are in relation to looking at the Queensland model? How far down the track you are and even how long it might take before you come to some sort of a conclusion, or perhaps get some better advice?
Dr BURNS: Member for Sanderson, I already foreshadowed to the member for Nelson that there has been preliminary work done by the Department of Justice and the Treasury, and some information has come up to me about the trading scheme in Queensland.
As I foreshadowed to the member for Nelson, I would be looking at implementing a trading scheme, at least within the first half of calendar year 2009, towards the middle of calendar year 2009, given the fact that there has to be public consultation. The basic works are there, but what we have to do is get this out in the public domain now and have some discussion about a trading scheme.
Mr STYLES: Minister, you are talking about consultation. Has the consultation with industry and other interested groups started?
Dr BURNS: Well, inasmuch as I meet regularly with industry groups, I have certainly met with Clubs NT, and also the AHA, which are, I suppose, the major groups. There is a variety of feelings about this. There are some individuals and some groups that are really embracing this and thinking this is a good way to go in terms of trading. There are others who are a bit more reserved about it, and that is understandable; it is a new policy coming to the Territory. What we have to do is work with industry and the public because, as the member for Nelson said, it is not just industry that is involved here.
There are people like Amity House and others who pick up the pieces, if you like, of those who have problems with gambling, and we need to engage with those groups as well. I am looking for the opportunity. I am not sure whether I will get the opportunity between now and the end of the year. I hope that I will. I am going to Brisbane for a meeting of Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It is my intention to spend some time with the regulators in Queensland, and to see and hear firsthand from them about the trading scheme in Queensland.
Mr STYLES: Minister, in reference to the new section 22B which, in effect, replaces the old section 194(3), can you confirm that this change removes the use of a formula to set the number of machines?
Dr BURNS: You might need to be a bit more specific, member for Sanderson. Which relationship are you talking about here in terms of formulae?
Mr STYLES: In section 194(3)(a), it says:
- prescribe a maximum number of gaming machines for a locality, or for the Territory, or a method of calculating a maximum number of gaming machines for a locality, or for the Territory.
In the new section 22B(2), in both (a) and (b), it just says restrict the aggregate number of gaming machines authorised for use under gaming machine licences in a particular part of the Territory to a maximum fixed. The question I am getting to here is: if you have a number of machines in Alice Springs, is that going to change with this? Is this going to be just an open trading scheme? Whilst on that question, what would the value be placed on, say, the machines in Alice Springs as opposed to machines in Darwin? Are they going to be valued at the same price?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that, in answer to the formulae, that section 22B(c) and (d) do have the capacity for a formula to be applied if necessary, similar to the old section 194(3). In relation to your question about values of machines across the Territory, it is not the physical machine that could be in Alice Springs and it is valued at X and shipped up to Darwin, if necessary. It is really a notional transfer. I imagine that a trading scheme that encapsulated the whole of the Territory would be a free and open scheme. However, if there were regional caps, that could be a market factor. Yes, you are right. However, I am not going to speculate on the value of a machine in a particular locality.
Mr STYLES: We do not actually have the trading scheme in front of us and there are things that you have alluded to. I am just trying to get some idea of where we are at. If, for instance, there is a sporting club in a small community in rural or regional Australia, and they say: ‘We are just a very small club and we would like to open a premises. We would love to apply for some gaming machines and there is another club that wants to sell them’. If they are $100 000 each, the small club that might want five machines in their premises for what is legitimate recreational and leisure use and responsible use, is going to have to find $500 000 to buy those machines. Is that what you are alluding to in relation to the rough values of the machines?
Dr Burns: No, I am not saying that.
Ms LAWRIE: The minister has said he is not going to put a value on the machine. He has said what some industry people have said could be the value of the machines. We went through with the member for Nelson the hypothetical of if you are small club and you have the licence for the machines, but you only have five machines and you want five more machines, a trading scheme would deal with the club’s ability to trade in the licences for the additional machines. This is what the minister is referring to in a notional transfer. People do not come in with trolleys and remove the machinery and ship it to somewhere. We are saying that there are trading models that exist. The trading model on which we are basing our research and our intent is the Queensland trading model. However, we very much want to test how a model based on the Queensland trading model would actually work within the concepts of the Territory, and within the policy intent of the government; for example, to not concentrate gaming into particular socioeconomic areas where they already have high densities of gaming machines.
Understanding that we have a large Northern Territory, we have already flagged that regional caps would be part of the consultation of the model. You can fish for any more detail but, genuinely, what we have said is where we are at as a government. What we have said is that this legislation gives the framework for the trading scheme to come back in regulation. The Subordinate Legislation committee of the parliament deals with the regulations. The minister is on the record clearly and consistently saying it is absolutely his intent to consult on the model, not just with industry but with the community.
Mr STYLES: Can you enlighten me as to what the comparison of the average turnover through the machines is between Alice Springs and Darwin? Do you have those figures available?
Dr BURNS: No, I do not have those figures available with me here, member for Sanderson.
Mr STYLES: Minister, you might be able to correct me …
Dr BURNS: Just to add, even in Darwin, between pubs and clubs and different venues, there is a wide variation of returns through machines. It is almost on a case-by-case basis, so it is a very difficult question to answer.
Mr STYLES: Minister, information that has been given to me is that the throughput in the machines in Alice Springs is about half of what it is in Darwin. This indicates to me that if you were going to have a trading scheme, then the machines in Alice Springs are going to have perhaps more value putting them through up here, because there is a much larger turnover through the machines in Darwin than there is in Alice Springs, which brings me back to a situation where you do not have set numbers for different localities.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Sanderson, right through the debate the minister and I have consistently said we are looking at a scheme of regional caps. So, where is your question going?
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, I have constituents asking me if anyone has any idea as to what is going to happen. I ask my question so I can have some information to take back to my constituents. Given that that is the case, will the new cap result in the ability for machines in other areas to be moved around - say for instance from clubs to pubs? Is there any indication as to what this model is? My understanding is, currently in Queensland, there are bidding wars going on at the moment. Minister, can you enlighten me as to whether you or your department are aware of the bidding wars that are occurring in Queensland at the moment in relation to gaming machine licences?
Dr BURNS: I have already indicated, if the member for Sanderson had been listening when I was talking earlier tonight, that I am aware of bidding wars. I am aware of problems in Queensland in what might be called bullying between venues and solutions that Queensland is coming up with to address that issue. We seem to be getting into a lot of detail about the trading scheme. I have said time and time again this evening that government will be moving towards a trading scheme based on the Queensland model; that we will be going out to public consultation not only with the industry but with other organisations. People will be consulted. I am quite sure that, in that process, the member for Sanderson can make submissions if he likes, as well as industry. He can make his views known about what sort of model he would like to see in a trading scheme within the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. On 18 July 2008, you announced that there would be a cap of 1190 gaming machines. Can you inform us under what legislation you actually made that cap of 1190 machines?
Dr BURNS: Under this prospective legislation, member for Sanderson. I make it clear I have already spoken about discussions that I had with the Liquor Commissioner, Mr Richard O’Sullivan. He made it clear that, if government made the clear intent of first announcing the legislation to come into this House, and then through introducing it into this House - and we will pass it here tonight within this House - that gave him sufficient comfort in not processing further applications for gaming machines. A similar thing was done, I might add, before you came into this House, in relation to electronic ID systems in hotels. The industry accepted that quite well. Technically, someone could have raised a legal challenge but, once the intent of government was quite clear, industry accepted that and they were actually quite cooperative.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. It still did not answer the question. Perhaps I could ask the question in a different way. When you introduced the cap of 1190 machines on 18 July 2008, did you use section 194(3) to introduce that particular cap?
Dr BURNS: The answer is no.
Mr STYLES: Minister, what were the arrangements? You said you announced there would be a cap. It was introduced on that date.
Dr BURNS: Member for Sanderson, I have already answered that question. I already told you what the process was and how I signalled my intention to the Liquor Commissioner. He took comfort from both the fact that government was introducing that cap and signalled its intention. He explained how he would handle any prospective applications. I do not think there were any applications in that period except from ones that may have already been in the system. I would need to confirm that.
Mr STYLES: Minister, having said that the consultation process may take to the middle of next year, that is going to be a full year where there will be no applications processed. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: Well, it is very plain there is a cap in place.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, minister. In relation to the taxation arrangements that this amendment makes, if we go to section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations, we repeal and substitute the new taxation regime. Can you or the Treasurer advise us if there are any estimates done on what the reduced tax income to the Northern Territory government will be?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, as I said in my contribution to debate. I will just get back to my desk. It is about $5.1m per year loss of revenue from pubs and about $1.4m for clubs.
Mr STYLES: So that was $5m?
Ms LAWRIE: $5.1m per year for pubs and $1.4m per year for clubs.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, I suppose I am stating the obvious here, but that is a huge windfall for hotels over a period of time where there is no trading scheme in place, and there is no income from any possible trading scheme. Basically, we are just giving $4.5m away to hotels. Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one other thing before we wind up, thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for your forthright comments before. As I said at the outset of my contribution during the second reading of the debate, I was entirely impressed by this report when Treasury brought it out because it was truly a very informative report, particularly several grants and tables.
I ask that you undertake tonight to turn your attention to all wagers made on page 20 of the 2005-06 report, so that the columns for the years 2007 and 2008 be added. I ask you also to undertake tonight that you reproduce the table which appears on page 21 of this report, which is the 2005-06 annual report, adding the columns to bring this information up to date, regarding the player loss for the years 2007 and 2008. Finally, I ask if you could pay particular attention to the table which appears on page 23 of this report, adding the gambling taxes collected, years 2007 and 2008. Minister, will you undertake to provide those three particular items of information, please?
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I need to confer a little more with my officer and I will answer your question.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I will let you confer while I remind honourable members what is in these particular tables. Honourable members, it is truly an astonishing figure. If you turn to this report, page 20, there is the amount wagered by Territorians. With a population of around 200 000 in the year 2002 we, as a community - and this does not include all the illegal games that we see in the parks in the communities in the remote places - wagered $2.3m. By the year 2006, that increased to $4.5m.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I have been assured by people in the department that they will endeavour to pull those three reports together. What you actually have there, I am advised, are three reports. It will not be, obviously, what is in the pipeline now to be tabled next week, but the report after that, which will be next year’s report. We will be reporting it in the format that you have asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, I have to express my disappointment at that. I do not want it next year. This demonstrates how good and informative this report was. The fact is that, in this report, it says that, in the space of four years, we changed our wagering habits from $2.3bn to $4.5bn. By your own admission in this House, by you bringing this cap in, you are saying we have a problem. Territorians have the right to know what the enormity of that problem is. The enormity of that problem is reflected in those three particular statements. To simply say: ‘Oh, come back next year and we will talk about it’, is not good enough. It really is not. I ask you to undertake to this House that you will provide that information as a matter of some urgency so that Territorians can be fully informed as to the magnitude of this particular issue in the Northern Territory. Justify your case – surely, it is worth doing.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, you are talking about three specific tables.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Dr BURNS: All right. What I will endeavour to do is get the department to produce the three specific tables that you have asked for. At some stage - I am not saying at this sittings; it may be the sittings after these sittings, the last sittings of this calendar year - I will endeavour to table those three tables in this parliament. If you want to tell me again specifically which tables they are out of that report, so we are just very clear about that.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I am referring to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission Annual Report 2005-06: Table 10 appearing on page 20 of that document, Turnover All Wagers Made; Table 11, Expenditure Player Loss, page 21 of that document; and, finally, Table 13 on page 23, Gambling Taxes Collected Year Ended 30 June, which is the taxation take by government on wagering in the Northern Territory. Those three specific tables, of course, plus what the legal requirements are under the act.
Dr BURNS: As I said, I will endeavour to get those three tables and table them at the last sittings of this year. The report that is currently in the pipeline, I believe, has been completed. However, I will endeavour to get the information that you want and table it as soon as possible, at the outside, the last sittings of this calendar year.
I should also point out, member for Port Darwin, that the figures that you quote, I would estimate think, not only include gaming machine revenue, but revenue through corporate bookmakers and online betting as well which, obviously, is probably a bit out of the realms of Territorians to come up with that sort of moolah ...
Mr Elferink: It is a bucket load of money!
Dr BURNS: Certainly, it is a lot of money. I have given the undertaking and I hope that satisfies you.
Mr ELFERINK: I am obliged to you, minister. I look forward to receiving that information, thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, as I said before, I would like to also discuss some issues related to section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. The member for Sanderson actually raised an interesting point. Minister, in your reply earlier, you said the reason that there was a reduction in the tax revenue was to offset, basically, the cost of purchasing machines. Is that not correct? If it was not, could you repeat why you were saying that it was okay to have a reduction in the amount of money raised from this taxation process?
Ms LAWRIE: What the Territory government has done with the taxation regime here is to create a regime to allow for the tradability; to get the percentages lining up between the pubs and clubs in the percentage of revenue being paid in tax. It was based on the range of gross monthly profit. Through my contribution, I talked around what those ranges are and what the proposed regime for the taxation is, so that we can have a lining up between the taxation ratings, between the pubs and the clubs, because there was no lining up previously. However, if you have a tradeable scheme you have to have that.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, did you say you are having a lining up of taxation between pubs and club and things like that?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. For example, under the clubs, the $5000 gross monthly profit proposed regime attracts 12.91%; $5001 to $10 000 attracts 12.91% - this is for both pubs and clubs; $10 001 to $50 000 attracts 22.91%; $50 001 to $100 000 attracts 22.91%; $100 001 to $150 000 attracts 32.91%; $150 001 to $200 000 attracts 32.91%; and $200 000-plus attracts 42.91%. We looked at the percentages of the clubs’ regime, we changed the thresholds for the clubs, and adjusted the pubs’ regime over to those percentages.
Mr STYLES: Treasurer, can you enlighten me as to the tax take for the Northern Territory government for the years 2006-07, for hotels and clubs, please?
Ms LAWRIE: On figures provided to me for the year ended 30 June 2007, the total gaming tax for hotels was $8.525m. In addition, they paid the Community Benefit levy - which, under the new regime, they would pay a 10% Community Benefit levy - of $1.986m. The total for the clubs over the same period was $14.759m. That reflects the difference between the pubs having a limit of 10 machines and clubs 45 machines.
Mr STYLES: I am not trying to be cute, but is it possible for you to table that?
Ms LAWRIE: Sure. I am happy to table it.
Mr STYLES: Thank you. It is just easier to read it.
Ms LAWRIE: If you ask me to refer to it again I will not have it in front of me.
Mr STYLES: That is fine, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I need some clarification on an important point. We are, basically, getting rid of section 33 of the Gaming Machine Regulations. Section 33(1) said that Category 1 licensed premises were taxed at 42.91%. I presume that is just a flat tax in that case. Under section 33(2) which is for Category 2 licensed premises, you had a table similar to the table you have now under section 33 of the new act. You got rid of the gaming machines tax under the Gaming Machine Regulations - which is clause 10 of this bill, which says to repeal and substitute Regulation 33 - replaced it with this combined taxation table which says:
- For section 149(3) of the Act, a component of the gross monthly profit of licensed premises are of category 1 or category 2 is liable to tax at the percentage ...
As you said, minister, you have combined the two and you have told us that by combining the two the government will lose a certain amount of money. Is that correct? If that is true, why have we not worked out a percentage of tax, using this combined format, that meant that the government was not worse off in relation to tax loss?
Ms LAWRIE: I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that the government’s intent was not to come out of a tax mutual position here. Clearly, I said that, like other jurisdictions around Australia, we are moving away from reliance on gaming revenue. We recognise the social policy settings in which we view gaming. What we are looking for is the right policy settings. Getting the policy settings we have before us in this bill in place is more important to government than holding on to every bit of gaming revenue we can or, indeed, ratcheting up gaming revenue. We will not be punitive in our approach to the levies that come through the trading scheme. We are intent on establishing an environment in the Territory where we do not see a continued proliferation of gaming machines, and allow for the tradability of the machines that currently exist within the pubs and clubs of the Territory.
Mr WOOD: I did not get that understanding before when I looked at this. It concerns me that the government is willing to lose taxation revenue which could be used for the benefit of those people who are suffering from the abuse of the system. Considering we have now capped the number of machines, it seems a bit strange that we have no problem losing some revenue from taxation. They are already paying that much tax. I have not had complaints from the industry saying: ‘Oh, that is terrible’. But now we have said: ‘Oh, well, we have capped it.’ It is a little like a golden handshake. At the same time of capping it, we have also reduced the amount of tax you pay.
I am not sure I can see the great logic in that, because there was no problem previously. At least I did not have people knocking on my door saying they are paying too much tax. Yet, we have made this reduction in tax and you are going to lose that each year, of course. If it is $5m we are losing in tax this year, it is $5m we are losing in tax next year. I would have thought that is the sort of money we should not be giving away. We should be retaining that amount of taxation and putting that in to help those people, especially, who have gambling problem. I am sure Amity House would be quite pleased to take some of that money. Minister, I cannot see the logic there.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure, it is getting repetitive, but we will persevere. I very clearly heard the Attorney-General say that we recognise that there are not foregone property rights in what we are introducing in the cap but foregone potential revenue, if you like …
Dr Burns: An expansion.
Ms LAWRIE: An expansion. We are capping. There are a whole lot of pubs and clubs out there who are not sitting at their limits. There is a potential 1000 machines, if you want to take it up to their limits. There is potential for expansion. With this legislation today, that has been capped.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify, what you are saying is that you are reducing the tax as a form of compensation for those clubs that, potentially, could have bought more machines. Is that what you are saying?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not using the word ‘compensation’.
Dr Burns: Recognition.
Mr WOOD: If the government is serious it just says: ‘We have capped it, that is our policy, too bad’. That is what you should be saying; the tax stays the same. If you are really serious, the so-called compensation or recognition should not really be overriding the very gist of this bill which was based on the fact ‘that there is a growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole’. We should have just capped it.
We should retain the taxation at that level and we should use that taxation for the very reason this bill is being introduced: an anti-proliferation bill that is concerned about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and society as a whole. That is a retrograde step. To bring down the tax is sending the wrong message to the community. That is saying: ‘We do have a problem. You will not be able to have as many machines, so we will give you a bit of a tax deduction’. I do not think that that is the right message we should be giving out to the public at the moment.
Ms LAWRIE: We do not think that that is the message that we are giving. In terms of the gambling grants, research and amelioration, it has gone from $531 206 in total payments in 2000-01 to $2.467m in 2007-08. The spirit of Syd Stirling is starting to imbue me here because, by this stage he would have been red and he would have been shouting. He was a man of enormous passion about tackling the scourge of gambling in our community. Here we are with legislation in the Chamber that we genuinely have been debating, that we genuinely have been explaining a seismic shift in policy for a Territory government on gaming machines - and you are saying we are sending the wrong messages. Well, we beg to differ.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not saying you are sending the wrong message regarding the capping. You are sending the wrong message regarding taxation. Why should you drop the tax? Why should we reduce the tax? That is how many gaming machines we have; that is the normal amount of tax you would have received. Leave it as it is. Why reduce the amount of tax? That is the message …
Ms LAWRIE: As I have said, all Australian jurisdictions are shifting away from reliance on gaming taxation. You listen to the gaming debates: move away from your reliance on gaming taxation. Well, hello! We are doing it.
Mr WOOD: I thought gambling was a problem. I thought making revenue for governments to raise revenue from taxing gambling was the normal thing. I have not heard of this great change. If it is, I would like to hear the basis on why you think it is not important for governments to take tax from gambling. If the government is simply using that as a freebie, maybe you have a point. We should put that money back into helping people with problems – it may be not only gambling problems, one of the major problems in the Territory is alcohol.
Some of that money should go back into programs which are desperately needed in many parts of our community. We should put it back into programs like petrol sniffing programs and drug rehabilitation. I would rather see that $5m not go back into the hands of the poker machine industry, but go back into those sorts of areas which we desperately need money for. Maybe Amity House has enough money for gambling rehabilitation. I will have to ask them. I know that our society certainly does not have enough money when it comes to alcohol rehabilitation programs in the Territory. We are screaming out for money for those programs. Do not put that $5m back into the hands of the gaming industry; put it back into alcohol rehabilitation if that is what is needed.
I just looked at the figures and profits. The industry does not need that $5m. At the end of 2007, the hotels made a total gross profit of $19.867m. The clubs made a profit of $43.83m. In total, they made $63m, and we are now giving them a $5m discount. On top of that, we have the casinos profit of $104.1m. I do not believe we should be giving them a reduction at all.
On that alone I will not support it, if this is what this means, which I did not understand when I had a briefing. If that is what it means, I will not support a reduction in the taxation through this bill. That is sending the wrong message. We should be using that money for looking after people.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the bill be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Conlan
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Ms Lawrie Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Scrymgour Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the reason we are not supporting this bill, although we are sympathetic to the principal of tax, is that this government has been, to say the least, disingenuous with Territorians.
The media release on 17 September was to advise Territorians that these caps were necessary because of the problem gaming in the Northern Territory, and all those sorts of things. What they did not say was what we finally dredged out of government – it took a while; only got it last Monday - that the powers that the minister claimed that he needed to put a cap on was going to be contained in the legislation he was putting before the House. It has become patently clear and the minister by his own admission has accepted that the powers to put a cap on poker machines were already in existence.
The real question that arose in this debate is what is really driving this particular amendment. In a letter I received last Monday in my office, on my desk - someone had opened the door and put the letter in; that is normally how the stuff arrives - the real issue was buried in the bottom of the letter where it said: ‘the powers in section 22B are drafted in anticipation of a trading model’ ...
Ms Lawrie: It was in the second reading speech.
Mr ELFERINK: No. Reference to a trading model was in the second reading speech. But, the second reading speech was designed to make the reader think there was nothing else, and this was a legislative instrument that was going to enable the minister to be able to put a cap on poker machine numbers - a power he already had.
The minister has come into this place demanding a power that he already has; to establish a trading model we know nothing about. There were some questions asked during the committee stage of this bill about the model and, out of those questions, some details were filled in. The minister has asked the members of this House to do the equivalent of signing a blank contract – ‘Do not worry about it I will fill out the details later’ - on the pretext that he needed a power that he already had.
We, as legislators, have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory to ask critical questions. On this occasion, we have visited this particular issue, asked a few critical questions, and found the government profoundly wanting on some very important details - in particular, the details of the trading scheme that the minister, by his own admission, says that he does not know enough about.
He cannot even tell me the value of the levies. The only reference that he can direct us to is the Queensland model. He has not even come into this House and tabled the Queensland model as a point of reference for us. It is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to take our responsibilities very seriously indeed. We cannot come in here and sign blank cheques for the minister to say: ‘Trust me, I will fill in the blanks later’.
The other thing that I am profoundly concerned about, that has come out as a consequence of this debate - and it goes to the very heart on how this government conducts business - is a letter from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory dated 6 August to Mr A Hay, the President of Clubs NT Incorporated. In that letter the Chief Minister said to Mr Hay:
- I cannot comment on the figures you have provided because I am not permitted to know the individual taxation arrangements of individual taxpayers without their express approval.
There is a whole list of individual taxpayers, and these are the individual taxpayers to whom Mr Hay, as I understand, was referring. It is reprehensible beyond imagination that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory would allow a person who writes to him in all sincerity to form an opinion which is untrue. The Chief Minister needs to contact Mr Hay as a matter of urgency and apologise to him for the disgraceful conduct of signing that letter. This bill demonstrates that the government, in dividing up the Racing, Gaming and Licensing portfolios between two portfolios, has caused mass confusion.
That is why we have the extraordinary situation where I was told at the beginning of this particular debate that the person who would be answering my questions would be the Attorney-General. Yet, because Treasury still carries half of the portfolio responsibility, half of the questions were being answered by the Treasurer. The reason the law is broken by this minister was explained to us as partly because of the breaking up of the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission between two departments. What a three-ringed circus these guys are running.
How could we possibly, as sensible and serious legislators, support a bill in this place which will have the effect of giving the minister a blank cheque when the whole area of the Racing, Gaming and Licensing is in a state of disarray under this government?
I, in no good conscience, could offer the votes of the people of Port Darwin to support this minister in this folly and this deception, and I will not.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with what has come out of this debate. Whilst I have no complaints about the capping of the bill, I believe I have been literally led up the garden path in relation to taxation. I will read from the second reading speech what the minister said in relation to taxation:
- While there will be an initial loss in revenue to the government from the new taxation regime this could be partly offset, in time, with the introduction of the new trading scheme. The details for the trading of machines have not yet been finalised, but will be following consultation with the industry and will include appropriate taxation and levies on trading entities that trade their gaming machines. This will ensure that profits from the gaming machine sector will continue to be put to good use across the Territory.
When I asked that question I did not get that answer. The answer I got from the Treasurer was: ‘Well, we are going to lose this $5m because it is not the policy now of governments in Australia to be relying on that sort of revenue’. We did not get an answer that tax from these machines will continue to benefit the community. In fact, that has not come up in this debate. Basically, what the minister has said is that we are going to introduce a taxation scheme that will give the clubs a $5m windfall because it is not the policy of modern governments to be relying on revenue from gaming. That is what was said. If that is the case, then that is a disgrace.
I ask the government to say here and now whether they made some agreement with the clubs before the election, promising that if they brought in a capping mechanism for poker machines, they would give them a taxation reduction that would, in effect, be a gift of $5m. I would be very concerned if that happened. I cannot see any reason why the clubs should not continue to have the same taxation revenue removed from their profits as is happening now. I do not accept the minister’s argument that that is the modern way other states are doing things and not relying on taxation.
I live in a Territory that has major problems with gambling, alcohol, and drugs. We should not be taking some of that revenue away from an industry which is, basically, sucking money out of people. It is not a productive industry. It is not about growing fruit and vegetables. It is not manufacturing. It is purely an industry based on statistics; that is, you will lose if you put money in there for a few hours - you can guarantee that. If that is the sort of money that people can throw away, then the government should take some of that money and put it back in to help those people who are sucked in to being captives of this industry.
We are dealing with poker machines that are in licensed clubs. Licensed clubs naturally sell alcohol. I have no problems saying we should be putting some of that money into alcohol rehabilitation. We complain, time and time again, about the number of people in prison because of alcohol-related offences. This is sending out a terrible message to people that the clubs will get a $5m windfall, and the people who need to be helped will have $5m less which can be spent on them. I agree that we should cap gaming machines.
I am one who uses the pokies myself every now and then. As I said before, I am not Nick Xenophon. However, I realise that we have major issues in our society, and the way to help with those issues is to raise taxation - not to diminish it - and put it into those areas that we most need. I am very disappointed that the government has done that. That is a retrograde step which sends out the wrong message. For that reason, as I said, I will not support this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
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 Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Low-Cost Housing
Low-Cost Housing
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Drysdale:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: the failure of the Northern Territory government to provide low-cost housing and necessary public housing stock to meet growing demand and the extensive waiting list.
Yours sincerely,
Member for Drysdale.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to present this matter of public importance tonight.
I will tell a story. I came to work yesterday at about 7.30 am and, as I drove in, I saw an amazing sight. It was not the great skyline across the beautiful Darwin Harbour …
A member: The lights were on.
Mr BOHLIN: The lights were still on. It was not the great views as part of The Esplanade. It was, in fact, a poor soul sleeping in their car parked just on the entry road to Parliament House. When I left last night at about 11.00 pm and drove out to my house in Palmerston - my home, my castle - I saw the same person parked in the car park near the exit, all set up for the night.
While I drove home, I felt thankful that I have never really had the rug pulled from under my feet and been left homeless. Today there is no such thing as emergency housing within Territory Housing, with a three- to four-year-plus wait. This is not a response to Territory Housing. It is not a response of a developed nation, and that of a Territory which is supposed to in an era of economic boom. How is it, on one hand, a glowing report card that you, the government, tell the people, ‘We are having a great economic time’, yet, on the other hand, there are people sleeping in cars around the Territory? This is not growing pains, as the Chief Minister would have us believe, but a housing crisis.
Minister for Housing, how many other people are living in their cars? And then, there are those who do not even have cars to sleep in. How many? There is one, for the last two nights, who camped just out here ...
A member: There were five on The Esplanade this morning.
Mr BOHLIN: Five on the Esplanade this morning, thank you.
We are not talking about people caught up in urban drift. We are talking about the underbelly of our social backbone. Many have full- or part-time employment but, for many reasons, some of which are of their own cause, they have no home. They go to work, like many of our friends, but have no home. I have taken time to speak with both Mission Australia and Somerville Community Services recently, and I will continue to speak with other agencies. I spoke to the people working the floors, and they told me many stories. Some were from within their own ranks, some are friends and people they personally know.
One such story, among many, was of the service only being able to supply a tent for a complete family – a tent for a complete family - because they have no more emergency housing. No more emergency housing is available, so they can only supply a tent for that family. Even getting camping grounds, they do not get a generator, but just a tent. Getting a space in a caravan park is getting difficult now. We can supply a new tent for emergency housing to our people - to the Northern Territory people.
Why? With the Northern Territory Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement, funding public housing stock between 1996-97 to 2005-06, to the tune of nearly $135m as a base funding - and that base funding does not include Community Housing Programs, Aboriginal Rental Housing Programs, or Crisis Accommodation Programs. We have seen the Territory buck the national figure, where the housing stock is lower today than in 1996-97.
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, I will concede, up-front, that until the election in 2001, the CLP also sold large numbers of stock.
Mr Vatskalis: Twelve hundred houses in two years.
Mr BOHLIN: However, there was a consistent swing of decreases and increases of stock …
Mr Vatskalis: Twelve hundred houses over two years, and not one built!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BOHLIN: … yet, that swing stopped once this government took hold of the reins. Since 2001-02 through to this year, there has been a solid decrease in stock numbers - down, down, down.
Since the peak in 1997-98 of 8072 houses in stock, to today, 2007-08, the numbers are only 5288. That means 2784 fewer homes, and Territory Housing estimates, for 2008-09, it will continue to drop to 5251. That would be 2821 fewer homes in Territory Housing stocks.
We have nearly four-year waiting lists, people living in their cars, and families being offered a tent as crisis accommodation, as there is no other accommodation available. We keep reducing stock levels. With the pending sale of 16 units on Emery Avenue, recently advertised for sale, that is 16 families without housing and, as they are empty and have been for some time, that is 32 or more people capable of being housed right now. Much better than a tent, one would think.
Approximately 16 units in Blain Street in Tennant Creek have been empty for two years. A source suggests potentially 20 in Tennant Creek. They are not in mass disrepair; many have been refurbished. Perhaps another 30 people could be housed there. There are 60-odd units in Parap, I believe at the Wirrina flats where, potentially, 120 people will be displaced, with no plan of relocation at this time. Yet, we are going to run a bulldozer through it.
Mr Knight: Have you been there?
Mr BOHLIN: I am not saying that they are great, but you have no plan of where you are going to put 120 people. Where are 120 people going to go? Maybe we can buy another 120 tents. The member for Katherine tells me that he knows of at least seven empty houses in Katherine, and that is without searching around and looking.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Closer to a dozen.
Mr BOHLIN: It could be closer to a dozen - thank you for that. There are housing problems in Katherine as well. That is family homes, no tent required with those.
Not to forget Alice Springs where there is limited stock of houses, and in a state that sometimes resembles a rubbish tip, with no control and many in disrepair.
The Northern Territory Housing Annual Report 2006-07 titled Reporting on our Performance. How is it that in the public’s eye in a performance that is poor, that we are still decreasing stock in today’s climate? I point out that I am not an economic whiz but, in America, many people are becoming homeless right now. We are now continuing to reduce our stock, just in case that happens here. Let us get rid of our housing stock.
I thank the Housing Minister for answering the question posed to him today during Question Time on the Northern Territory HomeNorth scheme, which is based under Territory Housing and implemented financially through TIO. It was great to see a proactive spruik by this government less than an hour after I had a meeting with Territory Housing and HomeNorth Xtra. It is great to see that my questions of these executives today prompted you to make comments about reviews that you are going to carry out. Thank you for that. I appreciate you have brought that up now. One hour or so after I had a conversation with him and bought up these issues and suggested reviews needed to be made into the scheme and elements of that scheme, he decides to bring it to the Chamber. I appreciate he has acted so promptly and indicated there will be reviews, because there needs to be further reviews since housing is not affordable.
The scheme is good in foundation but is still lacking. It is great to see some people are eligible for the HomeNorth Xtra scheme. However, one example put to these executives today - and I accept that without the appropriate calculators or other supporting documentation this information is not qualified - I received a dramatically different financial position for an amount a person could borrow on a home through the HomeNorth scheme, to that given to a person two months ago by the service provider, TIO. I got one figure today, and the person in question got a totally different figure only a couple of months ago through the TIO provider - a difference of $53 000 to $63 000 on the same figures provided.
Yes, we have had an interest rate decrease and, yes, there has been an increase in the federal First Home Buyers Grant, and we are, hopefully, going to get a further decrease in interest rate figures in the near future. But $53 000 to $63 000 difference is a huge difference in anyone’s term. This, by itself, is a concern to me; that two elements of the same scheme can come up with huge marginal differences. I have asked for a proper clarification on those figures and we can wait for that. However, it alarms me that, on basic figures, there are huge differences.
Here are just some quick figures to support the HomeNorth scheme. In the year 2007-08, there were 82 new HomeNorth Xtra sales made. So far, year to date, there has been 30. The Territory Housing Annual Report indicates massive decreases since 2005-06. Reading this report, maybe I get this report wrong, but it is the annual report 2006-07 from the Internet …
A member: Got it off the Net?
Mr BOHLIN: It was not hard. New home ownerships under the scheme for 2005-06 was 406; in 2006-07 they dropped to a target of 145; and actuals for 2006-07 were 146. We are not looking anywhere closer than that …
- The actual number and value of loans in 2006-07 is less then expected due to an increase in property prices and a decline in home loan affordability in the Northern Territory.
It says it in the report; it is your report.
On ABC radio this morning - at about 7.15 am to 7.20 am, so you can look it up - an industry person claimed that, for Territory Housing to build a home at the moment would cost them about $340 000. That is before land costs. So, if it is $340 000 plus $340 000, that is $680 000 for the next Territory Housing house you will be selling off. We cannot afford to buy or build in Bellamack either. Maybe I exaggerate, but you never know. That is in today’s climate, and let us hope it does not change much.
We, the Territory people, need land available now - not in 12 months. We need it now, or at least by February or March 2009. You have had plenty of time; you have been spruiking about releasing this land. Let us get it moving so that we can have it. We need to have Territory Housing slabs being poured in the first few months of next year. We need to prepare ourselves. We need to plan. We need to have affordable housing models arranged by the first few months of next year. We really need it today, so that people can sleep with the belief that this government is truly following the Territory Housing business line of public housing outcomes which is: ‘access to safe, secure and affordable housing for Territorians’ – all Territorians.
Well, I am sorry. They do not sleep well for the rain on the tents, rain coming through the window of the car, or simply the wind that blows the rain under the eaves of wherever they have sought refuge for the night. Have they failed this very simple business line to supply access to safe, secure and affordable housing for all Territorians? The answer, Madam Speaker, is on the street. It is on the street tonight when you go home.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the scenarios the member for Drysdale has used. This government - and I am sure many other governments over time and throughout the world – is confronted with housing and homelessness issues. It is an increasing problem in Australia. It is interesting that when the Rudd government was elected last year, they made homelessness one of the biggest issues that Kevin Rudd wanted to address. He sent his ministers back into their electorates to see what was happening in their own electorates throughout Australia regarding homelessness and housing affordability.
I have been to one Ministerial Council already and I have another one this month. The Chief Minister has been to COAG, and homelessness and crisis accommodation and affordable housing has been front and centre from the federal Labor government. It is something that, having been …
Mr Tollner: Hasn’t reduced the price of petrol yet, has it?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, all right.
When I got the …
Mr Tollner: They produced the inflation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: I just wonder whether it was you sleeping in the car out there, member for Fong Lim. I do not think it has anything to do with homelessness.
Madam Speaker, when I got this portfolio, the Chief Minister made it very clear to me and to other members of Cabinet that he wanted to take public housing, crisis accommodation, and affordable housing very seriously. A body of work is being pulled together. The Chief Minister has made it very clear that we have to deliver, and deliver soon.
It is a huge task to undertake. It is exacerbated in the Territory, and particularly in Darwin, by our strong economy - a strong economy which has really grown over the last few years. This has increased property values. People are coming to Darwin in their droves looking to participate in the very strong economy generated by this Labor government. Obviously, we have to cater for those new homebuyers coming into the market. It is putting pressure on two areas: (1) the home purchase area, and (2) the rental market. We are trying to tackle housing affordability on a number of fronts.
Our housing affordability is a central issue of this government. Part of that is getting more stock out there. We have had a number of announcements. One is Bellamack, 700 blocks going on to the market, of which 15% will be for affordable and public housing. Those blocks will come on to the market, I believe, in the first half of next year. They will be followed up, and work is being done, on those other suburbs of Mitchell, Johnston and Zuccoli, with some 3000 blocks; Berrimah farm, 650 blocks; and the Lyons development, with another 300 blocks. Larapinta and Mt John Valley in Alice Springs are going ahead, so there are more land releases. This is government looking forward to …
Mr Elferink: But when?
Mr Mills: You live in a fantasy world.
Mr KNIGHT: I told you, if you were listening.
Mr Tollner: There are also a couple of schools at Rosebery.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Fong Lim, I do hope you speak on this statement ...
Mr Tollner: Six hundred kids go to one of them, 800 go to another.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: This government has roughly 5000 blocks in the pipeline, which will come on to the market to cater for future growth in the marketplace.
One of the other aspects is HomeNorth. This government is committed to helping Territorians buy their own home, and our HomeNorth Xtra scheme is specifically focused on the middle- to low-income earners. As I stated in the House today, almost 1100 Territory households have been bought since 2004 through this scheme. To date this year, 30 households have bought with an improved rate, reflecting the improved introduction since Budget 2008-09. We have raised the income threshold and lifted the price cap, better reflecting the market conditions.
We passed on the full 1% interest rate cut to HomeNorth customers, repeating what I said today. It is a saving of $100 per month on an average home loan of $140 000. The important factor of HomeNorth Xtra is this careful assessment of Territorians’ capacity to repay the loan. A default rate of less than 1% is a testament to that. It is a good scheme. It is one that we keep an eye on. We have modified it now twice and, obviously, we will be looking at the market conditions about how we can improve it, as you should, into the future.
We are also looking at tax benefits for people moving into the homebuyer market. We have cut the stamp duty for all Territorians, we have increased the stamp duty threshold for first homebuyers to $385000, and this is a concession of up to $15 000. It is welcomed by those first homebuyers. Also, there have been a number of schemes that the Labor federal government have announced in and around the increases to the First Home Buyers Grant. With that federal grant, in Palmerston alone, there are over 300 vacant lots that are eligible for the full $21 000 offer by Prime Minister Rudd.
One of the other areas is public housing developments. This government recognises the need to address the way public housing is delivered across the Northern Territory. This will be part of the work that the Chief Minister has asked me and other ministers to pull together around these issues. One of those areas has been mentioned by the member for Drysdale. He seems to dislike, and I know that his party do not like what this government is proposing at Parap, at Wirrina. I have been there and met the tenants. I have seen the aged facility there - and I do not mean the people; I mean the infrastructure. It is dangerous, it is very old design, it is something that needs to be changed. I congratulate the member for Fannie Bay for his leadership role in this project. We have the foresight to do something about the poor social housing model. Having high density hot spots of social housing just does not work, either for individuals, the complex in its entirety, or the community around it.
Mr Mills: Do the people there know where they are going?
Mr Bohlin: We do not dispute that; we want to know where the people are going to go.
Mr KNIGHT: I know you do not like it. You keep objecting to it. It is a good model. I hope you have a good look at it and that you support the government in that type of social housing change because the hot spots do not work. There is a plan for the decanting of those people whilst construction takes place. We will be building more stock there. We have many good people working on this whole project.
With respect to Emery Avenue, there are four units occupied at the moment; two are moving out in the next two weeks, and the other two will be moving out after that. So, there are not 16 families who are going to be kicked out into the street. That was a ridiculous statement. This gives us the opportunity to get some affordable housing out there. The two-bedders will go on the market for around about $220000 to $240 000, so that is well within the HomeNorth cap. The income that people could earn was around $40 000, so people who are earning $40 000 could buy one of those. Emery Avenue is a good location …
Mr Bohlin: That is not what your industry expert told my candidate the other day.
Mr KNIGHT: Your candidate? Do you have candidates now?
Mr Bohlin: My constituent. $207 000.
Mr KNIGHT: I did a media conference, member for Drysdale, and I am happy to produce the figures. I stated that they will go for $220 000 to $240 000. You work backwards from the formulas and you arrive at those. It is different for couples with dependants, and so on, but that is a good result. That gets 16 individuals interested in affordable housing right next door to the Sacred Heart Primary School where my daughter goes, and where the member for Nelson’s wife worked, and where their grandchildren go, I believe. It is a great school. It will be a great buy soon for someone with a small family. It also generates some income that we can use on other Territory Housing developments. There still needs to be work done on that.
There is a huge need for seniors accommodation in Palmerston. That is something I would like to see the revenue go to. In doing that, that allows us to free up a great many three-bedroom homes in the northern suburbs which are occupied by seniors - either as a single person or as a couple. This project at Emery Avenue gets us affordable housing, some brand new seniors’ accommodation possibly, and frees up some three-bedroom homes in the northern suburbs. The model that we have used with both Wirrina and for Emery will go into plans for future developments to get more stock out there both in the public housing and the affordable housing areas.
With respect to our public housing stock, currently we have 5268 public housing dwellings across the Northern Territory and another 330 properties are leased to community and crisis accommodation agencies. Since 2002, the Northern Territory public housing stocks have decreased by 13% from 6062 to 5268 dwellings. More than half of these have been sold to tenants of those premises, which has allowed those low-income earners to get into the housing ownership market, which is great to see.
The member for Drysdale put his hand up - and good on him - for their time in government when, in the last few years of their government they averaged 340-odd property sales a year. In our first years of government, we only averaged 130, so we certainly were not keeping up with the huge sell-off that was experienced under the last few years of the CLP government. One of the other important factors in all that, member for Drysdale, for a bit of history for you, is that we put all our money back into public housing stock and the CLP put back very little of that money ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I have the figures; I have quoted them …
Mr Elferink: Do you know this is a policy that Syd Stirling actually supported? Do you know why? He supported it because he realised the sale of some assets were going into the building of different types of assets because there was a different demographic …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The minister has the call.
Mr KNIGHT: That all happened at the time the member for Port Darwin was in the party, contributing to the philosophy of selling off public housing stock in large chunks. We are working with the federal government. I said from the outset that it has only been …
Mr Tollner: You just make it up as you go along.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Order! Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair. Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Are you going to get up and talk, member for Fong Lim? I would like to hear your contribution.
From the start of my contribution, I highlighted that the federal Labor government, after coming into office last year, made housing affordability and homelessness its highest priority. That has not been the case for many years …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It is interesting the information that gets discussed at these Ministerial Council meetings. There have been some calculations done that, over the years of the Howard government, they actually ripped off all the states and territories to the tune of $425m in their recurrent funding. That is an absolute disgrace. The Howard government, the government that the member for Fong Lim was part of, ripped off base funding to the states and territories for public housing obligations to the tune of $425m. That is an absolute disgrace.
It has only been the Rudd government that has put this issue front and centre for being resolved. This Henderson government is making housing affordability for both purchase and rent an extremely high priority. We are doing something about it. We have land release, we have public housing renewal, and we have a great low-income home ownership scheme.
What is lacking in this debate is any sort of policy from the other side of the House …
Mr Tollner: What about employing nurses? Does that get a run?
Mr KNIGHT: I would be illuminated. I hope the member for Fong Lim could give us his contribution about the policy of the possible CLP government …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Mills: It is an excellent policy.
Mr KNIGHT: I will wait to hear your policy on public housing, homelessness and home affordability …
Mr Elferink: And you would want that because you do not have one?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Essentially, there is a hearing problem here, Madam Speaker, and the member for Katherine has just woken up. I have detailed right from the start about our housing affordability, our land release, our home ownership program. Also, in this House less than a month ago, I talked about our support for crisis accommodation. The member for Drysdale ...
Ms Carney: You support everything, but you do not do anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: If you listened, member for Araluen …
Ms Carney: Oh, go and save a whale!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Araluen, countless times in this House, I talked about the amount of money that we are putting in to non-government organisations which are providing crisis accommodation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it is to the people who are providing crisis accommodation: Katherine Women’s Crisis Centre, St Vincent De Paul, YWCA, Dawn House, Tennant Creek Women’s Refuge, Anglicare - a whole range of non-government organisations providing crisis accommodation. There is support going to those organisations which are best suited to provide crisis accommodation, because they provide ancillary services around the accommodation itself.
Madam Speaker, this government is doing a huge amount of work in this area, and we will continue to do so. Watch this space; we have a lot more to come.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this matter of public importance, as has been originally highlighted by my colleague, the member for Drysdale. Public housing in the Territory is at an all-time low, with public waiting lists getting longer, housing stock decreasing, and a public housing private rental market becoming chronic in affordability and access.
There is a problem, and it is a big problem, and it is getting worse. The waiting lists for public houses or units are pushing over to three years plus, as we have heard. Houses are being left vacant for extended periods of time such as the Blain Street units in Tennant Creek, which we heard about, for nearly two years. Then the Emery Avenue units - yes they were sold, yes, there were a couple were rented, but there were 16 units. One of my constituents, an elderly lady, has a property in Cunjevoi Street, Nightcliff that her daughter and family live in. Opposite them is a public housing house that has been vacant for nearly two years. That is just an example of some of the public housing that we have on our book but, for some reason that is not being articulated by government and the minister, they are either not being maintained or let to people who are in need.
We have had 110 units taken off line in Fannie Bay and 16 in Palmerston. Where are those people going to go? Where are they going to be relocated?
Much of the Territory Housing accommodation is in a sad state of disrepair. Many are not maintained, if maintained at all. It comes back to the maintenance schedule. It has been left wanting, at best and, at worst, completely neglected - a bit like our power and water system – with slow release of land, if not no release of land anywhere, to provide this magical affordable housing.
We have the highest rate of overcrowding in the country in the Territory, and the ensuing issue of mobility between the remote and urban communities. Some would argue that this problem has become worse following the intervention, with more people moving from communities to regional towns and centres, and moving into house and units with families and friends. We have, as we know, extraordinarily low vacancy rates, which means not much accommodation is available to rent even if people wanted to rent. Of course, the current prosperous times for private property rental means that much of that type of accommodation is out of reach for many people.
Some of the other issues we have with our public housing is that they are just not managed well. In Alice Springs, there are many problem streets of public housing including Heidenrich Court, Ptilotus Crescent, Kulgara Crescent, Bougainvillea Drive, Kurrajong Drive, Spearwood Road, and Hibiscus Street. These all have public housing. Some of the public housing properties in these streets have become suburban town camps - hundreds of empty beer cans. I have been to Alice Springs and I have gone to these areas. There is filth, rubbish, parties all night. Children are up all night, running amok, while parents are drinking and having a good time.
Most responses to complaints of nearby residents are not being addressed. People are being warned but not evicted. In some cases, the problem has been continuing for months, with no remedy, no redress. The public housing in these streets, as in some of the streets in Darwin and Palmerston, is affecting everyone, and it is creating social and community disharmony.
These are just some of the issues currently before the Territory. We know we have the highest uptake of public housing in the country - about 8% of our total housing tenure type - and 35% in public housing are Indigenous households. Perhaps this is due to the legacy of our history of being a public service town; more due to this government, however, moving public housing concept from the general public and housing to housing for low-income and disadvantaged people and families. Perhaps this is due to the pressure also from the federal government for the territories and state governments to establish policies for those most in need. Maybe that is so, and perhaps that is not a bad thing. However, it means people in public housing tend to be on pensions, and are least likely to be able to afford increasing rents to meet rising maintenance costs.
Most of the states seek to get a mix of low-income earners and the needy into public housing. In the past, new dwellings were added every year, increasing the amount of public housing, but this is not happening now in the Territory. We are losing public housing, and the government has failed to address the issue in any systematic and coherent manner. This government has not invested very much in new public housing over the last five to 10 years. Old stock has not been replaced, and existing stock has been increasingly targeted at those most in need. What happens to those who are not in so urgent need and who want to live in public accommodation? What happens to the woman who lives in the northern suburbs with seven children who was turfed out of her accommodation because the landlord put up the rent?
Some may argue that many of these issues currently being experienced are out of the government’s control. I argue to the contrary. Most, if not all, are under government’s control, it is just that this government has no control, no real control over their agencies, has no plans, and has no decent policy for future directions in public housing.
Government talks about affordable housing, but what does that exactly mean? I will tell you, Madam Speaker and, for the benefit of the member for Barkly, it comes from a report, Levers to Promote Affordable Housing in the Northern Territory. Their definition is:
- … accommodation that is appropriate for low-income households in terms of size, standards, and access to services and facilities. Under this definition, housing is only truly affordable if it is well serviced, well-located, safe, secure, and accessible to people in need.
How does that definition fit with our Territory Housing? It does not. Our public housing is not safe, not secure, not well serviced, not affordable, and not accessible due to the inefficiencies of government in delivering sound public housing.
New land is not available. Rental people living in public housing are taking up options to buy, depleting the stocks even more. Government has no clear policy on public housing as we move into the next phase of the Territory’s growth. Government has no clear policy or position on our ageing population. The demand from older people for public housing has not yet peaked in the Territory. Older people have higher and changing expectations. Many will need support, and the size of their housing unit is too small, below community standards, and no longer meets the expectations of the elder and older people. What will happen to these people in the near future?
We are not facing a crisis in public housing. We have and are in a crisis of public housing. This government has failed to act, and the people are suffering as a consequence. We should not be surprised that we have serious social issues. We should not be surprised that we have escalating crime rates, as research from all parts of the country will tell us that there is a definite and direct link between poor public housing systems procedures policy and crime and social upheaval.
Adding to all these issues and problems, we now have a situation where this government has taken it upon itself to discriminate against the people who live in the rural area who, by choice, live in a structure called ‘a shed’. It has been well accepted for many years that rural people build sheds to live in, and we know that these sheds have been built properly and soundly. No self-respecting caring couple is going to accommodate their family in an unsound structure. Nor would they scrimp on safety in the structural design. It just would not happen.
Why has the government been sending out their officious and bumptious officials who threaten to evict residents in front of children and, without permission, taken photos and videos of their property? Where is the evidence that these structures are not up to standard? Where is the evidence that proper processes have not been followed by the builders and the owners? All the builders I have spoken to are qualified, competent, and provide certified dwellings.
The actions of the building department have been outrageous and caused an enormous amount of grief to many of my constituents and the constituents of my colleague, the member for Nelson, which has been unwarranted, uncalled for, unnecessary, and boarding on illegal in their potentially trespassing activities.
Where are these people meant to go, once they have been evicted from their property? Go into public housing? No, sorry, full up. Into caravan parks? No, they are full too. The only possible place for accommodation will be sharing with friends or family, resulting in overcrowding issues and associated problem, or living in their cars in public places, like friends and family who are living at the back of Parliament House.
Madam Speaker, all these issues I have spoken about are symptomatic of a major problem; that is, this government’s inability to plan and its ability to spectacularly fail when it comes to public housing policy settings, accommodation requirements, and protecting rural life style.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government will say many good things about what they do. I am not going to say some of those good things do not help. I have to look at the statistics, and that is the proof of the pudding, if we are making the Territory an affordable place for people to live.
I take up the issue of public housing. I tried to find out, for instance, how many people are on the waiting list. I would not expect that to be something that would be covered by the terrorism act, or ASIO, but you cannot get the information on how many people are on the waiting list. I put the minister on notice. I would like to find out how many people are on the waiting list for public housing in the Northern Territory.
I cannot find that important information, so I have to look up the wait times. NT Shelter presented a document to the Senate select committee earlier this year, and they quoted some of the waiting lists for three-bedroom homes in the Northern Territory. In November 2005, the waiting list for a three-bedroom house in Alice Springs was 34 months; in July 2006 it went down to 25 months; in March 2008 it went to 39 months; and according to this, the latest off the web today, it is now 44 months. So, on it goes. I picked a three-bedroom home because, if you want to have a family, I assume that is the type of regular house you need. In Darwin and Casuarina, it was 25 months in 2005, 28 months in 2006, 40 months in March 2008, and 44 months in September - nearly four years to wait for a three-bedroom house.
I looked at a one-bedroom pensioner unit in Palmerston. I am asked quite often by people who cannot stay in the rural area, who would like to get on the waiting list for a one-bedroom unit in Palmerston. In 2005 it was 21 months, in 2006 it was 23 months, in March 2008 it was 33, and according to this now it is 40 months – 3 years. As one person said to me recently, a pensioner: ‘I will be dead by the time I get my one-bedroom flat’.
If things are so good in the Territory, if we are keeping up with the demand, why do we have such long waiting lists? I expect to have a waiting list, but why is it getting worse not better, if the government says everything is okay? The government has also said that it is going to knock down various Housing lots. Some of them they are selling. I have no problem with them selling Territory Housing houses to people who are on a low income. But, surely, if it says they reduced the number of houses by 13% since 2002, at least you would have thought they have increased the number of houses in the public domain by 13%, to try to keep the status quo. However, they are continually going down. The figures show it; we are losing public stock. That is part of the reason we have a long waiting list.
It is also proof of the pudding that land affordability and housing in the Northern Territory is getting harder and harder. That is why we need to see the numbers of people on the waiting lists. The waiting lists get longer because people cannot afford a piece of land or to buy their own house.
People have heard me say that I believe the system of selling land, particularly Crown land in the Northern Territory, is the wrong way to go. It was introduced by the previous government; it has been brought to a fine art by this government where Crown land from a government’s point of view is actually worth nothing. You can put the value you like on it when you own your own block of land, and they own the Crown land. They can add value to that land by putting water, sewerage, roads next to it and, then, if they want to put on a market price they can. If you own a block of land you can sell that land at any price you wish. The government has Crown land, so what does it do? It sells it off to a developer as they are doing with Bellamack. That developer has to recover that huge amount of money he has spent buying that land, and that is how the cost is passed on to people - especially first homeowners. He will sometimes sell that land to a builder who wants 20 blocks, who will also put his little layer on top. So, up and up and up the land goes and, then, someone has to buy a house on top of that.
I believe the system is no good. We should be able to sell land much cheaper than we do. I do not think the government is going to accept the principle that the government should be able to retain some land itself when it is doing those subdivisions, and sell them purely at the cost of developing it - that is, putting in the water, sewerage and electricity - maybe with a small margin to those people who fit certain criteria. The government does not seem to want to do that. If it does not want to go down that path, it should investigate how much it is costing Territorians to buy land in, say, the new suburbs of Palmerston compared to the actual cost of the land itself.
I had figures today from an ex-developer - he has not developed any land for a while - who estimates it would cost a developer around $50 000 to put in the water, sewerage, electricity and bitumen road for a block of land in Palmerston. There are some other levies. There would probably be some land taxes and some taxes from the council. Then, he would have to recover a portion of the amount of money for which he bought the land from the government. The amount of money he paid the government to buy that land in the first place would be divided up by the total number of blocks.
So, say $70 000 and then he wants a profit on top of that. All right. What is a reasonable profit? Maybe 20% - another $20 000, $30 000. If he took $30 000 profit, he would be at about $100 000 it would have cost him to get that land ready to sell. What does land sell for in Palmerston? It sells upwards of $240 000, $270 000, $320 000. The government should be investigating what the cost is of developing land in Palmerston compared to what land is being sold for. I do not have a problem with businesses making money, but you have to remember the land that is developed in Palmerston is Crown land. It is our land, the people’s land, that the government has already sold to someone who makes enormous profits which, in the end, means it is much harder for Territorians whose land it was in the first place, to buy a portion of it. We should investigate where we are going with the way we sell land in the Northern Territory.
It is obvious that people cannot buy. There might be people who have bought homes down south and sold them and come here to invest. There might be two public servants on fairly high levels of wages who might not have any children who can afford it. They can live in Lyons but not many other people can. They might be from the Defence Forces, who have subsidised housing. But the ordinary bloke who might be the mechanic working for the local garage, a truck driver, or he might move a few cattle around the Territory and his wife might stay at home - he is the person who struggles.
The member for Goyder mentioned the issue about the shed. That person in the shed had to buy a block of land at about $270 000 on a HomeNorth loan and about $50 000 to build a house. You tell me where you can build a house in Palmerston for $50 000. They would not let you. So, he built a shed and got it upgraded to a house to code. However, even if he did not, it shows you that people are struggling. I do not have a problem with people living in a shed. Sometimes, the government should butt out. I do not think a builder should say to people: ‘I am building you a house’. If the builder builds a shed, he should be very clear and say: ‘This has no Certificate of Occupancy. You should not live in this shed, especially if there is a cyclone. I have only built you a shed’. If he builds you a house he should say: ‘I have built you a house’ and have the Certificate of Occupancy. After that, it is not his responsibility.
I would rather poor people living in a shed, who could go to a cyclone shelter in a cyclone, and at least have a roof over their head on a block of land they can call their own, than have them on the street or have them in Somerville emergency accommodation. There are times when government should be wise in the way it uses its rules, especially when people are struggling to make ends meet and to put a shelter over their heads.
There are a number of people in the rural area now applying for granny flats. That is a reflection of what is happening. I would also love to know how many people have their children and grandchildren living with them. I say quite a few. Granny flat applications, I believe - and I am only giving anecdotal evidence here, but I do see planning notices go past my office quite regularly - are going up because people’s children cannot afford to buy. That, to me, is the real evidence that shows you that people cannot afford to buy land.
The Treasurer has been talking about the rural land and how many blocks are available. Well, they are $270 000 upwards. It is not encouraging people on the land. I have asked the Treasurer to open up some of the forestry land into one hectare blocks, which she could sell at cost price, which would enable young families to get a start and have a semi-rural lifestyle, which would be a great way for young people to start. Not in a crowded place like some parts of Palmerston and Darwin where you can hardly grow a tree because it would have to squeeze up between the eaves, or you cannot play cricket in the back yard unless it is very mini-cricket. I believe the rural area is a great place to raise families. Look at the crime rates. We do not have no crime, but we certainly have a lot less crime than in other parts of the Territory.
There was mention of other forms of accommodation. Well, caravan parks. We closed down Sundowner. Those people had to find a place. We found places for some of them. The rumour is that Shady Glen is going. What happens to all the people at Shady Glen? What do people have to pay now for being permanent at a caravan park? That has increased considerably. Because rents have gone up, people have started to look at caravan parks, and we know the cost of renting is so high that it is impossible for young families.
Minister, I know the government has the HomeNorth system. I know the government says it is opening up land. However, when I hear it say there will only be 15% of the land in Bellamack for public housing, and they are going to reduce the price by 15% or something – I am not sure; there will be a lower price. Listening to the ABC, if you have a block of land at $280 000 and you chop off $15 000, you still have a pretty expensive block.
I really think we need to inquire into the actual cost of servicing land in the Northern Territory. Let us start to come back. Let us do the things that we can do; do not rely on the market. We need to ensure that land is cheaper, because land itself does not help the economy. The economy is helped when people can build a house on land. That is the start of purchasing – the whitegoods; the television, the chairs, the rotary clothesline - although looking around Palmerston lately, the new southern developers do not allow rotary clothesline. It is not the right thing in some areas …
A member: Not enough room.
Mr WOOD: Well, probably not enough room, but does not go along with the black roofs, the green verandah, the look-alike southern suburb. For some reason, Hills hoists have gone out the door. I would have thought they would have been good in this part of the world for reducing carbon emissions.
I also look at places like Somerville. I went to the opening of one of Somerville‘s new establishments, and I also went to an open day. One of the questions we asked was about emergency shelters. Somerville has two houses for families who have no shelter. I asked the lady in charge of Somerville: ‘What happens when they are full?’ They can only stay there for four months, I think it is, and after that they are out. I said: ‘What happens to them?’ She said: ‘You will find them in a caravan park living in a tent’. It amazes me that, when we talk about things like INPEX with $25bn of input, and the wealth of the Territory, that we cannot put shelters over people. We talk about employment being great in the Territory, but we conveniently forget many of the isolated Aboriginal communities which have high unemployment.
We tend to look at the gloss, at the Lyons suburb, at the new suburbs in Palmerston, and we think all is roses, but it is not. When you dig down deep, you have long waiting times for public housing. You have unaffordable land. You have people staying home with Mum and Dad because they cannot buy. The reality is one thing; the government might believe another thing. We must do something. We need to make some radical changes. We can do it if we start to really look at the cost of developing land, and we have to put a bigger effort into public housing in the Northern Territory. Things can be done, it just needs a will.
We need not be worrying about the market. That always irks me, coming from a Labor Party. We should be helping the battlers, the families, and the first homeowners. They should be the priority – not the market all the time. The market is important but it is not the end the world. It might be if Wall Street crashes, but we will not have any control over that. However, we do have control over our own future, and we should do something about it.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for raising this topic as a matter of public importance. I am very pleased to be able to respond, particularly in terms of my own electorate which, of course, is a bush electorate. Before I do, there are a couple of matters I would like to bring to the member for Drysdale’s attention.
The waiting list for public housing is 36 months. We are trying to do more about this, but this is amongst the lowest waiting time in the country. There are some jurisdictions that have waiting lists of up to 15 years.
The price cap that the member for Drysdale inquired about regarding the review of HomeNorth, is reviewed regularly, as the member for Drysdale was told during his lunchtime briefing, and that the next review is scheduled for around November ...
Mr Bohlin: I did welcome that.
Ms WALKER: You need to be careful with the cap, as it is about getting people into home ownership, not into home stress. It is about fitting the cap within the means of low- to medium-income people, because we will not set Territorians up to fail.
A couple of points also about homelessness. We are rolling out practical measures to respond to homelessness. We have set up short-term managed accommodation options, with facilities specifically for homeless people, and we are working towards a tenancy sustainability and support program to assist people into sustainable living solutions.
There is a National Action Plan on Homelessness being developed by the Prime Minister, as my colleague, the minister, has already referred to. The plan aims to substantially reduce homelessness by addressing the individual and structural barriers that lead to homelessness. Three main strategies are being explored in this area. The first is prevention and early intervention to stop people becoming homeless. The second is to break the cycle of homelessness to help people get back on to their feet. The third is connecting the service system by driving integration, introduction and outcomes-focused approach. My colleague, the Minister for Housing, will be travelling to the ministers’ conference next month to progress this work. I look forward to hearing his feedback from there.
As I was talking about my electorate, the member for Drysdale is quite correct, there certainly is a need for affordable accommodation to meet not only the demand, but also to reduce waiting lists. In Indigenous communities in particular, we need to meet the needs of chronic overcrowding. I am concerned about people who are sleeping in cars and tents for want of a roof over their head. I am just as concerned about communities where there might be 20 people living in a house and, yes, using a tent to supplement their housing for additional family members.
I am pleased to be part of a government that is focusing both on delivering new housing stock and also on rebuilding and refurbishing stock that is in disrepair. The East Arnhem region has been earmarked for around $51m to be spent over the next few years as part of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Project, better known by its acronym SIHIP. SIHIP, as I am sure the member for Drysdale knows, is a joint initiative of the federal and Territory governments which will see $647m to build new houses and to refurbish existing houses in communities across the Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: We are deceiving him with facts again.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms WALKER: SIHIP will cover 73 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. $420m will be invested in major works in 16 communities, including additional service land and related essential services infrastructure, new additional and replacement housing, and refurbishment of existing housing. Fifty-seven communities have been selected to receive refurbishments to existing housing valued at $124m. A further $103m will be directed to those living in urban living areas, what we probably more commonly refer to as town camps. We know that $647m is not sufficient to address the housing problems for all NT communities and all Territorians, but it is an excellent start to addressing overcrowding and is a key part of allowing us to deliver on the Closing the Gap initiatives of this government. We know access to affordable housing and reducing overcrowding will have a positive impact on a range of outcomes for Indigenous people, including education and health.
A memorandum of understanding was signed in September 2007 between the federal and Territory governments, laying out the priority order for the SIHIP program. The areas of greatest need were looked at to assess where the biggest difference could be made. First order of priority will be the larger and growth communities which have greatest need. Second order of priority will be smaller communities where upgrades will be carried out. The third order of priority will be other communities including outstations.
In the East Arnhem region, where the Nhulunbuy and Arnhem electorates are, there are a total of nine communities which will receive 23% of the SIHIP capital budget, and all nine of these communities are receiving major capital works. In my electorate of Nhulunbuy, the SIHIP program will deliver a mix of new and refurbished housing to the tune of $33m at Galiwinku on Elcho Island, $16.5m at Yirrkala and $1.4m at Gunyunarra. At this stage, I cannot provide a clear time line as to when exactly people in these communities will see works commence, but the alliance partners who are Earth Connect, Territory Alliance and New Future, have been announced and the next step will be to scope each community’s needs in very close collaboration with community members.
This government recognises that it is critical that people on communities must be consulted with and have the opportunity for input. There is not a standard generic house design already chosen. What suits Central Australian desert communities will not necessarily be suitable for Top End coastal communities. It is important to mention that the SIHIP program will have at its core a deliverable commitment to provide training and employment in each of the communities for the people who live in those communities where the program is being implemented.
An important element of SIHIP is the alliance partner system, a partnership between governments, industry, and the community. The three alliance partners will be set specific performance targets and financial rewards for engaging local Indigenous Territorians in training and job opportunities through the program. That means long-lasting training and skills that will open the door to future job opportunities in the bush - a very valuable outcome, I am sure you would agree. Existing Indigenous organisations will be engaged in the employment and training structure where practical – real opportunities for organisations such as Julalikari
In addition to construction activities, other potential job and training opportunities include: transport of materials; services to support the construction camps such as laundry services, cleaning, catering; and light industry support activities such as prefabrication works, plant maintenance and vehicle servicing. All of these skills are needed in communities in my electorate and the training will be very much welcomed.
I have talked about how the government is meeting the demand for Indigenous Territorians in communities. However, meeting the demand for housing which is affordable and available in the township of Nhulunbuy, which is home to around 4000 to 4500 people, brings with it some real challenges. In order to understand these challenges, members - including the member for Katherine who, if he is listening will be enlightened as to why Nhulunbuy is not part of the East Arnhem Shire - need to understand the unique circumstances which come with the situation of the town which is located on a special purpose lease.
It is an agreement which was set up in 1968 between the Commonwealth government and the participants of the Gove joint venture, which is Swiss Aluminium Australia Limited and Gove Aluminium Limited. Nabalco was the manager of the Gove joint venture. The first phase of the lease comes up for renewal and renegotiation in 2011. If negotiations are successful for renewal, the second phase of the lease, or what I understand is now referred to as a shared land use agreement, would see the lease then go through until 2053.
Currently, anyone who purchases land in Nhulunbuy can only purchase it leasehold and not freehold. Because of these arrangements, it is difficult to secure a loan. Having acquired the Gove operations in October of last year, Rio Tinto Alcan is, obviously, devoting a good deal of effort to see a smooth transition to the second phase of the lease.
The availability and release of serviced land on the special purpose lease of the township, for housing to address the shortage of accommodation, is a high priority for Rio Tinto Alcan, this government, and the business sector of that community. All parties have a requirement for housing which is essential to attraction and retention of employees. I also recognise that there exists a need for government to provide housing for public housing tenants.
I would like to share with members a couple of instances where the Northern Territory government has worked in partnership with local stakeholders on two projects in the last couple of years to see additional units of accommodation developed in new subdivisions in Nhulunbuy.
The Malpi village subdivision located on land next to Gove District Hospital was developed on land donated by Rio Tinto Alcan to Bunuwal Investments, an organisation which represents the Rrirratjingu clan. The village contains a dozen or more homes, and extra three-bedroom and two-bedroom duplexes. Most of these are leased back to the Northern Territory government to house government employees, amongst them police, teachers, and Customs officers.
This year, we have seen in Nhulunbuy the completion of 12 single-bedroom units which, again, were constructed on land made available by Rio Tinto Alcan in an area which locals have named Ark Park, so named because the 33 company homes in the subdivision were built by Ark Homes. The driver for this particular project was in response to a cry for help from local business people to have affordable units of accommodation for their employees.
The former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, was part of the working group with the Chamber of Commerce along with Rio Tinto Alcan and local businesses. Syd was successful in securing $120 000 through government to enable headworks to be completed. Those units are now all built and fully tenanted at rents that are capped which make them affordable.
This government certainly is taking steps - big ones, in light of the SIHIP program - to address the issue of providing housing. I thank the member for Drysdale for raising this matter of public importance.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers? Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I seek leave …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You gave the Chief Minister the call
Mr HENDERSON: I was going to move that the Assembly do now adjourn, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister had the call. Member for Port Darwin, was it your intention to speak in the debate? You certainly did not indicate that.
Mr ELFERINK: No, there was no question before the House, Madam Speaker. What I was going to do …
Madam SPEAKER: No, the Chief Minister had the call.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I raise an issue of considerable importance to many Darwin sporting clubs and organisations; that is, the issue of corporate sponsorship and signage. Participating in and watching sport is an intrinsic part of the great Territory lifestyle. That is why I was disappointed to read in yesterday’s NT News that the Darwin City Council had voted to maintain its current signs policy. This policy prevents the sporting bodies of some of the Territory’s most popular sports from procuring valuable sponsorship dollars from advertising signs.
Territory sporting organisations, like others across the country, rely heavily on sponsorship revenue to survive and prosper. Corporate sponsorship is the lifeblood and the revenue strength of many of the sporting associations at Marrara. To deny these sporting associations the opportunity to advertise this sponsorship, makes it extremely difficult to continue to do the fantastic job that they do. As the main selling point and part of the sponsorship package for the sporting associations to leverage a sponsor, is the ability to advertise the sponsor’s naming rights and association with the sporting body.
This government absolutely supports the efforts of Territory sporting bodies to seek extra revenue from such sponsorship so that they can grow and improve their sport for the benefit of all Territorians, particularly of our young generations. I urge all those aldermen who voted against the proposed changes to take into consideration the importance of corporate sponsorship and the role that it plays in the viability of these sporting clubs when council next considers this important issue.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine region to participate in the launch of Nu Steel’s new homes in Casuarina Street, Katherine East. Nu Steel, the proponents of this project, were represented by the Katherine and Darwin General Managers, Mr and Mrs Jacobi, and by the Adelaide proprietors of Nu Steel, Sylvia and Neil Scarce. Nu Steel has built three top-quality display homes in Katherine - one of which they have already sold - and have plans for the construction of another four in 2009. During the constructions of the houses, 30 local businesses were engaged in the project. This is the first time in many years that housing construction of this magnitude has occurred in Katherine, and demonstrates the confidence business has in the town.
As all members of this House can attest, land release for housing is of paramount importance to the development of regional economies. I am sure we have heard many of those stories today in the MPI. In early 2009, the government will release approximately 35 serviced blocks, also along Casuarina Street, which will prepare Katherine for future growth.
During my visit to the Katherine region, I was also able to spend some time in Pine Creek speaking to residents about their feelings concerning the unfortunate demise of GBS Gold. The strength of regional centres is undoubtedly about people. I had expected the residents of Pine Creek to be downcast and disconsolate about the future. However, it was quite the reverse.
Mr Ray Wooldridge, who is well known to members of this House, spoke passionately about the future of his town. He believes with gold reserves of over $1.2bn, new miners will be attracted to the region. His only concern was the reluctance of big companies to listen to locals who have a wealth of experience about the difficulties of expecting gold in the region.
I also had the pleasure of meeting a Pine Creek legend, Mr Eddie Ah Toy. I have known of him for many years, but this was the first time I had met him. Like Mr Wooldridge, Mr Ah Toy was very positive and passionate about his town and, like all long-term residents in the regional areas, he did not hold back his views on the electoral redistribution and what he expected from his local member.
Before moving on to Katherine, I had the opportunity to speak with Sue Valentine. Ms Valentine has been employed in local government at Pine Creek for nearly 20 years. Like the others, she was very positive and passionate about her town, and also indicated that new shire arrangements were progressing well.
Whilst in Katherine, I took the opportunity to visit Manyallaluk, Barunga and Beswick. These towns were formerly in the electorate of Arnhem and are now in the electorate of Stuart. I pay tribute to the member for Arnhem, who has handed over these three communities with a lot of support. I look forward to representing these towns, which are now part of the Roper Gulf Shire. Whilst at Manyallaluk, it was pleasing to see that the tour business is in full swing, swinging well - it is a bit late. While I was there, the tour operation and the art centre were open for business, and there was a tour bus with tourists being spoken to by the locals.
I was also pleased to hear that Outback Stores was reopening the old store at the community. In my last two visits, people raised concerns with me about having to travel to Katherine to do shopping, so, once the store opens it will be a relief for them. It was pleasing to see a Work For the Dole project under way, with three local men working with some supervisors from the Roper Gulf Shire.
I also had the opportunity to visit Mr Jim Sullivan from Cave Creek, near Mataranka; who had invited me to visit his property. Being in the region, I took up this offer and spent an afternoon with him and his wife, Barbara, and his daughter, the now acclaimed author, Rosemary Sullivan. I must say that Mrs Sullivan cooked some delicious cookies which went down well with a cup of tea.
Rosemary Sullivan has written a day-in-the-life story of a young Aboriginal boy living in a small town in the Northern Territory. I understand the inspiration behind the story was her time spent at Binjari, just west of Katherine. The book is called Tom Tom, and I recommend it to members of this House and anybody looking for a book suitable for Under 10s. The text by Rosemary Sullivan, and the illustrations by Dee Huxley, describes the rich, full life of a small boy living in a remote community. The book captures a moment in the Territory life that is familiar to all of us, particularly we bush members, but which would be alien to the majority of people living in the south and on the eastern sea board.
Mr Sullivan is a firm advocate for biodiesel, and would like to see the Pongamia native tree from India used on unproductive land to produce oil for diesel engines. The oil is contained in seeds which are 30% liquid content. Mr Sullivan is trialling Pongamia on his property, and has also provided seeds to the Katherine Research Station to trial. I thank Mr and Mrs Sullivan for their hospitality, and for showing me around their property, Cave Creek Station. I wish them both the very best in the future.
Whilst in Katherine, I met with the CEOs of both the Roper Gulf and Victoria Daly Shires. The shires are in their infancy, and the forthcoming local government elections were the major preoccupation for them.
In 2008, the Department of Sport and Recreation provided the Katherine Country Club with a grant of $50 000 to replace their old bowling green with a new artificial one. I was honoured to be invited to inspect the new surface by the County Club Manager, Mr Frank Dalton, bowls club President, Dianne Byard, and Sports Development Coordinator, Denise Kelly, who showed me around the new venue. The bowls club has approximately 100 members, and membership is expected to continue to grow. The Katherine Bowls Club has the largest junior membership in the Northern Territory. Mr Dalton informed me that the provision of an artificial surface means greater use of the facility, and potentially hosting the Northern Territory championships next year. It also meant that water would be used more sparingly.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my new community shires over the next four years, the people of Katherine, and people throughout the electorate of Stuart. It is a very diverse electorate. It makes it very challenging to get around, but the challenge is what makes it so exciting.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I am going to do an extremely unusual thing in this House. I am going to, for once, debate the actual motion that is before the House; that this, that the Assembly do now adjourn. I remind members of Standing Orders 41 and 42 in relation to the adjournment of the Assembly.
41. Except as provided by these Standing Orders the Assembly may be adjourned only by its own resolution.
- No amendment may be moved to this motion.
There is no capacity for me to try to amend this motion on the floor of the House, and that is fine.
Over the years, the adjournment debate, in parliaments universal, has become a vehicle to raise almost any issue. An uninitiated person who turned up to a listen to a debate would turn their mind to the motion that was before the House and be quite startled that speaking in support of the motion, to listen to the contribution by the member for Stuart and then, of course, we will listen to other contributions which have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the motion before the House. It has become a useful vehicle to raise all sorts of issues.
The reason I jumped before - and I suspect that I may not have gotten the jump because of it - was that I was going to seek leave to move a motion. I wanted to move a motion to bring on the business of this House. This House has 10 items of business sitting on the current Notice Paper today. I appreciate it is 12.30 at night, but there are 10 items sitting there and the government and members want to go home. I actually want to go home, but I am mindful of our duty to Territorians that we pass the items that are sitting on the Notice Paper.
The government considered that Item No 3 on the Notice Paper was of such fundamental importance to the people of the Northern Territory they dedicated every dorothy dixer they had in yesterday’s Question Time to the same topic …
Ms Carney: Very important yesterday when the media was here – very important.
Mr ELFERINK: Profoundly important. Yet, we have a government that consistently does not want to bring the business forward because they want to go home on time every night. If they want to go home on time every night, then bring on more sitting days. Work harder; that is what I am arguing for. Either work longer on those days that we sit, if we are going to sit 33 days a year, or you work more days ...
Ms Carney: Or just work, that would be good.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms Carney: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House is a motion for us to shut up shop and go home for the night. Whilst I appreciate it is late, I am also conscious of the number of items that are sitting on the Notice Paper. No 9 on the Notice Paper, I think - I do not have one in front of me - is the Auditor-General’s Report in which he reports there is some $5m in unexplained credit card transactions attached to government. I would like to debate that issue. The fact is that we do not get the opportunity to do this. We have speeches consistently truncated …
Ms Lawrie: You will get the opportunity, do not fret.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this point is eloquently made in page 479 of the House of Representatives Practice:
- Without speech the various forms and institutions of parliamentary machinery are destitute of importance and meaning. Speech unites them into an organic whole and gives to
parliamentary action self-consciousness and purpose. By speech and reply expression and reality are given to all the individualities and political forces brought by popular
election into the representative assembly. Speaking alone can interpret and bring out the constitutional aims for which the activity of parliament is set in motion, whether they
are those of the government or those which are formed in the midst of the representative assembly. It is in the clash of speech upon speech that national aspirations and
public opinion influence these aims, reinforce or counteract their strength. Whatever may be the constitutional and political powers of a parliament, government by means of
a parliament is bound to trust to speech for its driving power, to use it as the main form of its action.
This is a place where we speak, talk, debate, and do the work of the people of the Northern Territory. I know it is late, and it will be late again tomorrow, and we are going to lose a day of work next week because of the visit of President Ramos-Horta. We must dedicate ourselves to our task more completely. I know the government is weary; it is late for them. They want to go home; they want to go to bed. They want to avoid having to discuss those …
Ms Lawrie: No, no, speak for yourself. Do not speak for us.
Mr ELFERINK: They want to avoid their responsibilities to the people of the Northern Territory, and all the responsibilities that have been thrust upon their shoulders ...
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong. You are very wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that we are in this adjournment debate is a testimony …
Ms Carney: You were just re-elected, you should have energy. If you are tired, give it up.
Ms Lawrie: Have you been drinking, Jodeen? Have you been drinking?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Leader of Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business just asked either me or the member for Araluen whether we had been drinking ...
Ms Purick: He doesn’t drink.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I now ask and demand that both the member for Araluen and I are breathalysed.
Ms Lawrie: I did not ask John.
Mr ELFERINK: This outrage has been perpetrated already once in this parliament and you have demanded the perpetrator …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no need for a breathalyser test. Leader of Government Business, I ask you to apologise and withdraw, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the question to the member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: As you should.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, can I just ask her to repeat that. I was not sure if I was included in that.
Ms Lawrie: You definitely were not. I did not ask the question about you.
Ms Carney: Stand up when you are talking.
Ms Lawrie: Of course, Jodeen.
Ms Carney: Well, you have no manners.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: On a point of clarification, I asked the question only of the member for Araluen. I certainly would not ask that question of the member for Port Darwin. I withdraw unreservedly on the question to the member for Araluen.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I now pause in my speech to dwell on this point. This slander has been used successfully in the past to besmirch the reputation of a good man. I am talking specifically of the former member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham, when that very dreadful accusation was levelled at him by the not-so-squeaky-clean Len Kiely, the former member for Sanderson. Because the member for Drysdale, on that occasion, had had a wine, the headlines screamed in the newspaper the next day that he was drunk: ‘Shadow minister, member for Drysdale, Steve Dunham denies he was drunk’.
Madam Speaker, you are aware of this as, as is the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister. We have no defence against this allegation other than to demand that we be breathalysed. If the allegation is levelled at us, we have no way of doing anything to prove that we have not been drinking - it is just not available to us. Yet, the promise was made and the reassurance was given to us that this would stop. Yet, this very day, the second day of the second set of sittings in the Northern Territory Assembly, once again, I find myself on my feet defending not only myself but my colleagues in relation to that scurrilous slander ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is beyond belief that they would continue down this path. What, I ask, is available to us to defend our reputations and our honours, other than a breathalyser test every time that scurrilous slander is repeated? It is reprehensible that they continue to return to this gutter politics on every occasion ...
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, how long before we hear the question shot across the Chamber: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ How long before …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, behave yourselves. You protest too much.
Ms Carney: The Chief Minister asked it in the term before last, as a matter of fact.
Ms Lawrie: You go too far.
Ms Carney: He did. The bloke whose job you want, he asked it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know what to do about it. I do not know whether I should be moving a motion tomorrow that this matter is sent to the Committee of Privileges. What do I do to protect the reputation of those people on this side of the House against those slanders? I do not have a vehicle available. Madam Speaker, perhaps you can illuminate me on this because, clearly, no matter what counsel or caution you choose to give, there is no chance that this government will stop engaging in this sort of gutter sniping and slander. I am at a loss to know what to do. Yet again, we find ourselves having to request of you that you demand an apology out of the offender.
We need to do better than this. The members opposite put out media releases that we are a rabble. Well, goodness gracious me, think about what they are trying to do because, even if this sticks in the smallest way, the headline will scream tomorrow: ‘Shadow Attorney-General, member for Araluen, is forced to deny that she was not drinking in parliament last night’, and she can prove no evidence at all that she has not been. I genuinely believe the time has come that this House should purchase a breathalysing machine, which provides a read out, and that we should start looking seriously at drug testing our members. It is the only way we can start to defend ourselves against these awful accusations.
Madam Speaker, clearly, the remedial actions that you have taken up until now have been insufficient to prevent this conduct. Unless you can suggest anything better, I strongly urge this House buy such a piece of equipment so that we can protect our honour in the face of these scurrilous and dreadful accusations levelled at the lowest end of the political spectrum.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will come to another part of my adjournment debate shortly, but on the motion of whether the House adjourns, I return to some of the comments made by the member for Port Darwin.
It is somewhat insulting to INPEX. Yesterday, the Chief Minister, in his statement, referred proudly to the relationships that he and the government had formed with so many people involved in the INPEX project. Yesterday, the government spent all of their questions in Question Time talking about INPEX. The statement was very important yesterday. It is not, apparently, important at all today. I believe that those involved with INPEX would be very interested to know about the attitude of this government. On the one hand, they say that they embrace INPEX, on the other, they say it is not even worth staying back at work for an hour or so, possibly longer, to talk about INPEX. Why on earth would you distribute to members a statement of INPEX and, then, not even bother to finish it off even in the same day? Not even the next day!
It could be that the INPEX statement might be treated as badly as the very important statement, as it was apparently on 16 September, about the economic direction of the third Labor government. I understood that another item on the Notice Paper, increasing police presence, making communities safer, done on 18 September was important too. These are not completed.
This government is just a gammon government; they are not fair dinkum. They come in here, get their little headline in the paper, a couple of speakers from government and, then, they walk away. I wonder whether it is because this government has so much inertia that they are embarrassed by the state of their Notice Paper, and at least this way they can have a few things building up over time. There are 10 things on the Notice Paper. Maybe that might make members of government feel proud but, in fact, they should be ashamed of themselves - ashamed in particular of their inability to do what appears to me a good day’s work.
Parliamentarians are paid well for the work they do. Those opposite seem not to appreciate putting in a good working day. Much is expected of parliamentarians anywhere in this country and, indeed, others. This lot seem to think that turning up late, going home early, is a good way to operate ...
Ms Lawrie: You are ridiculous.
Ms CARNEY: The people of the Northern Territory, Madam Speaker, expect and deserve …
Ms Lawrie: You are ridiculous, we do not turn up late, and we certainly do not go home early.
Ms CARNEY: Well, if you want to contribute to the debate, you can have your go ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: The Leader of Government Business has so much to say, Madam Speaker - very verbal from her seat opposite me; however, not sufficiently motivated to say to her colleagues: ‘Let us finish off a couple of statements’. Very mouthy from the seat, but not able to get up and say: ‘We are going to finish the statement’. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory, and the Chief Minister, have spoken much about the value of INPEX: ‘It is going to be worth billions of dollars to the Northern Territory’. They cannot even bother to finish the statement they introduced. No, it was not the opposition that introduced the statement; it was the government.
The opposition has to wait until next week for its General Business Day. We can guarantee that we will be working twice as hard as you lot on our General Business Day. Why? Because we are not afraid of hard work. If we were on the other side of this Chamber, we would be working harder than you.
I am frankly surprised. We only had an election 2 months ago. You would think, as a government, you would have some sort of spring in your step. Where is it? You are just warbling away, thinking: ‘Oh, what are we going to do now?’ You cannot even finish your own statements! You should be ashamed of yourself.
We appreciate that the last 2 months have been torrid ones for members opposite. There has been disaster and embarrassment after disaster and embarrassment. You would have thought that this would motivate government to pull up its collective socks and think: ‘Okay, we are going to have to work really hard’. Being in government is not just about being driven around in white cars and having your staffers hanging off you, saying: ‘Yes, minister; yes, minister’. It is about putting in the hard yards. In the short 2 months since the election, what have we seen? You lot are an embarrassment - you are just an embarrassment ...
Ms Lawrie: So you say.
Ms CARNEY: No, no, no, lots of people are saying it. You need to get out of this building, and do what you did not do in the last term - go out and talk to people. There was a really bad smell about the government before the election. Everyone knew there was a bad smell except the government. That tells you that this lot reek of arrogance, in addition to incompetence. I do not know what tag is worse - arrogance or incompetence. Certainly, if a government is both, then that is very sad, indeed, for those whom the government represent.
Getting back to the INPEX statement - and I will not pursue the adjournment that I was going to do tonight, I will wait until tomorrow night. I feel certain that the government will want to knock off early again tomorrow night. I will get back to my adjournment tomorrow night. With a bit of luck the government might - oh, I do not know - last until 8 pm. Would that be a big day for you? That is nothing; you should put in the hours. However, I digress.
In the INPEX statement yesterday, the Chief Minister made reference pretty early on in the statement that the INPEX project was an historic one for the Northern Territory. Historic? Yes, it was and, yet, they do not want to talk about it. They are going dangerously close to talking down the INPEX project, and showing their contempt and arrogance by not even giving INPEX and, indeed, Territorians, the benefit of completing a statement. It is not that hard; you have more members than us. You would have thought that you would be able, as a group, say: ‘Who is going to talk on INPEX?’ Maybe just two or three more speakers - even that would have been an improvement. We have a few speakers ready to go, but this government is just bedded in inertia and lost, apparently, in an abyss.
As the member for Port Darwin said, this goes to the heart of the parliament. The parliament is meant to do so much for the people of the Northern Territory yet, sadly, under this government the parliament is, I fear, being treated, not unlike INPEX, with contempt ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. That is outrageous. That is scurrilously outrageous.
Ms CARNEY: People reap what you sow. You reap what you sow.
Maybe there is no coincidence, but the statement on 16 September, The Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government, was very important. INPEX is very important, but you do not want to talk about them. As long as you get your pictures in the paper, you think that is enough. Well, you should have learnt that lesson in the last term of government. You should have learnt it, and you went dangerously close not to pick up the lesson. I am very interested in the economic direction of the Labor government, as are every one of my colleagues. That is in stark contrast to the lazy members on the other side.
In Alice Springs - Making Communities Safer. Making my community safer is something that I and my colleagues from Alice Springs are deeply interested in. Yet, not members opposite. A couple of speakers on the other side, and you just could not be bothered finishing it off. Well, you cannot keep ignoring Alice Springs. You cannot keep doing it and, for that matter, you cannot keep ignoring the safety concerns that so many Territorians have.
I am embarrassed by those opposite. I just cannot believe that they do not like hard work. Two-and-a-half months after an election, their get up and go has got up and went. Their get up and go has got up and went. Two-and-a-half months in. Shame, shame, shame …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in this place, we should be talking about this, and we will demonstrate to those opposite any day of the week that we are ahead of them in each and every respect.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, my adjournment speech is not quite like my colleague from Araluen. I want to talk about something a little more sedate, and that is Fogg Dam and…
Mr Elferink: Fogg Dam, damn it.
Ms PURICK: Well, I know you are all pretty excited about it. Recently, I attended the Fogg Dam Field Day which was a great success. Approximately 400 people attended the dam and the park area. It was an initiative of a group called the Friends of Fogg Dam. This group – and I encourage members to look at their website because it is a very good website and very user friendly – is a group of dedicated people from in and around that area who share the vision of putting Fogg Dam back on the map and in the hearts and minds of people, such that they can truly appreciate not only its history but what it is now. The Friends’ purpose is to promote, protect and enhance the ecological, cultural and aesthetic values of Fogg Dam, and to assist visitors to enjoy, understand and appreciate the unique place that it is.
Some members in this House may know the history of Fogg Dam. It was a rice growing project many decades ago. It was not terribly successful in the end for a combination of reasons including the ubiquitous magpie geese, but that was not the only reason that it failed. It is a man-made dam but, over time and through some neglect on everyone’s part mostly, it has been invaded with a whole lot of weeds, and sediment has built up. Through groups such as the Friends of Fogg Dam, they are starting to turn the corner and bring it back to quite a spectacular environmental piece of our Territory.
Attending the day, I could see that many hours of work had been put in, spent on planning the day, coordinating the speakers, organising activities for adults and children, and making sure that the logistic arrangements for the day were clearly understood by all the committee members.
I could see that great consideration had been given to safety and the comfort of visitors, given it was a reasonably hot day. They had bottled water available at no charge and moved the people around in minibuses. The main display area and the presentations were under the large shade trees towards the entrance, which was a very pleasant experience.
Activities for the whole family included guided walks for birds, butterfly inspections, and plants. There were talks on the research that has gone on at Fogg Dam. The first two presentations were about water pythons and cane toads. The presenters gave up-to-date research and information, plus had live specimens there so that we could look at them and learn. Both of the talks educated people, as well as entertained them. We learned about the native wild rice at Fogg Dam and its importance as a food source for the birds - not only the magpie geese, but the others that are there. Also, we learned about the dusky plain rat, which is most interesting, and there was a talk about the significance of the floodplain for measuring carbon and greenhouse gases.
There was an opportunity to visit the floodplain carbon flux monitoring tower. I did not do it, but some of the friends I went with did. The final talk was on the effects of climate change on the predator/prey biomass, which was thought-provoking, given that many people do not know that Fogg Dam has the highest biomass of a particular python you could ever find, and there is a good balance of the dusky rats and the python. The rats are there because of the grain, and the pythons come because of the rats, and everyone has a lovely time eating each other.
There was a walk through the rainforest and a walk to track and find butterflies. I did this walk and had a lovely time. I did not find any butterflies, but managed to find only the orb spiders which I stayed well clear of. The afternoon workshops were sketching animals and the environment, and wildlife photography was very popular. There was also a colourful history of Fogg Dam which was fascinating. Throughout the day, there were activities for the children which included a couple of treasure hunts which were not the normal treasure hunts - they were linked into the environment. There was water discovery through microscopes to see all the different things that were there, junior ranger activities, and colouring-in competitions.
There were displays from the various groups associated with Fogg Dam, Parks and Wildlife, Landcare, and Friends of Fogg Dam. They coordinated free buses to and from Fogg Dam which is a little way down the Arnhem Highway. The day was complemented by the Litchfield Lions who sold refreshments, which was welcome. As I said, it was a hot day. The minister for the Environment was there, and also my colleagues, the members for Brennan and Nelson.
The Friends of Fogg Dam is about two years old. It is an incorporated association which is well organised. They are a very active and dedicated bunch of people. They can be proud of their consolidation as a group and also of their achievements. The membership has increased from 33 to about 40 as of this year, and it keeps growing. Their achievements are positive and they have attracted a good level of donations to their group, and also to help with the work of preserving and improving Fogg Dam.
They have improved the signage for the visitors so they know what they are doing and where they are going. They are further developing their website which is a really good website. They have lobbied and worked with the government to get infrastructure improvements, including the monsoonal boardwalk. They work well with Parks and Wildlife, the Landcare groups, scientists, various universities - not just the Northern Territory but universities from New South Wales amongst them - community groups and, of course, the traditional owners who were also there on the day.
The Friends of Fogg Dam is to be commended for their dedication to preserving this area and working hard at taking this special place and its characteristics to people, both local and the many visitors who just happen to come across. I make a special note of Heather Bolden and Gerry Hempell who have been a driving force behind Friends of Fogg Dam and are committed to not only protecting, but also improving this very special and pretty place.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night in this House your good self, the member for Barkly, pointed out that I had included in an adjournment speech information gained from a published source - that being the website of the award. I thanked the member for Barkly for educating me, and thank him again tonight for him entering into his role as a teacher.
I dealt with that particular matter last night, but have since discovered that, in a speech I made about another debate regarding breast cancer; I have included information from a report I located whilst researching on the Internet. I now, although belatedly, would like to acknowledge that report, titled, Breast Cancer in Australia: An Overview 2006 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and National Breast Cancer Centre, published in October, 2006. I point out that there was no gain for me in using this information, but it served only as a backdrop to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers generally, and also friends and relatives of mine who have been touched by cancer, including one friend who recently died from secondary lung cancer; and my electorate officer, who has survived breast cancer.
There was no ill intent in using this information, and I apologise to the House, and to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and National Breast Cancer Centre, for not making this acknowledgement at the time of making that speech.
On 4 October, I was pleased to attend the annual October Business Month Dinner in Katherine, which was held at the Paraway Motel this year. The event was extremely well attended, and I am led to believe organisers had to disappoint more than 50 people who booked their seat too late and missed out. This is a great example of how like-minded local people from within the business community will gather together to network and catch up with each other in a casual and relaxed environment.
I also attended the October Business Month Dinners in both Pine Creek and Mataranka, held on 16 October at the Territory Manor, and 18 October at Pussycat Flats Turf Club respectively. Again, both were well attended and I was able to catch up with some people I had not seen in a while. I also had a chance to make some new acquaintances.
Although neither Pine Creek nor Mataranka are in the Katherine electorate, Katherine is the hub around which these two communities revolve in terms of the provision of many goods and services. I am pleased that I was able to find the time to meet and consult with Territorians in Katherine’s greater regions.
All of these events were well organised, well patronised and ran very smoothly due to the hard work of a group of individuals from the Katherine office of the Territory Business Centre. I must offer my congratulations to Morag Dwyer, Caryn Chalk, Andrew Mathieson and Margaret Richards for their hard work and their commitment in making these events such a success.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak for a couple of reasons. One is to pay my respects for someone who passed away on the weekend.
Much has been spoken about the Masters Games last week. I had the fortunate opportunity to play cricket with a team from the Gillen Club called the West Has Beens. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, also played in that game - not very well - but he also played in many games with us. One of the founding fathers of the West Has Beens, which has been operating for many Masters, passed away on the weekend - Neil Richardson, from Alice Springs. He was a founding father of that cricket team, and it was something he lived for every two years. He had been quite unwell with cancer, and was waiting until the Masters came around. Many of us thought that specifically what he was waiting for was to hear how we went in the cricket. As soon as the cricket was over on the Saturday, unfortunately, he passed away.
I will read some of my information here from his eulogy - not to plagiarise, but it is from the eulogy. I did not know Neil, but many of the people in our team were very good friends with him, so I would like to pass on their respects:
- Neil was affectionately known as ‘Super Mario’ by many of his mates in Alice Springs. He was a man small in stature but big in heart. His many interests included being a Rotary Club member; CLP member; Wests Football Club member; a passionate bowler; and, long-time darts official. I have already mentioned his great love of the Masters Games, and being one of the original members of the West Has Beens Cricket Club.
There are many stories about Neil Richardson, including the time when he aligned himself with the Mt Isa Granites, which is a ladies cricket team who come across every Masters Games. We had a bit of fun with those ladies this year.
Neil had a great character. A few Masters ago, the West Has Beens managed to make the play-offs for the bronze medal, and not being one to want to lose the game, Neil decided to ring up one of his mates on the town council and organise for the sprinklers to come on just as the game was starting, so the match had to be called off, so that both teams got a bronze for coming third.
I pay my respects to Neil, and also many of the other people who played on that team, including a lot of people whose names end in ‘y’ – Glydey, Hodgy, Wensky, Safety Dave, Pecker, Rick Dravid, Leo, Wayne, Kelvin, Bobby, Lakey, Dave, Gary, Griffo, Schmidtty, Neil, Craig, Doctor Doctor, Sally, Clarky, Francey, Burnsy, Maxy, Choko, Boothy, Tolly – who played this year - and Gilesy, me. We all pass on our respects to someone who was on that team. The West Has Beens Cricket Team, through the Gillen Club, will continue on next Masters, and on into the future, and people will keep in their heart the memories of Neil Richardson for all he has done for the club and for Alice Springs.
I also talk about someone whom the member for Katherine mentioned, I think it was yesterday - well, it was yesterday, because we have only been here for two days – Rob Cook from Supplejack Station near the Western Australia border. He was seriously injured in a helicopter crash while mustering. He was medivaced to the specialist spinal injury clinic in Adelaide, and his wife, Sarah, and two young sons are by his side at the moment. It is a very sad time for the family - emotionally - and financially hard for the Cook family.
A foundation has been set up to help support the family and to try to raise money. On 31 October, there will be a black tie function at Alice Springs Racecourse to raise money for the family. I encourage anyone in Alice Springs who is keen to attend. If the members for Macdonnell, Araluen or Greatorex happen to be there, I will be getting auctioned off as a slave on the night to raise money for the Cook family. If you would like me to work for you as a slave, by all means come along and raise some money and bid on me. And I am not wearing a mankini mowing a lawn!
I also thank Tony Wright from 8HA, who recently ran a fundraiser for Shane Heal, a young boy from Alice Springs who is also in Adelaide with a debilitating illness. It is costing the family a lot of money to travel to Adelaide on a regular basis. 8HA heard about the story and pulled together a fundraiser, an auction held at Bo’s Tavern. Many businesses throughout Alice Springs donated a lot of goods and they were auctioned. A lot of money was raised for the Heal family, and I thank Tony for all his hard work done there.
I would like to talk about the very sad event that happened at the Alice Springs Reptile Centre a couple of weeks ago, when a young seven-year-old boy broke into the Reptile Centre at 7.53 am and caused an enormous amount of damage to the Reptile Centre in terms of its reputation but, specifically, by maiming and killing several of the animals in the Reptile Centre. I heard about it on the radio and immediately went to see Rex Neindorf and his staff, and inspected what had actually happened. Amazingly, this young seven-year-old avoided $40 000 worth of security such as cameras, wires and fences. It was amazing how he got around everything. He was there for half-an-hour and managed to kill 13 animals and feed them to the crocodiles, and slaughter turtles. What happened there was just horrifying.
The people who manage the centre are, understandably, very upset and so is much of the public in Alice Springs. I am not sure what happens to that child now but something serious needs to happen to that young boy. If you have that intention at that age, one cannot be sure how he might grow up. I hope that the support is put around that child to ensure that he has a fruitful life.
The upset of Rex Neindorf, I believe, could have been overcome slightly had the parents or guardians at least made an apology to the Reptile Centre, but no one has been to see them - not one person has been to see them. Kids get up to mischief. This is more than mischief, but no one has come to apologise to him. Surely, someone has to take responsibility for what this kid did, whether it is the parent’s responsibility, services or otherwise. Even the seven-year-old could go there and say sorry, but no one has been there and that is disgraceful.
I will talk about a death which occurred in Braitling just after the storms in Alice Springs. Unfortunately, a pedestrian was hit on the highway outside the Northside shops in Alice Springs. I have written to the member for Karama about it, the Transport minister. It was an unfortunate accident. There are circumstances involved in that accident that I am aware of, and I am not here to apportion blame. What happened is very sad.
The location where this incident occurred, I would say, is probably one of the most trafficked crossings that I know of in the Northern Territory. It does not have lights; it has a little fence on a medium strip where people run across the Stuart Highway. On one side, you have the shops and on the other side you have a couple of town camps. The traffic that passes along there is amazing. As a person who uses that crossing as I walk down to the shops, when you have to run across a four-lane highway in front of road trains to try to get to the other side, my opinion is that it is completely unsafe.
I am not a scientist but it is a very unsafe area. If you are coming from the town camp to the shop or from the shop to the other side, and you are a mother with a couple of kids trying to drag them across the road in front of a three-trailer road train, it is quite unsafe. I have written to the member for Karama, asking if her department could do an investigation to find out if that is a safe location and whether other things need to change to make that place safer - whether that is reduction in speed, lights, pedestrian crossings, or something to ensure that is safer.
In the past, there have been people who have been hit there and, unfortunately, killed. We have just seen this happen again. I know there are other circumstances around that incident, but it really needs to be investigated so that people do not get hit there again because, sure enough, other kids will get hit there. It is pretty sad.
In between sittings, I did a number of things but one place I went to and I love going to - I know the member for Macdonnell has recently been there - is the Tiwi Islands. I was fortunate enough to be escorted through the Tiwis by the Tiwi Land Council and had many meetings on the Tiwi Islands. I spent part of the time with Great Southern Plantations which I have been to see a few times. I thank the land council and Andrew and Craig and all the staff from Great Southern Plantations.
The thing that amazed me about Great Southern Plantations, is this is something that can be done. We all sit around and talk about Aboriginal employment and investment, and regional economic development. Here we have an island with a thriving forestry industry. I know the member for Arafura is not the greatest supporter of the forestry on the island, and the business itself does not employ as many Tiwi people as I would like to see employed. This is where you can see an opportunity where investment can happen in a regional location and has potential for economic generation, financial generation, and for jobs to be created. This is what we should be replicating across the Territory. The member for Stuart, as the Minister for Regional Development, should be supporting this process and putting pressure on.
We can create the economic opportunities - and there are not many places in regional parts of the Territory where those economic opportunities are. However, when those economic opportunities are created, we have to get tough with things like welfare. There is no point having jobs over here and having people sitting down over here on sit down money. You have to provide the policy direction and the certainty to move people from welfare into those jobs. They have jobs sitting over there right now while all these people are on CDEP or welfare. We have to provide the leadership to make that happen. I know it is very tough. I know from people who are local members in those areas it is very tough to make those decisions and those recommendations, because people do not like change and have had sit down money for so long.
If we are going to make positive change, if we are going to get those people into work, get the kids to school, and people to start buying their houses, you have to make the hard decisions. That is why I am prepared to say that we should get rid of the permit system. If we are going to try to make economic advancement and economic certainty in communities we have to get rid of the permit system in communities so we can start generating an income. We have to have 99-year town leases, so that we can start subdividing the land in those communities, creating businesses, giving some certainty to banks so they will lend in those communities and small townships.
I ask myself this question: how can we grow places like Ti Tree? Ti Tree is almost the sixth town in the Northern Territory. I go to Ti Tree and ask: ‘How do we get this place going?’, and they say: ‘Well, it would be good if we had some land’. They need 45 housing blocks so that they can start getting some houses in Ti Tree, so that the staff who are going to work for Arafura Resources at Aileron have somewhere to live.
The local traditional owners there, some of the elders there, want to open up a supermarket or a hardware shop. There are people there with ideas about the economy, about how they can have development, about economic growth and job creation for local people. But there is no leadership to make it happen. I know it is not easy. People will say: ‘Oh it is easy to set up there. Member for Braitling, you stand there, you can say this is how it is done, and it is not going to happen’. Well, it has to happen. You have to do it. If you do not have the intestinal fortitude to have some vision, some driving commitment and make decisions, and make things happen, nothing will change. People will keep sitting on their backsides and drinking, if I can generalise. People will keep sitting on their backsides on welfare, because nobody is creating the opportunity, or the pathway, or the kick in the backside - the carrot and the stick.
A member: It is about leadership.
Mr GILES: It is about leadership - that is right. I have a lot of time for the people on the Tiwis. I have a lot of time for Great Southern Plantations. No matter what position they are in, they have jobs in a regional location. This is the model that we should be replicating across the Territory, however that fits. And when we get the model, tighten the welfare guidelines, tighten the school guidelines, open the business opportunities, create tax incentives, and get people moving in there.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about concerns of constituents in my electorate in relation to the power situation. From the Power and Water Corporation website, there are a number of maps available. It is very clear. It says here, ‘the Casuarina Zone Substation affected area’, and it is a shaded area which, supposedly, is fed by the Casuarina Substation. I have no reason to disbelieve that that is an exact and accurate map of the situation. However, on the same website, there are a number of information sheets.
On page 1 of the first one titled Information for Northern Territory Government Employees, it says numerous things. I will quote from this particular document in relation to a number of items. One is: ‘Why is the power supply so vulnerable?’ It says that about two weeks ago there was an explosion at Casuarina Substation which supplies approximately 15 000 residential and business customers in the suburbs surrounding Casuarina. Last week, there was a further major failure at the substation.
It goes on to say that Power and Water has been unable to isolate the exact cause of these failures, and that independent experts are assisting Power and Water to determine the cause. In the meantime, Power and Water believes it is prudent to put plans in place in case there is another failure.
The next heading on this particular information sheet says: ‘What areas are affected?’ I quote from the document that is available on the Power and Water Corporation website:
An area surrounding the Casuarina Zone Substation as shown on the attached map. Other areas are not affected.
It is very interesting that a number of people in my electorate, and outside of my electorate, but outside also of the Casuarina Zone Substation area, are experiencing power failures and intermittent supply. In fact, my electorate office in the Northlakes Shopping Centre has suffered numerous interruptions in supply, some for short periods of time, others for anywhere between half-an-hour, perhaps 40 minutes, and then the power is trying to get back on, flicker, off again, etcetera. The businesses in that shopping centre are all blacked out except for Coles which, fortunately, has a generator. Unfortunately, we cannot tap into that generator.
There is a concern in my electorate. I live in the electorate and my home is suffering power failures as well. Yet, in the information here it says that other areas are not affected. Having lived up here for just short of 30 years one gets used to power outages especially in the Wet Season. When I first came here, power outages were frequent. However, as time went by those outages became fewer and fewer with the introduction of lightning arrestors and a maintenance schedule.
We have heard numerous things about the supposed, or apparent, lack of maintenance. I do not intend to bore anyone in the House with anything along that nature. However, it has come to my attention, from different people who have spoken to me, that we do have an issue and a problem in relation to power all over the greater Darwin area. I have had a friend supply me with some photographs. This particular person used to be, up until a time in the recent past, part of the teams that went around and did the maintenance on this electrical equipment. After the incident that occurred at Casuarina Substation a number of weeks ago, they did a little drive around the greater Darwin area and had a look at all the infrastructure that keeps the reticulation of power going to that particular area. This person – who, I might add, is a person who worked on maintaining this very equipment that he has taken photos of - wishes to remain anonymous. He indicated to me, made some notes, and gave me a briefing on just what the issues are.
I must say that I am quite stunned at the level of disrepair that our electrical reticulation system is in. When he showed me the photographs, I as someone who has no qualifications in that area, may not notice anything. But he certainly did. He supplied me with photocopies of particular books, one called the Transformer Book by A C Franklin and D P Franklin. He made a note and said that these books are not the sort of things sitting in library shelves; they are books that people who work in the industry and maintain these industries have. These are industry standard books.
He gave me a copy of parts of this book, and pointed out to me that these were the sort of things that one needs to do and maintain if you want continuity of supply. It is with great interest that he points out, for instance, transformers in Winnellie which have severe oil leaks from them - and oil, of course, is a coolant for these transformers. They also house switching gear which is bathed in that oil, and the oil is a coolant and insulation for the switches housed inside the transformers.
There are also other areas where we need to direct attention. At the Berrimah Zone Substation, there is - sorry, I will just go back to Lee Point Road and Buffalo Creek Road, which is outside the map supplied by the Power and Water Corporation. At Mindil Beach, there is the marine cable that joins the aerial cable supplying power to the Cox Peninsula. There are broken insulators which need to be replaced. They become porous, they absorb water and, prior to the Wet Season, these are the sort of things that are going to cause major problems.
If you have been around Darwin long enough in the Wet Season with the high humidity, most of us have seen the jumping and the arcing that occurs from poor insulation or wires that get too close together. So, on the high voltage lines, there are actually some issues. There are numerous photos of the Casuarina Zone Substation and transformers within the area marked on that particular map.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not know what I will tell my constituents, when the website shows that the area surrounding the Casuarina Zone Substation map and other areas are not affected, when these people are having continual power outages. I do not think they are as long as the ones that have been occurring at Casuarina; however, they do occur.
The other issue is that, on the second page of the same brochure that is available on the website, it says: ‘What else do I need to know?’ I quote:
- It is important to remember that the power problem is isolated to an area of the northern suburbs of Darwin only, and the rest of the power supply should be fully operational in the event of a failure at the Casuarina Zone Substation.
This would clearly appear not to be the case. It would be interesting if the Minister for Essential Services could do a check, and enlighten the House as to how often these power outages have been occurring in areas outside the Casuarina Zone Substation affected area, and the duration of those outages.
I record the concerns of my constituents and bring to the House’s attention that there are some major issues outside the area of the Casuarina Zone Substation area.
I address another matter that has arisen out of an adjournment debate that I gave in this House on Thursday, 18 September this year in relation to the Centenary Year of Australian Scouting. I wish to thank the member for Barkly for pointing out that the facts and figures I took from the Scouting Australia website were not acknowledged in my speech.
In my enthusiasm to support Scouting Australia and recognise their outstanding contribution, it was genuinely an oversight and not one that will be repeated. That said, considering that this was not something other than recognising an outstanding group, potentially, the member for Barkly could have found another vehicle for bringing this to my attention than coming into this Chamber and drawing my attention to it. How the member for Barkly chooses to conduct himself is, of course, his own business. I reiterate that this was an oversight, with no loss to anyone concerned. I will endeavour to ensure that that matter does not occur again, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016